The Appellate Division recently issued a published opinion concerning an area of OPRA that’s rarely been addressed by the courts–access to student records held by higher education institutions. Doe v. Rutgers.

Doe, a Rutgers student, requested many different records, including some that contained student information. Rutgers argued that it could not release any records that have such information–including even Doe’s own records. The court rejected this position, and held that Rutgers must disclose “records that do not reveal the identity of other students. This includes plaintiff’s access to his own academic, discipline, and financial records as long as identifiable references to other students are removed.”

This is the first time I’ve seen the Appellate Division address this issue. Perhaps this is because OPRA is clear with regard to access to higher education student records: the statute says such records are exempt, but only “to the extent disclosure would reveal the identity of the student.” And there’s little doubt that a student should be entitled to obtain his own records.

The opinion also dealt with an issue that was settled many years ago, yet keeps coming up: the invalidity of overbroad OPRA requests that require research by the custodian. The court determined that much of Doe’s multi-part OPRA request was deficient on this basis.

The opinion contains an additional ruling that applies beyond the higher education context. Doe’s OPRA request included a demand for all records related to Rutgers’ response to the other parts of his request. The court stated that this was an invalid request, because the records sought did not exist at the time the request was made. And the court further indicated that these records would not be disclosable, because they would fall within the deliberative process exemption.