not provide a privilege against disclosure of student records.”); Victory Outreach Ctr. v. City of Philadelphia, 233 F.R.D. 419, 420 (E.D.Pa.2005) (authorizing the release of personally identifiable information contained in educational records pursuant to a subpoena in a civil suit); Anderson by Anderson v. Seigel, 175 Misc.2d 609, 668 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1005 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1998) rev’d in part 255 A.D.2d 409, 680 N.Y.S.2d 587 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) (“it is well settled that academic and school records generally are not protected by any privilege”); Zaal v. State, 326 Md. 54, 602 A.2d 1247, 1255 (1992) (“[FERPA] did not ... create a privilege against disclosure of student records to be invoked by the school, the student, or his or her parents”); Reeg v. Fetzer, 78 F.R.D. 34, 36 (W.D.Okla.1976) (<HOLDING>); Gaumond v. Trinity Repertory Co., 909 A2d
holding that seventeen missing records does not constitute improper record keeping because the fact that the records are not at the station does not mean that the records are incorrect or inaccurate holding that educational records are not privileged under ferpa holding that ferpa and state law did not create an educational records privilege holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense holding that communications to the police are conditionally privileged