Clark County School District (District) sought relief from the Nevada Supreme Court after a trial court ordered it to produce all emails stored on its Google Workspace system that mentioned a particular student, J.B.
The request arose after Angalia B., J.B.’s grandmother and court-appointed Educational Decision Maker (EDM), sought access to J.B.’s education records under FERPA and parallel Nevada statutes. Believing that the records initially produced by the District were incomplete, Angalia subsequently requested all emails identifying J.B. by name or initials that were stored on the District’s cloud-based email system.
The District refused the request, taking the position that emails stored in Google Workspace were not “education records” subject to disclosure unless the District had intentionally printed or stored them as part of J.B.’s official student file. Angalia moved to compel production in a separate case under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, arguing that any email referencing J.B. necessarily related to the student and therefore constituted an education record. The trial court agreed and ordered the District to produce all emails referring to J.B. that were stored on its email system.
The District petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court, challenging the trial court’s decision.
The Nevada Supreme Court held that not every email that mentions a student and is stored on a school district’s email server constitutes an “education record” under FERPA or Nevada law. Relying heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo, which held that to qualify as an education record, a document must be intentionally maintained as an institutional record in a designated place, typically under the control of a central custodian such as a registrar. Ordinary emails exchanged in the routine course of business, even if stored indefinitely on a secure cloud server, lack the permanence and deliberate maintenance required to make them education records.
The Court emphasized that emails are often informal, easily deleted, and may only incidentally reference a student while primarily addressing other matters. It rejected the argument that storage on a searchable digital platform, standing alone, satisfies FERPA’s “maintained by” requirement. The Court also expressed concern that treating all emails mentioning a student as education records would create an unworkable administrative burden, potentially requiring districts to search millions of emails, track access logs, and allow parents to seek amendments or add explanations to every email referencing their child.
Because the trial court adopted an overbroad interpretation of “education records,” the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that it abused its discretion. The Court therefore granted the District’s petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling production of all emails referencing J.B.
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Nev. 2025) 581 P.3d 407.
Note: Although this case arises under Nevada law and FERPA, the latter of which only applies to schools receiving certain federal funds, the decision provides helpful guidance on how courts distinguish formal student records from informal communications when parents and guardians make student record requests.