Notice of Hearing (Reissued)
Filed 2026-04-14 · Signed by Hon. Ken Smith · Document type Notice of Hearing (reissued/re-filed) View the PDF →
Legal shorthand used here: NoH = Notice of Hearing. MSJ / MPSJ = Motion for (Partial) Summary Judgment — asking the judge to decide (part of) the case without a trial. BCSD = Bibb County School District. FERPA = Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (federal student-privacy law). IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. C.F.R. = Code of Federal Regulations. O.C.G.A. = Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Georgia’s statutes); § = “section”.
What is this document?
This is the second, administratively reissued version of the Notice of Hearing for the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The scheduling content is identical to the original notice signed April 2, 2026: the hearing will still take place on April 29, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom E of the Bibb County Courthouse, before Judge Ken Smith.
What makes this filing worth its own entry on the docket is its timing. It was signed by Judge Smith on April 14, 2026 — simultaneously with the court’s order extending the discovery deadline in the case. The two documents were filed together, almost certainly by design.
The message is an important one: even though we are extending discovery, the MSJ hearing is still on. That matters because, in many cases, extending discovery would be the natural prelude to also moving a dispositive hearing. By reissuing the Notice of Hearing simultaneously, Judge Smith has signaled affirmatively that the April 29 argument remains on the calendar.
At a glance
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Signed | April 14, 2026 |
| Signed by | Hon. Ken Smith |
| Document type | Notice of Hearing (reissued) |
| Hearing date | April 29, 2026 (unchanged) |
| Hearing time | 2:00 p.m. (unchanged) |
| Location | Courtroom E, Bibb County Courthouse (unchanged) |
| Issued alongside | Order Extending Discovery |
| Net effect | Hearing confirmed; discovery extended; both on same day |
The arguments in plain English
Like the original Notice of Hearing, this is an administrative filing, not an argument. But it carries three practical messages:
- April 29 is still happening. Despite the discovery extension filed the same day, the court is not bumping the MSJ hearing.
- The court is keeping the schedule tight on purpose. If the court had wanted to slow everything down, it could have — one signature would have done it. Instead it kept the pressure on.
- Read both orders together. The reissued notice and the discovery-extension order are a package. Neither should be read in isolation.
Deep dive — legal concepts, explained
Why courts reissue notices
Courts reissue scheduling notices for several routine reasons:
- Simultaneous issuance with a substantive order. When a judge enters an order that could realistically affect the hearing schedule (here, an order extending discovery), chambers will often re-sign the hearing notice at the same time to make crystal clear the hearing is still on. It is belt-and-suspenders docket management.
- Calendar cleanup. Clerk’s offices sometimes request re-signed notices for internal tracking, especially when documents cross-reference each other.
- Service confirmation. Occasionally a reissuance is generated because a clerk wants to re-serve the notice on all parties of record along with a new order, so everything lands in everyone’s inbox together.
- Correcting typos or formatting. Rarely, reissuance cleans up a minor clerical issue in the original.
In this case, the simultaneous issuance with the discovery extension order strongly points to the first category: the court is coupling two decisions to avoid any ambiguity about how they interact.
A reissued notice with identical scheduling content is not a “do-over” and does not suggest anything went wrong with the original. It is an administrative confirmation.
What the simultaneous issuance with the discovery extension order signals
The discovery extension is the substantive sibling to this reissued notice. Extending discovery lets both sides continue gathering evidence — depositions, document requests, written questions — for a longer period. In many cases, extending discovery would logically also push back the hearing on a dispositive motion like this MSJ, because a party might argue, “we need the extra discovery time before we can fully respond to the MSJ.”
By reissuing the Notice of Hearing simultaneously, Judge Smith pre-empted that argument. The signal is:
- “Take more discovery if you need it — but the MSJ hearing is on April 29.”
- “The MSJ presents legal questions that don’t depend on additional fact-finding.”
- “Both sides already have what they need to argue the FERPA/IDEA and indispensable-parties issues.”
That is consistent with the nature of the MSJ itself. The motion is primarily legal, not factual — it turns on statutory interpretation, Georgia Supreme Court precedent in Red & Black, and the legal effect of BCSD having already published the student’s initials in public board minutes. None of that requires a deposition or a subpoenaed document to resolve. The discovery extension is presumably about other, collateral aspects of the case (attorney’s fees records, the scope of BCSD’s search for responsive documents, and so forth) — not about the MSJ’s core legal arguments.
This is a helpful reading for anyone watching the case: if the court thought the MSJ was premature, it would have moved the hearing. It didn’t. So the court, at least at the level of scheduling, views the MSJ as ready to be decided.
What to expect April 29
On Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom E of the Bibb County Courthouse in Macon, the parties will appear before Judge Ken Smith to argue the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
A realistic preview of what will happen:
- The Melody’s counsel — Lucas W. Andrews, with Erika Pitzel possibly second-chairing — will argue first as the movant. Expect them to walk the court through Red & Black, the FERPA “education record” definition, the de-identification regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(b)(1), and the “BCSD-published-the-initials-itself” jiu-jitsu move built on Florida Star v. B.J.F. and K.L. v. Evesham Township.
- BCSD’s counsel — Bennett D. Bryan and Caroline L. Scalf of Parker Poe — will respond, having filed their written opposition just six days earlier on April 23. Expect them to argue FERPA broadly, distinguish Red & Black on its facts, argue that dollar amounts are personally identifiable when combined with the publicly-known “JH” initials, and defend the Ninth Defense (indispensable parties).
- The judge will ask questions. Expect active bench engagement. Trial judges reviewing briefs filed six days before a hearing rely heavily on oral argument to crystallize the issues.
- The Melody’s counsel will typically have reserved a short rebuttal to address BCSD’s response.
- Judge Smith may rule from the bench, take the matter under advisement, or ask for supplemental briefing. Complex MSJs in Georgia superior court are commonly taken under advisement, with a written order issued days or weeks later.
Members of the public and press are welcome to attend. The hearing is open to observation absent a specific closure order — and in a lawsuit about the public’s right to access records, a closure order would be extraordinary and newsworthy in its own right.
For anyone planning to attend: the Bibb County Courthouse is at 601 Mulberry Street in downtown Macon. Arrive 15–20 minutes early to clear security. Phones must be silenced and put away. Courtroom decorum applies — no eating, no talking during argument, stand when the judge enters and leaves.
Why this matters
Reissuing the Notice of Hearing on the same day as the Order Extending Discovery is a quiet but meaningful act. It tells readers and parties three things:
- The court is not deferring the MSJ. If Judge Smith thought the MSJ needed more factual development before argument, he would have said so. He didn’t.
- The case continues to advance on two tracks. Discovery on peripheral issues continues; the central legal question gets argued April 29.
- Public attention should focus on April 29. Whatever happens that afternoon — a ruling from the bench, a sharp bench colloquy, a decision taken under advisement — will be the most important event in the case so far.
Read the original
Part of Court Filings · Case No. 2025-CV-083495 · Bibb County Superior Court