Case Name: Pitta v. Medeiros
Court: United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Case Number: No. 23-1513
Date of Case: September 28, 2022 (filing date)
Date of Judgment: January 4, 2024
Bench Strength: Gelpí, Selya, and Lynch, Circuit Judges

Facts of the Case: Scott D. Pitta, an attorney and resident of Bridgewater, Massachusetts, attended two virtual Individualized Educational Program (IEP) team meetings in February and March 2022 regarding his child, who receives special education services from the Bridgewater Raynham Regional School District. Pitta alleged that certain statements made during these meetings were omitted from the official meeting minutes provided by the District. When he requested amendments to include these statements, the District refused.

In September 2022, during another virtual IEP team meeting, Pitta requested to video record the proceedings using the Google Meet function. The District declined this request, citing policy that deemed video recording invasive and not permitted. They offered to audio record the meeting instead. Pitta proceeded to video record the meeting himself, which led to the meeting’s termination by Dina Medeiros, the Administrator of Special Education, stating it violated District policy.

Pitta subsequently filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, alleging that the District’s refusal to allow him to video record the IEP meetings violated his First Amendment rights.

Issues:

1. Whether Pitta had a First Amendment right to video record a private IEP team meeting discussing his child’s educational program.
2. Whether the District’s policy against video recording during IEP meetings violated Pitta’s constitutional rights.

Decision/Opinion: The First Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s dismissal of Pitta’s claim. The court held that Pitta did not possess a First Amendment right to video record an IEP team meeting. The decision rested on several key points:

• Nature of IEP Meetings: The court emphasized that IEP team meetings involve sensitive and confidential discussions about individual students’ educational needs and are not conducted in public spaces. This distinguished them from scenarios where recording public officials performing public duties has been protected under the First Amendment.
• Public Interest: The court noted that Pitta’s claimed right to record was not tied to any public interest in receiving information, unlike cases involving recording public officials in public settings where such information dissemination is crucial.
• Governmental Interest: Additionally, the court recognized the District’s policy against video recording as serving a significant governmental interest. This policy aimed to foster open and candid discussions during IEP meetings, essential for developing appropriate educational plans for students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).