Does allowing parents to view a school video satisfy GRAMA and FERPA disclosure obligations? Sevier County School Dist. v. Kummer Explained

Background and facts

After their daughter was required to perform prolonged physical activity as punishment during a middle-school gym class, Shana and Jared Kummer filed separate GRAMA requests with the Sevier County School District seeking a copy of the gymnasium video. The District declined to produce a copy, instead allowing the Kummers to view the unredacted video at the school. Both the State Records Committee and the Sixth District Court ordered the District to provide a redacted copy — with the cost of redaction borne by the Kummers — on the ground that GRAMA entitled them to the video once other students’ faces were obscured. The District appealed.

Key legal issues

The appeal turned on two statutory-interpretation questions. First, did a 2016 amendment to GRAMA — which states that disclosure of a FERPA education record “shall be governed by” FERPA — effectively remove FERPA records from GRAMA’s reach altogether? Second, even if GRAMA still applies, did FERPA’s “inspect and review” requirement obligate the District to provide a physical copy of the video, or was on-site viewing sufficient?

Court’s analysis and holding

The court reviewed both issues for correctness, affording no deference to the district court. On the first issue, the court reaffirmed Bryner v. Canyons School District, 2015 UT App 131, holding that the 2016 amendment codified rather than overruled Bryner. The legislature’s use of the phrase “governed by” — the same language the court used in Bryner — signaled codification, not abrogation. Critically, the legislature left intact the separate provision stating that GRAMA “does not apply” to records containing protected health information, demonstrating it knew how to exclude records entirely and chose not to do so for FERPA records.

On the second issue, the court examined the plain meanings of “inspect” and “review,” consulted dictionary definitions, and relied on U.S. Department of Education guidance expressly stating that schools are “generally not required” to provide copies of education records — including videos — as long as parents can view them on site. Because the Kummers had watched the full, unredacted video at the school, the District had fully discharged its obligations under both FERPA and GRAMA. The court reversed the district court’s order requiring production of a redacted copy and distinguished Bryner on the ground that the school in that case had never offered the parent an opportunity to view the video at all.

Practice implications

Practitioners advising school districts should recognize that offering on-site inspection satisfies the FERPA disclosure floor and therefore also satisfies GRAMA’s incorporated disclosure standard — no redacted copy need be produced. Conversely, counsel for parents seeking school video records must determine immediately whether their client was offered — and declined — an opportunity to view the record, because that factual distinction is now dispositive. Where no viewing was offered, Bryner‘s redacted-copy remedy remains available. This opinion also provides a textbook illustration of the court’s expressio unius canon: when the legislature uses exclusionary language for one category and omits it for another in the same statutory section, the omission is purposeful and controlling.