BCSD’s Response in Opposition to Rule Nisi

Filed 2025-10-13 · By Caroline L. Scalf (“CLS”) and Bennett D. Bryan (“BDB”), Parker Poe (Atlanta), counsel for Bibb County School District (“BCSD”) · Document type Response in Opposition to Motion View the PDF →

Legal shorthand used on this page: BCSD = Bibb County School District. ORA = Open Records Act. FERPA = Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (federal student-records privacy law). IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (federal special-education law). PII = personally identifiable information. AG = Attorney General. JH = the minor student at the center of the case. C.F.R. = Code of Federal Regulations (where federal rules live). O.C.G.A. § = Official Code of Georgia Annotated, section (Georgia’s state statutes). USCR = Uniform Superior Court Rules. Rule Nisi = Latin for “unless” — a court order telling someone to appear and show why relief should not be granted. in camera = Latin for “in chambers” — a private judge-only review.

What is this document?

This is the Bibb County School District’s formal written response telling the judge not to grant the Melody’s request for a quick show-cause hearing. Filed roughly two months after the Melody’s motion, it is the District’s first real substantive filing on the merits, and it lays down the legal theory the defense intends to ride all the way through the case.

The District’s core argument is procedural: it says this case cannot be decided at a short hearing because there are factual questions that require discovery, protective orders, and in camera (Latin for “in chambers” — a private, judge-only) review of records before a judge can rule. The District wants the case moved onto the ordinary civil-litigation track governed by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-40(a) (Official Code of Georgia Annotated, section 9-11-40(a)) and Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.1 (USCR 5.1 — from the Uniform Superior Court Rules, the procedural rulebook for Georgia Superior Court) — meaning months of document exchanges and depositions before any merits ruling.

The District also introduces — for the first time in this case — the legal theory it will build its defense around: a particular reading of the federal regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 (section 99.3 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations — where federal rules live), which defines “personally identifiable information” (PII) under FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act — the federal law protecting student education records). The District argues that a record becomes protected student information whenever the requester is believed to already know the student’s identity — even if the record on its face contains no name, no address, and no identifier. The filing further invokes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA — the federal law governing special-education services) confidentiality regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.32 and 300.617 (sections 300.32 and 300.617), and asserts that “the student’s family has objected.”

Rhetorically, the District reframes the Melody’s single records request (an Open Records Request, or “ORR”, dated June 2, 2025, from reporter Laura Corley) as “just the tip of the iceberg” of a larger coordinated effort — alleging “nearly a dozen Open Records Act requests” aimed at piercing a child’s confidentiality.

At a glance

Field	Value
Filed	October 13, 2025
Filed by	Caroline L. Scalf & Bennett D. Bryan (Parker Poe, Atlanta)
Document type	Response in Opposition to Motion for Rule Nisi
Pages	Brief in opposition

The arguments in plain English

Defendant’s position

This case isn’t ready for a fast ruling. BCSD says the Melody’s motion skips steps. Before a judge can rule, the District argues, the court needs a full discovery period so the parties can develop a factual record, a protective order to handle sensitive information, and an in camera review where the judge looks at the disputed records privately.
FERPA doesn’t just protect names — it protects anything that would identify the student. The District points to 34 C.F.R. § 99.3, which defines “personally identifiable information” broadly. BCSD reads one prong of that definition to mean: if the person asking for the record is believed to already know who the student is, then the record is federally protected as to that requester, even if it contains no identifying information on its face.
IDEA adds another layer. Because the underlying dispute involved a special-education student, the District invokes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act confidentiality regulations (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.32, 300.617), which BCSD argues independently bar disclosure.
The family has objected. The District represents to the court that the student’s family does not want the settlement amount disclosed, and treats that objection as legally significant.
This is not just one reporter asking one question. BCSD frames the Melody’s litigation as part of a “coordinated community effort” involving “nearly a dozen” records requests, characterizing the broader reporting effort as an attempt to unmask a student.
Use the regular civil rules. Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-11-40(a) (the trial-calendar statute) and Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.1 (USCR 5.1, which governs discovery in civil cases generally), BCSD asks the court to place this case on the standard litigation track and deny the expedited hearing the Melody wants.

Deep dive — legal concepts, explained

The FERPA “requester knows the student” theory (34 C.F.R. § 99.3)

This is the heart of BCSD’s legal defense, and it is worth slowing down on. FERPA — the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act — protects “education records” from disclosure. Federal regulators defined what counts as “personally identifiable information” (PII) in 34 C.F.R. § 99.3. That definition lists the obvious things (name, address, date of birth, student ID number), but it also contains a catch-all prong that sweeps in:

“information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates.”

BCSD’s theory — and it is a creative, aggressive reading — is that the District itself gets to decide whether a requester “knows” the student, and once the District believes the requester knows, any record that relates to that student becomes FERPA-protected PII, no matter how generic the content. Under this theory, a settlement amount — a single dollar figure that mentions no child, no parent, and no school — becomes federally protected the moment the District concludes the reporter knows which case it came from.

This is a theory with major consequences if it works. It would effectively let a school district unilaterally convert any ordinary public record into a FERPA-protected record just by asserting that the requester is too well-informed. The Georgia Attorney General’s (AG’s) office rejected this reading informally in April 2025. Most courts that have looked at it elsewhere have also rejected it. But it is BCSD’s legal hill.

IDEA confidentiality

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a separate federal statute that governs special education. It has its own confidentiality regulations — 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.32 and 300.617 — which overlap with FERPA but are not identical. BCSD is invoking IDEA as a belt-and-suspenders: even if a court rejects the FERPA theory, the District wants a fallback argument that IDEA independently forbids disclosure because the underlying dispute involved a student with a disability. IDEA’s confidentiality rules generally track FERPA’s, so this is more of a layered defense than a new one.

What “in camera” review means

“In camera” is Latin for “in chambers.” When a court conducts in camera review, the judge looks at a disputed document privately — in the judge’s office, not in open court — to decide whether it is exempt from disclosure. Neither the public nor usually the requesting party sees the document during that review. In camera review is a common tool in records cases because it lets the judge make an informed ruling without destroying the very confidentiality the agency is claiming. BCSD is asking for in camera review here. The Melody’s reply (filed four days later) will mock this request as absurd for a single dollar figure.

What discovery is and why BCSD wants it

“Discovery” is the pre-trial phase of a civil case where the two sides exchange information — documents, written questions (“interrogatories”), and depositions (under-oath interviews). It is the expensive, time-consuming heart of ordinary litigation. Discovery typically takes six months or more, and in a complex case can stretch past a year.

BCSD wants discovery for three strategic reasons. First, time — every month of discovery is a month the settlement amount stays secret. Second, cost — discovery is expensive for the Melody, a small newspaper, and burdensome litigation can force settlements on unfavorable terms. Third, information-gathering — BCSD wants to depose Melody personnel and investigate whether the reporters already “know” the student, which would feed directly back into the FERPA theory above. From the District’s perspective, discovery both slows the case and potentially generates the factual record it needs to win.

The Melody’s position, coming in the reply brief, will be that discovery aimed at the requester is categorically off-limits in an Open Records Act case because the ORA creates a public right to records, not a personal one — so what any individual requester knows or doesn’t know is legally irrelevant.

Why the “coordinated community effort” framing matters rhetorically

This one is not technically a legal argument, but it is worth calling out. BCSD repeatedly frames Corley’s request as part of “nearly a dozen” requests and a coordinated effort. This framing does two things. Legally, it builds up the factual predicate for the § 99.3 “requester knows the student” theory — if there are a dozen coordinated requesters, the District can argue they collectively know the student’s identity, which (under the District’s theory) converts otherwise-public records into FERPA-protected records. Rhetorically, it flips the moral framing of the case: instead of a small newspaper asking for a settlement dollar figure, the reader is told to imagine a coordinated group pressuring a school district to expose a child.

Whether a court accepts this framing is a separate question. Georgia’s Open Records Act gives the right to request records to “any person” — it does not carry out a character investigation of the requester before handing over public records. But the framing is important to understand because it is the emotional and factual backbone of the District’s public posture in the litigation.

Why this matters

This response is the moment BCSD shows its full hand. Until now the District’s position had been stated only in informal correspondence. This filing lays out the legal architecture the defense plans to build — the § 99.3 “requester knows the student” theory, the IDEA overlay, the discovery-first procedural demand, and the “coordinated effort” framing.

If BCSD wins the procedural fight and forces this case onto a discovery track, the practical effect is that the settlement dollar figure stays hidden for another year or more — and the Melody’s out-of-pocket legal cost goes up sharply. If the District loses, the case collapses into the show-cause hearing the Melody wants, and the FERPA theory has to survive scrutiny on its own merits, fast, in open court.

This filing also hints at how the District plans to justify fighting instead of disclosing: not that the dollar amount itself is confidential, but that disclosure to these requesters would violate federal law. That is a narrower and more fragile legal claim than a categorical confidentiality rule, and it is the ground the rest of the case will be fought on.

Read the original

Download the PDF →

Part of Court Filings · Case No. 2025-CV-083495 · Bibb County Superior Court