The Echo Newspaper, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1967

The Echo Newspaper,
Appellant,

vs.

St. Louis Park Public Schools,
Independent School District #283, et al.,
Respondents

Filed August 13, 2018
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-17-656

Christopher A. Seidl, George B. Ashenmacher, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Stephen M. Knutson, Michelle D. Kenney, Knutson, Flynn & Deans, P.A., Mendota
Heights, Minnesota (for respondents)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
WORKE, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court erred in determining that a video recording
of a student incident in a school hallway is “educational data” under the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01-.90 (2016). We affirm.

2
FACTS
Respondent St. Louis Park Public Schools, Independent Scho ol District #283 (the
district) maintains video cameras in the hallways of St. Louis Park High School. A camera
captured the identities of two students who were allege dly involved in an altercation o n
November 14, 2016.
On November 15, 2016, appellant The Echo Newspaper (Echo) submitted a data
practices request for the video footage. After the district received the request, it
downloaded a copy of the video so that it would not be relooped. The district does not
archive video tapes, but retains the footage until it is relooped. The record is unclear as to
how much footage the district retains before the video is relooped.
On or about November 16, 2016, the district informed Echo that the contents of the
video were private student data not accessible to Echo. In January 2017, Echo brought suit
against the district seeking compliance with its request for the video footage pursuant to
the MGDPA. The parties filed cross -motions for summary judgment, contesting whether
the requested data was private “educational data” under state and federal law. The district
court granted the district’s motion and denied Echo’s, concluding that the video footage
was “educational data” under the MGDPA. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Echo argues that the dist rict court erred in its interpretation of the MGDPA. This
court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t ,
691 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 2005).

3
“The object of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention
of the Legislature.” Cocchiarella v. Driggs , 884 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016). First,
this court “examine[s] the statutory language to determine whether the words of the law
are . . . free from all ambiguity.” Id. (quotation omitted). “A statute is ambiguous only if
it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” 500, LLC v. City of
Minneapolis, 837 N.W.2d 287, 290 (Minn. 2013). To determine whether a st atute is
ambiguous, this court interprets the statute “as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect
to all its parts.” 328 Barry Ave., LLC v. Nolan Prop s. Grp., LLC, 871 N.W.2d 745, 749
(Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). When the language of a statute is unambiguous, this
court applies the statute’s plain language and will not “explore its spirit or purpose.”
Cocchiarella, 884 N.W.2d at 624.
The MGDPA “regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance,
dissemination, and access to government data in government entities.” Minn. Stat. § 13.01,
subd. 3. The MGDPA “presum[es] that government data are public and are accessible by
the public.” Id. However, as a general rule, the MGDPA establishes that “educational data
is private data on individuals and shall not be disclosed” unless an exception applies. Minn.
Stat. § 13.32, subd. 3. The MGDPA defines “[e]ducational data” as “data on individuals
maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the
agency or institution which relates to a student.” Id., subd. 1(a). Echo argues that the
district court erred by concluding that the district “maintained” the hallway video and that
the video contains information “which relates to a student.”

4
“Maintained”
Echo argues that the video is not “educational data” because the video was no t
“maintained” by the district. In KSTP-TV v. Metro. Council , the supreme court recently
analyzed the definition of “maintained” in the context of the MGDPA. 884 N.W.2d 342,
345-46 (Minn. 2016). In that case, the supreme court considered whether Metro T ransit
“maintained” video recordings from its buses when the recordings were initially stored on
hard drives that held up to 330 hours of video before the system would begin recording
over the older data. Id. at 344. The court considered dictionary definitions and determined
that “[t]he common and ordinary meaning of the term ‘maintained’ is to ‘keep in an existing
state; [to] preserve or retain.’” Id. at 345 (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language 1058 (5th ed. 2011)). The supreme court reasoned that the videos
“were initially ‘maintained’ on hard drives” and were later “‘preserv[ed] or retain[ed]’ on
DVDs because Metro Transit employees downloaded them.” Id. at 345-46.
Here, because the hallway video was stored and accessible for at least one day after
the incident, we conclude that the security video was “maintained” within the meaning of
the MGDPA. This interpretation is bolstered by Minn. R. 1205.0200, subp. 4 (2017),
which defines “data” for purposes of the MGDPA. Subpart 4 states that “[d]ata ca n be
maintained in any form[.] . . . The duration of the existence of data, including whether
certain data is temporary rather than permanent, is not relevant to compliance with [the
MGDPA].” Minn. R. 1205.0200, subp. 4. The district court did not err by concluding that
the district “maintained” the security video within the meaning of the MGDPA.

5
“Relates to a student”
Echo argues that the term “relates to a student” is ambiguous an d that the district
court erred in interpreting that phrase. This court interprets the words used in a statute
according to their plain meaning. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., 875 N.W.2d 289, 292 (Minn.
2016). “To determine the plain meaning of a word, we of ten consider dictionary
definitions.” Id. “[R]elate” is defined as “[t]o have connection, relation, or reference[.]”
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1482 (5th ed. 2011); Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1050 (11th ed. 200 3) (defining “relate” as “to have
relationship or connection”).
The word “relates” as it is used in the MGDPA appears to cover a wide range of
data. However, this breadth does not necessarily imply ambiguity. “A statute is ambiguous
only if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” 500, LLC, 837 N.W.2d
at 290. Echo asserts that the term “relates to a student” is ambiguous, but does not offer
more than one reasonable interpretation. We conclude that “relates to a student” is not
ambiguous and that it covers data that has a relationship or connection with a student. We
also conclude that a security video depicting identifiable students allegedly involved in an
altercation “relates to a student” within the meaning of the statut e. Therefore, the district
court did not err by concluding that the video footage was “educational data” within the
meaning of the MGDPA and inaccessible to Echo.
Echo also argues that the district court erred in concluding that the video footage
was an “education record” under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),
20 U.S.C. § 1232g (2012). Because we conclude that the district court did not err in its

6
interpretation of the MGDPA, the data is inaccessible regardless of its classification under
FERPA. Thus, we need not reach this issue and decline to address it.
Affirmed.