R.T. v. San Diego Unified School District

1
25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Doc. No. 16)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
R.T. by and through his guardian ad litem,
DAVID TSUKIYAMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL PREVIOUSLY FILED
DOCUMENT
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Counter Claimant,
v.
R.T. by and through his guardian ad litem,
DAVID TSUKIYAMA,
Counter Defendant.
On June 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant action seeking reversal of a decision
from the State of California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), pursuant to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (Doc.
Case 3:25-cv-01624-AJB-BJW Document 18 Filed 11/19/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. 1.) On September 18, 2025, Defendant San Diego Unified School District answered
the complaint and filed a counter claim. (Doc. No. 4.) Now pending is Plaintiff’s motion
to file under seal the entire copy of the OAH administrative record. (Doc. No. 16.) For the
reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
A party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion or one that
is presented at trial must articulate “compelling reasons” in favor of sealing. See Kamakana
v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff contends that
the administrative record contains the “medical, disability, and educational records of a
minor.” (ECF No. 16-1 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff provides that “the administrative record
includes Plaintiff’s individualized education plans (“IEPs”), IEP amendments, evaluation
reports (including psychoeducational evaluation reports), correspondence between school
staff and student’s parents concerning student’s educational program, standardized test
scores, health information, grade transcripts, progress reports, attendance records, and
residency information.” (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiff also contends that the information is protected
from public disclosure under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”).
(Id. at 2.) FERPA prohibits federal funding of an educational institution that “has a policy
or practice of releasing, or providing access to, any personally identifiable information in
education records” without the written consent of the student, a lawfully issued subpoena,
or a judicial order. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2). The term “personally identifiable information”
means information such as names, birthdates, social security numbers, and “[o]ther
information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that
would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal
knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.”
34 C.F.R. § 99.3.
Here, Plaintiff provides compelling reasons to seal the administrative record. See,
e.g., D.L. v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., No. 19-cv-0780- GPC-RBB, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal.
Nov. 1, 2019) (sealing OAH record and hearing transcripts); G.R. v. Del Mar Union Sch.
Dist., No. 19-cv-132-AJB-MSB, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019) (sealing record of a due
Case 3:25-cv-01624-AJB-BJW Document 18 Filed 11/19/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
process hearing before OAH); Escondido Union High Sch. Dist. v. Aloy, 24-cv-1653-RSH-
JLB, 2025 WL 486175, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2025) (sealing the entire copy of the OAH
administrative record). The administrative record contains references to the disabilities,
educational records, and medical information of a minor, and such material is “largely
protected from public disclosure by both federal and state law.” J.M. v. Oakland Unified
Sch. Dist., No. 17-cv-04986-HSG, 2018 WL 6574190, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018).
Further, the prohibited references here are “too numerous to redact,” A.B. ex rel.
W.F.B. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., No. C 07-4738 PJH, 2007 WL 2900527, at *1
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007), “as the administrative record is voluminous.” E.M. v. Poway
Unified Sch. Dist., No. 19-cv-00689-JM-MSB, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 29, 2019). Indeed, the
documents total more than 2,000 pages and contain sensitive details pertaining to the minor
throughout. (See Doc. No. 15.)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal.
(Doc. No. 16.) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the documents, currently lodged
with the Court at Doc. No. 15, UNDER SEAL.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-01624-AJB-BJW Document 18 Filed 11/19/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3