"Meaningless": Town Attorneys Release Academic and Medical Records of Students from Unrelated Schools to Litigant
BLOOMFIELD, CT — Attorneys defending the Bloomfield Board of Education against a bullying complaint produced a spreadsheet containing detailed, unredacted records of dozens of students who attended different schools than the child at the center of the case—and were in grades the school doesn't even serve.
The spreadsheet, spanning more than eight pages and produced by the law firm Karsten & Tallberg, LLC during Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) proceedings, contained sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) for students in grades 4 through 8.
But the case involves a second-grader who attended an elementary school that serves students only through the 2nd grade.
Student names were redacted on only one to two of the eight pages. All other personally identifiable information—including Student ID Numbers, Dates of Birth, Racial/Ethnic Data, and Special Education Status (IDEA Indicator)—remained visible throughout the document.
When the litigant notified Karsten & Tallberg that they had received this sensitive information about children unrelated to the case, attorney Dennis M. Durao responded that "redactions were overkill based on the confidential nature of the CHRO proceedings" and declined further discussion, calling it a "meaningless and unproductive email exchange."
Records from Different Schools Entirely
The students whose records were disclosed attended schools that serve grades beyond those offered at the elementary school involved in the complaint, according to the spreadsheet's "Enrolled School" field.
While the litigant’s child attended a K-2 elementary school, the spreadsheet provided by Karsten & Tallberg contained records for students in grades 4 through 8, indicating they attended Bloomfield’s middle school or other district facilities.
"These children weren't even in the same building as my son," the litigant told The Dispatch. "They couldn't have witnessed anything. They couldn't have been involved in any way. Why do these lawyers have their special education status and test scores in a case about my second-grader being bullied?"
"Improper Data Dump"
Legal experts reviewing the details of the disclosure raised immediate concerns regarding the relevance of the data produced.
"Producing special education or disciplinary data for 4th–8th grade students from entirely different schools—where the complainant is a 2nd grader—has no apparent nexus to notice, comparators, or institutional response at issue," said Matthew Marks, a partner at the employment and education law firm Ricotta & Marks, P.C.
Marks noted that such a broad release of student data "strongly resembles an improper data dump rather than a narrowly tailored FERPA-compliant disclosure."
Sensitive Protected Categories Exposed
Beyond academic records, the spreadsheet disclosed students' racial and ethnic identities and disability status—information protected under federal civil rights laws.
The spreadsheet's columns included "Ethnicity," "Gender," and "IDEA Indicator"—a reference to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees special education services to eligible students. IDEA requires strict confidentiality of disability-related information.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provide additional privacy protections for disability information, treating such data as confidential medical information in many contexts.
"Disclosing the disability status and race of unrelated minors to a non-parent, non-school official without consent potentially violates FERPA, IDEA confidentiality provisions, and Section 504 safeguards," Marks said. "Such disclosures expose districts to OCR complaints, state and federal compliance investigations, and corrective action requirements."
"Redactions Were Overkill"
In an email obtained by The Dispatch, Attorney Durao admitted that "while we strive for perfection, we do not always achieve it." However, he defended the lack of privacy protection, stating, "the redactions were overkill based on the confidential nature of the CHRO proceedings."
Experts disputed this reasoning. "FERPA obligations apply regardless of the forum," Marks said. "Confidentiality does not waive a school district’s federal duty to protect personally identifiable information of students who are not parties or witnesses."
He ended the correspondence by stating, "I do not intend to engage in this meaningless and unproductive email exchange."
Taxpayer Oversight
Bloomfield taxpayers fund Karsten & Tallberg to protect the interests of the school district. The release of sensitive records for students who have no connection to the lawsuit suggests a failure in the firm's discovery review process.
"Dismissing student privacy concerns as 'meaningless' reflects a misunderstanding of the legal framework governing education records," Marks added. "Failure to take FERPA and IDEA confidentiality seriously can itself create liability for the district the attorney is tasked with protecting."
The Dispatch independently verified the litigant's claims by reviewing, during a video conference, physical pages of the spreadsheet that show column headers including "Student Name," "Student ID," "Date of Birth," "Ethnicity," "Gender," "IDEA Indicator" (special education status), "Test Score," and "Enrolled School," with visible data in rows beneath those headers. The review confirmed that student names were redacted on only one to two of the eight pages, while all other personally identifiable information remained visible throughout.
We reached out to Bloomfield Schools Superintendent Dr. Tracy A. Youngberg and Karsten & Tallberg Managing Partner James N. Tallberg for comment regarding their protocols for student data privacy. As of 5:00 PM Friday, they have not responded to our inquiries.
This is a developing story.