Intentional Maintenance as the Test for FERPA Email Records: Commentary on Clark County School District v. District Court (Angalia B.)

Intentional Maintenance as the Test for FERPA Email Records:
Commentary on Clark County School District v. District Court (Angalia B.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 58

I. Introduction

The Nevada Supreme Court’s en banc decision in Clark County School District v. District Court (Angalia B.), 141 Nev., Advance Opinion 58, addresses a rapidly emerging issue in education law: when, if ever, routine emails stored in a school district’s cloud-based email system qualify as “education records” under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and Nevada’s parallel statute, NRS 392.029.

The case arises from a dependency proceeding involving J.B., a special-needs student in the Clark County School District (CCSD). The district court had appointed J.B.’s grandmother and adoptive mother, Angalia B., as his Educational Decision Maker (EDM), authorizing her to access J.B.’s school records. After receiving what she believed were incomplete records from CCSD, Angalia requested all emails in CCSD’s Google-based email system (Google Workspace) that mentioned J.B. by name or initials. CCSD refused, arguing that these emails were not “education records” within the meaning of FERPA and NRS 392.029.

The district court disagreed and ordered CCSD to produce all such emails, reasoning that any email referring to J.B., when stored in a secured database, constitutes an education record. CCSD sought extraordinary relief from the Nevada Supreme Court by way of a writ of mandamus (and, nominally, prohibition). A divided en banc court granted the petition and vacated the production order.

The central legal issue is narrow but consequential:

  • Does every email that mentions a student and is stored on the district’s cloud-based email system automatically become an “education record” under FERPA and NRS 392.029?
  • Or must the district (or its agent) take additional, affirmative steps to treat that email as part of the student’s institutional record before FERPA’s access and amendment rights attach?

The majority, in an opinion by Justice Stiglich, adopts a clear limiting principle: an email becomes part of a student’s education record only when the school district (or its agent) takes affirmative and intentional steps to treat it as an institutional record and stores it with a designated individual in a designated place. Mere presence on a district-managed email server—even on a secure, searchable cloud platform—does not suffice.

Justice Lee, joined by Chief Justice Herndon and Justice Bell, dissents, warning that the majority’s approach undercuts FERPA’s broad remedial purpose and allows schools to evade transparency by simply never “designating” emails as records, even when those emails are central to decisions affecting a student’s educational life.

II. Summary of the Opinion

A. Holding

The Nevada Supreme Court holds that:

  • Not every email mentioning a student and stored on a school district’s email server is an “education record” under FERPA and NRS 392.029.
  • An email becomes part of a student’s education record only if the school district or its agent takes affirmative and intentional steps to treat the email as an institutional record and stores it with a designated individual in a designated place.

On that basis, the Court concludes that the district court erred in ordering CCSD to produce all emails referring to J.B. that were stored on its Google Workspace domain. Ordinary emails exchanged in the day-to-day operation of a school, even if retained on a secure cloud server, are not “maintained” as education records merely by virtue of their storage.

B. Procedural Disposition

The Court:

  • Determines that writ review is appropriate because the order arose in a dependency case, is not a final appealable order, and no other statute authorizes an appeal.
  • Issues a writ of mandamus (not prohibition), directing the district court to vacate its May 30, 2024 order compelling CCSD to produce all emails referencing J.B.
  • Withdraws a prior panel opinion that had ordered an in camera review and replaces it with this en banc opinion, which adopts a more categorical framework.
  • Declines to reach a late-raised argument based on Nevada’s public-records laws, leaving that question unresolved.

III. Legal and Factual Background

A. FERPA and Nevada’s Parallel Statute

FERPA requires educational institutions that receive federal funds to:

  • Allow parents (and certain other authorized persons) to inspect and review their children’s education records. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 99.10.
  • Provide a mechanism to challenge and correct inaccurate or misleading information in education records, and to allow parents to add written explanations. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(2).
  • Maintain a record of each request for, and disclosure of, personally identifiable information from education records (subject to limited exceptions), and to treat that access log itself as part of the education record. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1)(A), (b)(4)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 99.32(a).

“Education records” are defined (with exceptions not relevant here) as:

“records, files, documents, and other materials which –
(i) contain information directly related to a student; and
(ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.”
20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A).

Nevada’s NRS 392.029(1) requires public schools to comply with FERPA and its implementing regulations when a parent or legal guardian requests a pupil’s education records. NRS 392.029(10) expressly adopts FERPA’s definition of “education records.”

In dependency proceedings, Nevada law also authorizes the appointment of an Educational Decision Maker (EDM) when no parent or guardian is available or able to make educational decisions for a child. NRS 432B.462. The district court had appointed Angalia B. as J.B.’s EDM, granting her FERPA-equivalent access to his school records.

B. The Records Request and Litigation

Acting as EDM, Angalia:

  1. Requested J.B.’s education records from CCSD pursuant to the court’s order and FERPA/NRS 392.029.
  2. Received certain records, but believed they were incomplete.
  3. Then expanded her request to cover all emails in CCSD’s Google-based email system that:
    • Identified J.B. by first or last name, or
    • Identified him by his initials (alone or in combination).

A school official initially denied the request on the ground that the school did not store education records with Google. CCSD later argued more broadly that emails stored in Google Workspace are not FERPA education records unless printed and placed in the student’s physical file.

In parallel, Angalia filed an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) due process complaint, alleging violations of J.B.’s special education rights, including an improper proposed transfer and an inadequate individualized education plan (IEP). She sought the emails both for FERPA access purposes and to use in that due process proceeding. Although the IDEA dispute was eventually settled, the email-access issue continued in the dependency case.

The district court:

  • Joined CCSD to J.B.’s dependency case for the limited purpose of resolving the records dispute.
  • Concluded that any email referring to J.B., when stored in a secure electronic database, “necessarily relate[s]” to him and is an education record.
  • Ordered CCSD to produce all emails referencing J.B. stored in its Google Workspace domain.

CCSD petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus (and, nominally, prohibition), arguing that:

  • The district court misconstrued “education record” under FERPA and NRS 392.029.
  • Requiring production of all such emails vastly exceeded FERPA’s scope and would impose an unmanageable burden.

IV. Analysis of the Majority Opinion

A. Writ of Mandamus and Standard of Review

The Court begins by finding writ review appropriate. A writ of mandamus may issue to:

  • Compel performance of an act required by law, or
  • Control a district court’s arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

See NRS 34.160; Int’l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Writ relief is generally unavailable when an adequate legal remedy (such as a direct appeal) exists. NRS 34.170.

Here, the challenged order:

  • Arose in a dependency case with CCSD joined solely to address a records request.
  • Is not a final judgment appealable as of right.
  • Is not otherwise subject to a statutory right of appeal.

Accordingly, CCSD lacks an adequate alternative remedy, and the Court exercises its discretionary authority to entertain the mandamus petition. Statutory interpretation questions are reviewed de novo even on writ review. Int’l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 559.

The Court does not meaningfully address the writ of prohibition, noting that CCSD offered no separate argument or authority for such relief. See NRS 34.320; Edwards v. Emperor’s Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006).

B. The FERPA Framework: “Maintained by” and “Directly Related to”

The opinion’s core legal analysis focuses on FERPA’s requirement that education records be:

  1. Directly related to a student; and
  2. Maintained by an educational agency or institution (or a person acting for it).

See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A); NRS 392.029(10).

1. “Maintained by an educational agency”: Institutional records

The Court leans heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Owasso Independent School District No. I-011 v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (2002), the leading authority on FERPA’s “maintained” requirement.

In Owasso, the Court held that peer-graded assignments, before being recorded in the teacher’s grade book, are not “maintained” as education records. The key points:

  • “Maintain” suggests permanent or semi-permanent retention, akin to “a filing cabinet in a records room at the school or on a permanent secure database, perhaps even after the student is no longer enrolled.” Owasso, 534 U.S. at 433.
  • FERPA’s access-log requirement (recording who asks for and obtains access to records) presupposes that the records are institutional records kept by a single central custodian, such as a registrar. Id. at 434–35.

Drawing from Owasso, the Nevada Supreme Court concludes that:

“To be an education record, a document or other material must be an institutional record stored in a designated place that is, typically, overseen by a designated individual responsible for maintaining such records.”

By contrast, emails sent in the ordinary course of business:

  • May be informal communications, akin to the “water cooler” conversations discussed in Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 219 F.R.D. 93, 97 (D. Md. 2003).
  • Are often easily deleted and not deliberately preserved as part of a student’s official record.
  • Are not, simply by virtue of their presence in an email account or server, the kind of “institutional records” FERPA contemplates.

The majority aligns itself with other courts that have rejected the notion that all stored electronic communications relating to students are education records:

  • West Chester Univ. of Pa. v. Rodriguez, 216 A.3d 503, 509 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019): “emails stored in an ordinary manner are not, without more, maintained by the institution,” especially where they “may be ‘deleted within moments’ of their transmission.”
  • Jacobson v. Ithaca City Sch. Dist., 39 N.Y.S.3d 904, 907 (Sup. Ct. 2016): “The mere fact that information may be held by an educational agency is insufficient to make it an educational record.”

The majority therefore adopts an “intentionality” requirement:

“To be an education record, however, the email relating to the student must be deliberately stored by the records custodian as part of that student’s records. We emphasize that deliberate action to store such emails as institutional records is critical.”

In other words, mere storage of emails on CCSD’s Google Workspace does not satisfy FERPA’s “maintained” requirement. The district must take additional affirmative steps—such as moving an email into a formal electronic file or database designated as the student’s record—to convert it into an “education record.”

2. “Directly related to a student”: Narrowing incidental mentions

The Court also emphasizes FERPA’s “directly related to a student” requirement, which further limits the scope of records parents may access.

  • “Directly related” implies a “close connection” to the student. Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Santa Fe Coll., 109 So. 3d 851, 857 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013).
  • It does not encompass “every document that relates to a student in any way and is kept by the school in any fashion.” BRV, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519, 526 (Ct. App. 2006).

Applying these principles, the Court finds Angalia’s standard—any email that “mentions” J.B.—to be overbroad. Such a test:

  • Would sweep in emails where J.B. is mentioned only incidentally in a broader discussion about other students, events, or administrative issues.
  • Would ignore FERPA’s requirement that the records have a close connection to the student, rather than a tangential one.

The Court thus rejects both (1) the idea that all stored emails are “maintained,” and (2) the idea that any mention of a student suffices to make a record “directly related” to the student.

C. Reliance on CCSD Internal Policy

The Court notes CCSD Regulation R-5125.1, which defines “education records” to include:

  • Student academic permanent records;
  • Achievement and scholastic aptitude test results;
  • Attendance and discipline files;
  • Class record books and grade books;
  • Health inventories;
  • Student support services folders.

While not dispositive, the regulation is treated as an illustrative list of documents that clearly qualify as education records: a formal, centrally managed set of documents about a student. The Court contrasts these with, for example, a single email about a particular assignment, which is not itself an institutional record unless it is deliberately preserved as part of the student’s file.

D. Practical Concerns and Policy-Based Interpretation

The majority devotes significant attention to the practical consequences of treating all emails as education records. Several interlocking concerns drive its analysis:

  1. Volume and burden:
    • CCSD’s preliminary search for J.B.’s name or initials produced “millions of results.”
    • FERPA requires that educational agencies track who accesses each education record. Applying those logging and access requirements to millions of emails would be extraordinarily burdensome.
    • Emails often include full message threads, reproducing all prior content and multiplying the number of “records.” See Thompson, 219 F.R.D. at 97.
  2. Amendment and explanation rights:
    • FERPA allows parents to seek correction of, and to append explanatory statements to, education records.
    • The Court finds it implausible that Congress intended parents to be able to amend or annotate every single email in which their child’s name appears, particularly given the informality and sheer quantity of email.
  3. Control over what counts as an education record:
    • If any email referencing a student counted as an education record, then all emails sent to the district mentioning that student would also be FERPA records.
    • This would deprive school districts of the ability to control (by policy and practice) what is designated as an education record, contrary to the institutional- record structure inferred from FERPA.
  4. Digital tools and future technologies:
    • The Court explicitly worries about the implications of a broad definition for other tools—workplace chat systems like Slack or Microsoft Teams, and even systems leveraging large language models or artificial intelligence.
    • Even if information relating to students is stored on centralized servers used or licensed by the district, it will typically lack the hallmark of being intentionally maintained as to a specific student, unless the district designates it as such.

Because FERPA’s text is ambiguous at the margins, the Court relies on the interpretive principle that statutes may be construed consistent with reason and public policy to effectuate legislative intent. See Robert E. v. Justice Court, 99 Nev. 443, 445, 664 P.2d 957, 959 (1983). Citing Owasso’s similar concern about unworkable burdens, the Court concludes that:

“Interpreting ‘education records’ to sweep so broadly as to encompass all emails that mention a student would be contrary to Congress’s intent in enacting FERPA and the Nevada Legislature’s intent in enacting Nevada’s parallel legislation.”

E. The Resulting Rule

Synthesizing the textual, doctrinal, and pragmatic reasoning, the majority establishes a clear Nevada rule:

  • Ordinary emails exchanged in the daily operation of a school—though stored on a secure, district-managed database—are not “education records” under FERPA and NRS 392.029.
  • An email becomes an education record only if the district (or its agent) intentionally treats it as part of the student’s institutional record and stores it in a designated place overseen by a designated custodian.
  • An email that merely mentions a student is not necessarily “directly related” to that student; “directly related” requires a close connection and excludes incidental references.

The district court’s ruling—which effectively equated “stored on a secure district server” with “maintained as an education record”—is thus rejected as legally erroneous. The Court grants CCSD’s petition and directs issuance of a writ of mandamus vacating the production order.

Finally, the Court explicitly declines to consider a public-records-act argument raised for the first time by Angalia in response to an amicus brief, invoking the general rule that issues first raised in a reply will not be addressed. See Weaver v. State, Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 121 Nev. 494, 502, 117 P.3d 193, 198–99 (2005).

V. The Dissent: A Broader, Parent-Focused View of FERPA

A. FERPA’s Purpose and Legislative History

Justice Lee, joined by Chief Justice Herndon and Justice Bell, argues that the majority’s “intentional maintenance” requirement is inconsistent with FERPA’s core purpose: to give parents ready access to the records schools use in making decisions that affect their children.

Citing legislative history and lower-court authority, the dissent emphasizes that Congress intended:

“parents and students [to] have access to everything in institutional records maintained for each student in the normal course of business and used by the institution in making decisions that affect the life of the student.”
(quoting 120 Cong. Rec. 39858–59, as discussed in Belanger v. Nashua, N.H. Sch. Dist., 856 F. Supp. 40, 49 (D.N.H. 1994))

From this vantage point, the dissent criticizes the majority for allowing school districts to effectively decide what is and is not a FERPA record by choosing whether to segregate emails into a student-specific “file.” That, in the dissent’s view, invites both inadvertent and deliberate under-documentation:

“Emails exchanged concerning a student could evade disclosure if a school district or its agents inadvertently or deliberately fail to store them in a separate ‘record.’… Congress intended parents and students to have access to everything in institutional records, not for educational institutions to shield disclosure of emails directly related to a student simply because the email was not intentionally segregated.”

B. “Maintained” in the Era of Cloud Storage

The dissent also takes issue with how the majority applies Owasso. It notes that Owasso was decided before the widespread adoption of cloud-based storage systems like Google Workspace and Google Vault.

According to the dissent:

  • Owasso equated “maintain” with keeping records in a filing cabinet or on a permanent, secure database—“perhaps even after the student is no longer enrolled.” 534 U.S. at 433.
  • Modern cloud-based systems like Google Workspace are precisely that type of “permanent secure database.”
  • By choosing such a system and configuring it to store emails indefinitely with robust search capabilities, CCSD has effectively “maintained” those emails within the meaning of FERPA—no additional “click-and-drag” or printing step should be required.

The dissent argues that, in contemporary systems, “intentionality is built into the system itself”:

“CCSD specifically chose Google Workspace (a secure, electronic database) to store and manage its emails, understanding that this system provides a secure way to automatically store emails indefinitely. The Google Vault system allows CCSD to search through the emails stored on Google Workspace, thus negating the need to intentionally set aside records into student-specific folders, as was required in a precloud storage system era.”

On this reading, the statutory term “maintain” should be interpreted broadly enough to encompass evolving storage formats and ensure that FERPA’s transparency goals are not undermined by technological changes.

C. “Directly Related” and Content-Based Limits

The dissent agrees that not every email that incidentally mentions a student is a FERPA record, but would apply a more content-based test that looks at whether the record:

  • Is used for disciplinary purposes;
  • Shows a student’s actions or victimization; or
  • Displays personally identifiable information about the student.

See Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist. v. Hawkins, 253 A.3d 820, 830–31 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021). Under this approach, emails dealing substantively with a student’s discipline, safety, or educational conditions would typically be “directly related” and thus FERPA records if stored on the district’s secure systems.

The dissent highlights the danger that, under the majority’s rule, such critical emails will be excluded from FERPA’s definition unless they are separately flagged or segregated into a formal student file:

blockquote> “The natural consequence of the court’s opinion today will be the exclusion of emails exhibiting these characteristics, unless those emails are intentionally flagged or segregated into a student's ‘file’ and separately maintained.”

D. A Different Reading of Owasso and “Maintained”

The dissent contends that neither FERPA’s text nor Owasso compels the majority’s narrow “institutional record” approach and that imposing an “intent-to-segregate” requirement:

  • Is not mandated by the statute;
  • “Invites abuse” by incentivizing schools to avoid formal recording of sensitive matters; and
  • Conflicts with FERPA’s remedial purpose to promote parental oversight and transparency.

Instead, the dissent would adopt a more straightforward rule:

“Simply stated, a record is maintained when it is stored on an educational institution’s secure database or storage system. Construing FERPA consistent with its legislative intent requires a broad reading of the word ‘maintained,’ which construction further serves to accommodate any future unknowable storage format that would otherwise undermine the transparency inherent in the law.”

VI. Clarifying Key Legal Concepts

Several concepts in the opinion benefit from plainer-language explanation.

A. “Education Records” under FERPA

An “education record” is not every scrap of information that a school holds about a student. It must:

  1. Directly relate to the student – It must be primarily about that student or have a close connection to the student (e.g., grades, disciplinary findings, IEPs), not just mention the student in passing.
  2. Be maintained by the school or its agent – It must be part of the institution’s own recordkeeping system, kept in a way that suggests the school is treating it as an official record (for example, in a cumulative file, database, or student information system overseen by a records custodian).

Examples of typical education records:

  • Grade transcripts and report cards;
  • Standardized test results;
  • Attendance and discipline records;
  • Health and counseling files kept by the school;
  • Special education and IEP documentation.

B. “Maintained” vs. “Merely Stored”

The crux of this case is whether email messages that reside on a school’s cloud server are “maintained” as education records:

  • Under the majority’s view, “maintained” requires affirmative institutional treatment as part of the student’s official record—as in adding a document into the student’s cumulative file or a designated electronic folder.
  • Under the dissent’s view, “maintained” means simply that the record is stored on a secure database controlled by the educational institution, especially if that database is designed to retain and index records over time.

C. “Directly Related” vs. Incidental Mentions

A record is “directly related” to a student if:

  • The student is the primary subject; or
  • The content is used to evaluate, discipline, protect, or provide services to that student.

By contrast, a record is only incidentally related if:

  • The student is briefly mentioned in passing in a broader discussion about other topics; or
  • The student’s name appears in a list or as part of a crowd, without more.

The majority emphasizes this distinction to reject the idea that any mention of J.B. in an email automatically makes that email a FERPA record.

D. Writ of Mandamus

A writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary” remedy issued by a higher court to:

  • Compel a lower court or public official to perform a duty required by law; or
  • Correct a clear abuse of discretion when no adequate ordinary remedy (like a direct appeal) is available.

Here, CCSD could not immediately appeal the discovery-like order in the dependency case, so it sought a writ of mandamus from the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate that order.

E. Educational Decision Maker (EDM)

In dependency cases, when a child’s parent or guardian is unable or unavailable to make educational decisions, the court may appoint an EDM. The EDM steps into the shoes of the parent for purposes of educational decision-making, including asserting FERPA rights to access the child’s education records.

VII. Implications and Likely Impact

A. For Nevada School Districts

This decision gives Nevada school districts a clearer, and relatively narrow, definition of what counts as a FERPA “education record” in the context of email and other digital communications:

  • Institutional control: Districts may formalize policies specifying when emails and similar digital documents are to be incorporated into a student’s official education record (for example, by copying them into a designated database or folder).
  • Email management: Routine emails—even those referring to students—do not automatically become FERPA records, reducing the risk that massive volumes of email will be subject to parental inspection, amendment, and explanation rights.
  • Training: Staff should be trained that if they expect an email (e.g., about discipline, major incidents, or IEP decisions) to be part of the student’s official record, they must take the affirmative steps required by policy to ensure that it is “maintained” in the FERPA sense.

At the same time, the decision signals to districts that:

  • If they do intentionally preserve particular emails as part of a student’s record, those emails are subject to FERPA access and amendment rights.
  • They should consider the interplay between FERPA and other laws (e.g., special-education documentation requirements, public-records statutes), even though this opinion does not directly address those other regimes.

B. For Parents and Educational Decision Makers

For parents and EDMs in Nevada:

  • This decision limits the use of FERPA as a broad discovery tool to obtain all internal email communications mentioning a child.
  • Requests will need to be more targeted toward:
    • Formal records in the cumulative file;
    • Documents in officially maintained electronic systems (student information systems, discipline databases, IEP platforms); and
    • Emails or other digital documents that the district has specifically incorporated into those official systems.
  • In litigation or due process contexts (e.g., IDEA claims), parents may need to rely more heavily on discovery mechanisms (such as subpoenas, depositions, or court-ordered production) rather than FERPA alone to obtain internal emails.

C. National Persuasive Authority

Although this is a state supreme court interpreting both federal and state law, the decision is likely to be cited nationally as persuasive authority because:

  • It closely tracks Owasso and aligns with decisions like West Chester Univ., Jacobson, and BRV that have similarly narrowed the scope of educational records.
  • It directly addresses modern cloud-based email storage (Google Workspace/Google Vault) and the implications of treating massive email repositories as FERPA records.
  • It expressly considers newer technologies (chat platforms, AI tools), providing an early blueprint for how courts may think about FERPA in the digital age.

However, some jurisdictions (e.g., those following Cent. Dauphin or decisions like Belanger) may continue to favor broader, parent- protective constructions. The dissent here will provide ammunition for those courts, especially in circuits or states that emphasize FERPA’s remedial, privacy-and-transparency-centered purpose over institutional convenience.

D. Special Education and Litigation Strategy

Because this dispute arose in the context of an IDEA due process case and a dependency matter, it has particular salience for special education advocacy:

  • Parents and advocates often suspect that internal emails reveal staff concerns, disagreements, or noncompliance with IEP requirements; this opinion limits the ability to access such communications via FERPA-based requests.
  • However, such emails may still be discoverable in litigation or administrative proceedings under ordinary discovery rules; FERPA affects parental access rights, not necessarily all evidentiary or discovery obligations.
  • Advocates may respond by:
    • Insisting that key decisions and concerns be documented in formal meeting notes and IEP documents, which are clearly FERPA records; and
    • Using subpoenas or discovery motions, rather than FERPA requests, when broader access to internal communications is needed.

E. Interaction with Public Records Laws (Unresolved)

The Court pointedly refrains from deciding whether some or all of the requested emails might be obtainable under Nevada’s public-records laws. Because that argument was raised too late, the Court does not address:

  • Whether the same emails, though not “education records” under FERPA, could still be “public records” under state law; or
  • How FERPA’s privacy protections (for personally identifiable information in education records) might limit or shape public-records disclosures.

This leaves open an important avenue: in future cases, parties may invoke Nevada’s public-records framework as an alternative (or supplement) to FERPA when seeking access to school district emails, subject to redaction requirements.

VIII. Conclusion

Clark County School District v. District Court (Angalia B.) sets a significant precedent in Nevada—and offers influential guidance elsewhere—on how FERPA applies to email and other digital communications. The Court holds that:

  • FERPA “education records” are institutional records that are:
    • Directly related to a student; and
    • Intentionally maintained as part of that student’s official record by the educational agency or its agent.
  • Ordinary, day-to-day emails—even when stored on a secure, cloud-based system controlled by the school district—are not education records solely because they reference a student or are preserved on the district’s servers.
  • Parents and EDMs do not have a right, under FERPA or NRS 392.029, to demand production of all such emails; rather, they are entitled to institutional records deliberately incorporated into the student’s file.

By grounding its analysis in Owasso, related state and federal precedents, and pragmatic concerns about volume, logging, and modern digital tools, the majority draws a clear line that protects schools from overwhelming record-keeping obligations. At the same time, the dissent powerfully underscores the tension between this institutional-convenience approach and FERPA’s parent-protective, transparency-oriented purposes, especially in a world where school districts increasingly conduct core decision-making via email and electronic platforms.

Going forward, Nevada’s rule—intentional maintenance as the touchstone for FERPA email records—will shape how schools design their recordkeeping systems, how parents frame their records requests, and how courts across the country interpret FERPA’s application to digital communication. It clarifies that FERPA is not a general-purpose discovery device for all internal emails, but a focused regime governing a defined body of official institutional records—records that, in Nevada, exist when the school chooses to make them so.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Comments