Pelham Superintendent's Community Email on ERPO Filing Raises Questions Over Sealing of Sensitive Student Records

PELHAM, NY (December 19, 2025) — Pelham Union Free School District Superintendent Cheryl Champ expressed regret in a Dec. 16, 2025, email (obtained by Talk of the Sound today, see below) to the school community over the public release of sensitive student records in an extreme risk protection order filing, while framing the action as a proactive safety measure.

Champ declined a request for an interview by Talk of the Sound, stating, “I have nothing further to add on this matter.”

The ERPO application was filed by Champ on Dec. 5, 2025, in Westchester Supreme Court under Index No. 51123/2025 against Cyprian Jovani Gardner, a minor born Dec. 14, 2008.

A temporary ERPO was granted ex parte on Dec. 8, 2025, by Justice James L. Hyer, prohibiting firearm possession until March 31, 2026, pending a full hearing on March 30, 2026.

Attachments to the filing included student discipline records detailing prior suspensions for threats and off-campus misconduct, academic grades showing poor performance, failing marks and low GPA, and attendance records indicating chronic absences and tardiness over multiple years.

The attachments contained Gardner’s full name, date of birth, home address, cell phone and email without redaction.

Gardner received a five-day out-of-school suspension on Dec. 3, 2025, for off-campus incidents on Nov. 10 and Dec. 1, 2025.

The filing form included a checked box requesting that certain attachments be filed under seal as they contain sensitive records, but the blank for specifying attachment numbers was left empty.

Champ requested confidentiality for her own information, checking boxes to redact her address and contact details from documents served on the respondent.

On Dec. 9, 2025, Gardner’s attorney, Clotelle Drakeford of the Legal Aid Society, filed a motion challenging the attachments as FERPA violations and seeking to strike them as scandalous or prejudicial.

A court conference was held Dec. 12, 2025.

An article on Talk of the Sound detailing the allegations and attachments was published Dec. 15, 2025.

Champ’s Dec. 16 email (below) referenced “information recently released… and spread via a blog.”

In the Dec. 16 email, sent at 3 p.m., Champ stated the unsealing “has now been rectified” and that it was the district’s expectation the records would be sealed and kept private.

Records remained accessible on the morning of Dec. 17, 2025, and were sealed later that day, on or about Dec. 17, 2025.

A list of questions prepared for Champ by Talk of the Sound included inquiries about the process followed in preparing the Dec. 5 filing regarding sealing requests for sensitive attachments, the blank field for attachment numbers while requesting protection for her own information, steps taken after the Dec. 9 motion and Dec. 12 conference, awareness of the Dec. 15 article, the timeline for stating on Dec. 16 that the issue “has now been rectified,” and lessons learned about handling sensitive student information in court filings.

Dr. Champ December 16 email

Analysis of the Superintendent’s Email in Context of the ERPO Filing

The email from Superintendent Cheryl Champ on December 16, 2025, positions the ERPO filing as a proactive safety measure while expressing regret over the public release of sensitive details. However, several inconsistencies and procedural lapses emerge that cast doubt on whether the unsealing was truly an accidental “mistake” or a deliberate choice to allow public scrutiny.

The Filing’s Handling of Sealing Requests

Champ, as petitioner, had clear opportunities to request sealing of sensitive attachments but did not do so effectively. On page 3, the box is checked for “The petitioner requests that attachment(s) numbered be filed under seal as they contain medical, mental health, or other sensitive records and information.” However, the blank for specifying attachment numbers is left empty. This is a critical oversight—the form explicitly requires listing the attachments (e.g., “1,2,3” for the news article, police flyer, student discipline records, grades, and attendance).

The attachments themselves are highly confidential under federal law (FERPA for student records) and state privacy rules.

They include:

Student discipline details (e.g., prior suspensions for threats and off-campus misconduct).
- Academic grades (poor performance, failing marks, low GPA).
- Attendance records (chronic absences and tardiness over multiple years).

These were submitted without redaction, including the minor’s full name (Cyprian Jovani Gardner), date of birth (12/14/2008), home address, cell phone, and email—despite New York court rules (Uniform Rule §202.5(e)) requiring redaction or omission of personally identifiable information for minors to protect their privacy.

In contrast, Champ did request confidentiality for her own information (pages 4), checking boxes to redact her address, contact details, and even her name from documents served on the respondent, citing safety risks. This selective protection suggests awareness of sealing options but no similar effort for the student’s records.

New York’s CPLR Article 63-A (governing ERPOs) does not mandate automatic sealing of filings, even for minors. It’s a civil proceeding, and while courts can seal records upon request (especially for sensitive student data under FERPA or NY Education Law §2-d), the onus is on the petitioner to ask explicitly. The blank field on Page 3 indicates no such request was properly made at filing, undermining the email’s claim of an “expectation that these records… would be sealed and kept private.”

Timeline of Events and Delays in Sealing

December 5: Filing submitted without effective sealing request. Records become publicly accessible via the New York State Courts Electronic Filing (NYSCEF) system under Westchester Supreme Court Index No. 51123/2025.
December 8: Legal Aid Society (representing Gardner) enters appearance. Temporary ERPO granted ex parte by Justice James L. Hyer, authorizing searches and prohibiting firearm possession until March 31, 2026 (pending a full hearing on March 30).
December 9: Gardner’s attorney, Clotelle Drakeford, files a motion challenging the attachments as FERPA violations (unauthorized release of student records without an emergency justification) and seeking to strike them as “scandalous or prejudicial” under CPLR §3024(b). This directly notifies the school district and court of the privacy issues.
December 12: Court conference held. No immediate action on sealing; instead, deadlines are set for motions (January 19, 2026) and oppositions (February 2).
December 15: Robert Cox accesses and downloads the full files, publishing an article on Talk of the Sound detailing the allegations and attachments without publishing the court documents themselves. This does not spread the information in her court filing “widely” as Champ claims in her email but rather raises awareness of her massive violation of federal and state laws protecting the privacy of both student records and personally identifiable information of minors.
December 16 (3:00 PM): Champ sends the email to the school community, claiming the unsealing “did not occur at filing, but has now been rectified.” She frames it as an unfortunate error while emphasizing the district’s safety efforts and legal constraints on sharing details.
December 17 (morning): Records still unsealed and accessible.
December 17 (later in the day): Records finally sealed, as confirmed in public reports (e.g., Talk of the Sound articles noting sealing “on or about December 17”).
Current (December 19): Case remains sealed, limiting further public access.

This timeline reveals a 12-day gap from the lawyer’s complaint (Dec 9) to sealing (Dec 17), despite the district’s awareness. The email’s assertion that the issue “has now been rectified” on Dec 16 appears premature or inaccurate, as the records weren’t sealed until the next day.

Inconsistencies in the Email’s Narrative

Claim of “Expectation” for Sealing: The email implies the court should have sealed the records automatically (“It was our expectation that these records… would be sealed”). But as noted, CPLR 63-A has no such requirement, and the incomplete sealing request contradicts this. If the district truly expected privacy, why leave the attachment numbers blank? ERPOs are public by default unless sealed, especially in electronic filing systems like NYSCEF.
Timing of “Rectification”: Saying it “has now been rectified” on Dec 16, when sealing occurred on Dec 17, creates a discrepancy. The email expressed “regret” without immediate action to correct it.
Context on Safety vs. Transparency: The email defends the filing as part of a “layered approach to safety” and notes legal limits on sharing student details (e.g., FERPA). Yet the attachments—detailing Gardner’s suspensions (including a 5-day out-of-school suspension on Dec 3 for off-campus incidents on Nov 10 and Dec 1), poor grades (e.g., failing Geometry, low GPA), and absences (hundreds unexcused)—go far beyond what’s needed for an ERPO. They paint a picture of a “bad kid,” potentially justifying expulsion or exclusion without a full due process hearing under NY Education Law §3214. The allegations (gang ties, drug use, revenge risk) are speculative, based on an arrest without conviction, raising questions about overreach.
Response to Public Spread: By referencing Talk of the Sound, the email acknowledges the exposure but doesn’t explain the delay in sealing after Dec 9 or Dec 12 notifications. It balances “keeping our community informed” with privacy, but the prolonged public access allowed community awareness of the student’s issues, which could build support for district actions like suspension or barring him from school.

Was It a Mistake or Intentional?

Based on the evidence, it’s more likely an intentional act than an accident. The incomplete sealing request suggests negligence at best, but the selective protection of Champ’s own info (while exposing the minor’s) points to deliberate choices. The 8-day delay after the lawyer’s motion (Dec 9 to Dec 17) and lack of urgency post-Dec 12 conference imply the district was content with ongoing public access—especially after the Dec 15 Talk of the Sound article amplified it. This could serve to justify expelling or excluding Gardner by framing him as a threat, aligning with the email’s safety narrative and potentially reducing backlash from parents.

Had the records been sealed on December 9 or at the December 12 conference the records would not have been available to Cox on December 15 and no Talk of the Sound article published.

Substantiating factors:

Public reports (e.g., Talk of the Sound) highlight potential FERPA violations and failure to redact minor’s info, which could expose the district to lawsuits (e.g., under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for due process breaches or stigma from unproven claims).
No automatic sealing under CPLR 63-A; the district’s “expectation” lacks legal basis without a proper request.
The email’s timing and wording seem designed to manage optics after exposure, rather than proactively fix the issue.

If it was truly a mistake, the district could have moved faster post-notification. Instead, the sequence allowed public viewing for nearly two weeks, raising ethical questions about using confidential student records to influence community opinion.

Interview Guide for Dr. Champs

How does the district balance the need for community transparency on safety matters with the legal requirements to protect student privacy, especially in cases like this ERPO?
Can you walk me through the process your team followed when preparing the ERPO filing on December 5, particularly regarding the sections for requesting seals on sensitive attachments like student records?
In your email, you mentioned an expectation that the records would be sealed upon filing—can you elaborate on what informed that expectation and any communications with the court about it?
In the filing, the box for requesting certain attachments to be sealed was checked, but the specific attachment numbers weren’t listed—could you explain what led to that and how it was handled afterward?
When the Legal Aid Society filed their motion on December 9 highlighting privacy concerns with the unsealed records, what steps did the district take in response to address the sealing at that point?
Following the court conference on December 12, where the issue of unsealed records was presumably discussed, can you describe any immediate actions the district pursued to rectify the situation?
Were you aware on the 15th that I had published an article based on the records and what steps did you take at that time?
Your email to the community on December 16 stated that the sealing issue ‘has now been rectified’—could you clarify the timeline of when the sealing request was actually submitted and approved by the court?
Looking back, what lessons has the district learned from this experience about handling sensitive student information in court filings, and are there any changes to protocols you’re considering?\
If similar situations arise in the future, what additional measures might the district implement to ensure sensitive details remain private from the outset?

This article was drafted with the aid of Grok, an AI tool by xAI, under the direction and editing of Robert Cox to ensure accuracy and adherence to journalistic standards.

Discover more from Talk of the Sound

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.