“This is the same argument which was also asserted unsuccessfully by school officials at the University of Maryland in 1998 and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2011,” Stipek’s attorney, Nick Harrison, said in a response document.
In the response, Harrison said the plaintiff, Stipek, asserts the following:
· The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act does not apply to campus parking citations and the University of Oklahoma is required to divulge all of its records under the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
· In the alternative, even if some information is protected by FERPA, the burden falls upon the University of Oklahoma to redact the protected information and the defendants cannot plead inadequacies in the filing systems they created and maintained to avoid their obligations to produce public records under the law.
Summary judgment: The motion for summary judgment was submitted with the response. In the summary, Harrison argued against some of the items listed in the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.
· Naming a Proper Defendant: The defendants’ document says that the action should be dismissed on technical grounds because the plaintiff did not name a proper defendant in his pleadings.
Harrison stated in the summary judgment that the defendants failed to provide sufficient grounds to prevail under the standard for a motion to dismiss. He also said the plaintiff has named the appropriate parties and a dismissal is not warranted, even if OU should have been named as a defendant.
· Provisions of the Oklahoma Open Records Act: The motion to dismiss says the defendants complied with their obligations under the law and provided all of the required documents under the provisions of the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
The summary judgment says the plaintiff is entitled to the requested records under the provisions of the Oklahoma Open Records Act, further stating OU only cited FERPA and it does not apply to the plaintiff’s request.