Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Plea in Abatement, with exhibits¶
Bass v. D'Agostino and McSween, No. DC-2025-CV-1817 / No. 15-26-00132-CV · 2026-03-03 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Filed 3/3/2026 7:16 AM
Sara L. Smith
Lubbock County - 237th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
TB
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARRIN D'AGOSTINO, D.O.,
M.P.H., M.B.A., in his official
capacity as Provost and Executive
Vice President of Academics of Texas
Tech University Health Sciences
Center; and
AMANDA McSWEEN, in her official
capacity as Managing Director of
Enrollment Services and University
Registrar of Texas Tech University
Health Sciences Center,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PLEA TO THE
JURISDICTION AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PLEA IN ABATEMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, respectfully files this Response
to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Plea in Abatement (the "Plea"),
filed February 9, 2026, and would show the Court as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
This case asks a single question: Must TTUHSC officials perform the ministerial
record-inspection and correction/annotation procedure that state law and their own published
policy require?
Defendants do not answer that question. Instead, they recast this narrow,
procedure-only suit as a collateral attack on the underlying disciplinary decision. It is not.
Plaintiff seeks only prospective injunctive relief compelling Defendants to implement a
1
120
workable,
non-unduly-burdensome
education-record
inspection/review
and
correction/annotation procedure required by Texas Government Code Section 559.004 and
TTUHSC's own published policy, HSC OP 77.13. No damages are sought. No federal claims
are asserted. No challenge to record accuracy or the underlying decision is made in this action.
Defendants' Plea fails for four independent reasons:
First, the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity applies because Section 559.004
and OP 77.13 impose non-discretionary ministerial duties that Defendants have failed to
perform. Defendants' Plea never addresses either provision.
Second, the claims are ripe because OP 77.13's 45-day inspection/review window
expired on February 13, 2026--four days after Defendants filed this Plea--without Defendants
completing the procedure.
Third, the Plea in Abatement lacks statutory foundation because Rule 93(3) applies
only to suits pending "in this State," not to pending federal actions, and is independently
defective because it was not verified as Rule 93 requires.
Fourth, even if properly raised, abatement is unwarranted because this state action and
the separately filed federal action assert entirely different claims, under different law, seeking
different relief, and--after Plaintiff's January 22, 2026 nonsuit of all defendants except
D'Agostino and McSween--against a different defendant configuration.
Plaintiff requests oral argument on this matter.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. TTUHSC is a "state governmental body" within the meaning of Texas Government Code
Section 559.001. Pet. ¶9.
2. Texas Government Code Section 559.004 provides:
"A state governmental body shall establish a reasonable procedure under
which an individual is entitled to have the body correct information
about the individual that is incorrect. The procedure may not unduly
1
burden an individual who wishes to correct information."
2
121
3. TTUHSC has published HSC OP 77.13, its Student Education Records policy, which
implements Section 559.004 for student education records. Pet. ¶¶11-12; Exhibit A. OP
77.13 uses mandatory language throughout:
a. The records custodian must "arrange access" for inspection and
review within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a written request and
"notify the student of the time and place" for inspection. Pet. ¶11(a).
b. If a student is uncertain where records are maintained, the student
"may submit a written request for assistance to the EVPA." The EVPA
is to provide written assistance identifying the custodial office(s). Pet.
¶12.
c. OP 77.13 requires the student to identify the part of the record at issue
"as precisely as possible" and specify the basis for requesting
amendment or annotation. Pet. ¶11(b), (e).
d. If amendment is denied, the student has a right to "request a hearing"
under OP 77.13, which the EVPA "must arrange" and for which the
President "must appoint" the hearing official. Pet. ¶11(c).
e. A post-decision dispute-statement remedy requires that a student's
written statement "be maintained" with the contested portion and
"disclosed whenever the contested portion is disclosed." Pet. ¶11(d).
4. On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a written request invoking OP 77.13 and Section
559.004 to inspect and review education-record materials relating to his transcript
notation "Administrative Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024" and to initiate the
correction/annotation process. Pet. ¶13; Exhibit B.
4A. Before Plaintiff's formal request, TTUHSC offered limited, time-restricted remote
inspection/review
sessions
and
imposed
restrictions
prohibiting
recording,
photographing, or otherwise capturing the content shown. In a one-hour remote session
on December 12, 2025, Plaintiff was able to review only approximately 20 items from
the responsive set that ultimately comprised approximately 1,600 records. At least one
remote session was offered with less than 24 hours' notice. Pet. ¶14.
5. TTUHSC's Registrar's office initially scheduled three escorted, in-person inspection
sessions (January 5, 6, and 8, 2026) (Exhibits F, G); a fourth session on January 7 was
added at Plaintiff's request after learning of an opening (Exhibit K). All sessions ran
3
122
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., under the following restrictions:
a. No copies of any document (Exhibit C); b. No third-party observer
(Exhibits E, G); c. No audio recording (Exhibits E, G); d. No spouse as
observer, even with a signed FERPA § 99.30 consent form (Exhibits E,
G); e. A TTUHSC staff escort present at all times, door required to
remain open, and the inspection laptop required to be provided to the
escort any time Plaintiff left the room (Exhibit F); and f. A forfeiture
threat: "Failure to follow the established protocol will result in you
forfeiting the ability to review your record until you can comply with
the protocol." (Exhibit E.)
Pet. ¶¶16-19; Exhibits C, E, F, G, K.
6. Under these restrictions, Plaintiff cannot efficiently identify document locations and record
components
"as
precisely
as
possible"
as
OP
77.13
requires
for
an
amendment/annotation request. Pet. ¶¶15-22; Exhibit H.
7. OP 77.13's 45-day window from December 30, 2025 expired on February 13, 2026. As of
that date, Defendants had not completed the inspection/review process, had not issued
any written response to Plaintiff's request, and had not scheduled any hearing under OP
77.13. Pet. ¶¶15, 30. As of February 22, 2026--nine days past the deadline--Defendants
have still not responded, and Plaintiff has documented the continued non-compliance in
writing. Exhibit D.
8. On January 20, 2026, the Registrar's office responded to Plaintiff's initial
amendment/annotation submission with "rejected...resubmit"--declining to process the
request on formatting grounds without issuing a substantive written decision under OP
77.13. The published policy contemplates that the records custodian will either grant
the requested amendment, deny it and notify the student in writing, or refer the matter
for a hearing. "Rejected for formatting" without substantive guidance is not an
authorized disposition under OP 77.13; it is a refusal to enter the procedure at all.
9. On January 26, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a Step-2 written request under OP 77.13 and
Section 559.004 to Dr. Erin Justyna (TTUHSC Associate Vice President/Provost),
requesting amendment and/or annotation of the transcript notation "Administrative
4
123
Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024." Exhibit I. Defendant D'Agostino (Provost) and
Defendant McSween (Registrar) were both copied on this request. The same day,
Plaintiff forwarded the request to TTUHSC's Office of General Counsel for
counsel-level coordination. As of the date of this filing, no response has been received
from any recipient.
10. On January 27, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a 22-item punch list to the Registrar identifying,
by TTUHSC production number (Bass_####), records that were referenced in the
materials produced during the January 5-8 inspection but either not produced at all or
not produced in a format permitting meaningful review. Exhibit J. No response has
been received.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A plea to the jurisdiction challenges the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Tex.
Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (Tex. 2004). This Court applies
a two-step analysis:
Step 1: When the plea challenges only the sufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings, the
court construes the pleadings liberally in the plaintiff's favor, accepts all factual allegations as
true, and determines whether the plaintiff has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the
court's jurisdiction. Id. at 226; County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002).
1 Section 559.004 uses both mandatory ("shall") and prohibitory ("may not") language, creating dual
obligations: the governmental body must establish the procedure and must not impose undue burdens. This
statute is part of Chapter 559 of the Texas Government Code (State Government Privacy Policies), enacted
by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1059, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Plaintiff invokes Section 559.004 as an
independent state-law obligation, not as a mechanism for enforcing the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act ("FERPA"). FERPA creates no private right of action. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273,
290 (2002). FERPA sets a floor, not a ceiling, for student record-access rights, and its savings clauses
expressly preserve more-protective state law. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1), (i)(2). Section 559.004 operates
independently of and complementarily to FERPA; a state law that reinforces a student's right to inspect and
correct his own records runs with FERPA, not against it.
5
124
Step 2: When the plea is supported by evidence, the evidentiary standard mirrors that of
a traditional motion for summary judgment. The court considers the relevant evidence, takes
evidence favorable to the nonmovant as true, and indulges every reasonable inference in the
nonmovant's favor. If a genuine issue of material fact exists, the plea cannot be granted.
Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28.
Importantly, if the plaintiff's pleadings are deficient but do not affirmatively negate
jurisdiction, the court must provide the plaintiff an opportunity to amend before dismissing.
Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 555.
Defendants' Plea here presents only legal argument and attaches no jurisdictional
evidence beyond Plaintiff's own earlier petition and the parallel federal filings. This case is
therefore governed by Step 1: the Court should construe Plaintiff's live Fourth Amended
Petition liberally, accept its allegations as true, and determine whether it affirmatively
demonstrates jurisdiction.
IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. THE ULTRA VIRES EXCEPTION APPLIES BECAUSE DEFENDANTS HAVE
FAILED TO PERFORM NON-DISCRETIONARY MINISTERIAL DUTIES
IMPOSED BY STATUTE AND PUBLISHED POLICY
Sovereign immunity does not bar suit where a plaintiff alleges that state officials have
acted ultra vires--that is, "without legal authority" or in failure to "perform a ministerial act."
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009). The Texas Supreme Court has
repeatedly confirmed that the ultra vires exception reaches official conduct that conflicts with
mandatory statutory or regulatory requirements, even where the official possesses some degree
of related discretion. See Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d
154, 163 (Tex. 2016); Hensley v. State Comm'n on Judicial Conduct, 692 S.W.3d 184 (Tex.
2024).
6
125
Defendants argue that academic decisions are discretionary. Plea at 5-7 (citing Ewing,
Than, Anderson). Those cases are inapposite. Ewing, Than, and Alcorn involved courts asked
to second-guess substantive academic judgments--grade assignments, program admissions,
degree denials. Plaintiff does not challenge any academic or disciplinary determination in this
proceeding. He asks only that Defendants follow their own published procedures for records
inspection and amendment--ministerial obligations that exist regardless of the content of any
education record or the nature of any underlying institutional decision. Whether the transcript
notation reflects an academic decision, a conduct decision, or something else entirely is
irrelevant to whether Defendants must allow inspection under Section 559.004 and process
amendment requests under OP 77.13.
Ultra vires claims turn on the scope of the official's legal authority, not the quality of
the official's substantive decisions. See Hartzell v. S.O., 672 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2023);
Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372. This Court need not evaluate any substantive judgment to
determine whether Defendants have performed the procedural steps that Section 559.004 and
OP 77.13 require.
1. Section 559.004 Imposes a Mandatory, Non-Discretionary Statutory Duty
Texas Government Code Section 559.004 provides that a state governmental body
"shall establish a reasonable procedure" for record correction and that the procedure "may not
unduly burden" an individual. This is classic mandatory, non-discretionary statutory language.
"Shall" in Texas statutes ordinarily imposes a mandatory duty. Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins,
47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001) ("[S]hall" and "must" "are generally recognized as mandatory,
creating a duty or obligation.").
The Texas Supreme Court has held that where a statute uses "shall" and "contains no
indication that the [agency] is to conduct any form of review, deliberation, or judgment in
exercising its...obligation," the resulting duty is ministerial, not discretionary. Sw. Bell Tel.,
LP v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2015). Section 559.004 fits this framework precisely: it
7
126
commands ("shall establish"), confers an entitlement ("entitled to have...correct"), and
constrains ("may not unduly burden")-- leaving no discretion about whether to provide a
workable correction procedure.
The official may exercise judgment about the specific format of the procedure--but
whether to provide a workable, reasonable, non-unduly-burdensome procedure at all is not
discretionary. This is the distinction between "whether to implement" (ministerial) and "how to
implement" (discretionary). Plaintiff challenges only the former. Separately, Section 559.004
also imposes an independent, non-discretionary constraint: the procedure "may not unduly
burden an individual who wishes to correct information." This prohibition is self-executing
and ministerial--it does not invite the governmental body to balance interests or exercise
judgment about what constitutes an "undue" burden. Defendants offered an inspection format
that prohibited copies of any document, prohibited audio recording, prohibited a third-party
observer, and prohibited Plaintiff's spouse from attending even with a signed FERPA § 99.30
consent form. Pet. ¶¶16-19; Exhibits C, E, G. These cumulative restrictions required Plaintiff
to review approximately 1,600 records and a 14-hour hearing video--whose audio record
displayed apparent discontinuities upon prior review--across four escorted sessions while
relying entirely on handwritten notes, with the laptop provided to the escort each time Plaintiff
left the room. Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to review the video recording in full. This
format made it structurally impossible to identify record components "as precisely as possible"
as OP 77.13 requires for an amendment/annotation request. Pet. ¶¶15-22; Exhibit H. Before the
formal request, TTUHSC's remote format had permitted review of approximately 20 items in
one hour--structurally incapable of covering the responsive set. Pet. ¶14.
Whether this format constitutes an "undue burden" under Section 559.004 is a legal
question this Court can resolve without evaluating any substantive disciplinary determination.
2. OP 77.13 Is TTUHSC's Own "Enabling Law" and Constrains Defendants' Discretion
8
127
TTUHSC has published HSC OP 77.13, its Student Education Records policy, as the
implementing mechanism for Section 559.004's record-correction duty. OP 77.13 uses
mandatory language: the records custodian must "arrange access" within 45 days; the EVPA
"must arrange" a hearing upon request; the President "must appoint" a hearing official. These
are "shall" and "must" obligations--not discretionary guidelines.
Under Houston Belt, OP 77.13 functions as Defendants' own "enabling law"--the
published framework that defines and limits their authority over the record-inspection
procedure. Officials whose discretion is limited by their enabling law act ultra vires when they
exceed those bounds or act "without reference to or in conflict with the constraints of the law
authorizing the official to act." Houston Belt, 487 S.W.3d at 163. Just as the drainage-fee
official in Houston Belt could not disregard his own ordinance's definitions, Defendants cannot
disregard their own policy's mandatory procedural steps.
This is not a case like Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. 2017), where the
official was interpreting an external "collateral" law (FERPA) under a delegation of
unconstrained discretion. Here, the officials are refusing to follow their own published
procedure and a state statute that directly commands their conduct. OP 77.13 is the enabling
law, not a collateral statute requiring interpretation.
As implemented through OP 77.13, each Defendant bears a specific ministerial role:
- D'Agostino (EVPA): Provide written assistance identifying custodial offices when
requested; arrange any hearing triggered by a denial of amendment. Pet. ¶¶2, 12,
33(b).
- McSween (Registrar): Arrange inspection/review access for transcript-related
records; accept and process amendment/annotation requests; issue written
responses. Pet. ¶¶2, 33(a), (c), (d).
These are not "quintessential discretionary institutional judgments" (Plea at 5). They
are procedural processing steps that OP 77.13 assigns to specific offices in mandatory terms.
9
128
3. The Texas Supreme Court Has Confirmed That Even Bounded Discretion Supports
Ultra Vires Claims
The Texas Supreme Court's most recent ultra vires decision confirms that this claim
survives a plea to the jurisdiction. In Hensley v. State Comm'n on Judicial Conduct, 692
S.W.3d 184 (Tex. 2024), the Court held that where an official's discretion is "necessarily of the
limited sort" because a statute constrains its exercise, "a claim that alleges that the [challenged
action] violated [the statute] is a sufficient ultra vires allegation to survive a plea to the
jurisdiction." Id. As the Court has elsewhere stated: "A public officer has no discretion or
authority to misinterpret the law." Houston Belt, 487 S.W.3d at 163.
Here, even if Defendants possess some discretion in how they administer education
records, their discretion is "necessarily of the limited sort" because Section 559.004 mandates
that the procedure be reasonable and not unduly burdensome, and OP 77.13 prescribes specific
steps with specific deadlines. Officials cannot invoke discretion to refuse to perform duties that
their own enabling law makes mandatory. See Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation Dist. v.
State, 575 S.W.3d 339 (Tex. 2019) (officials who exceed boundaries defined by their enabling
legislation shed sovereign immunity protection).
4. Defendants' Plea Never Addresses Section 559.004 or OP 77.13
Defendants' Plea does not quote, cite, or analyze Section 559.004. It does not quote,
cite, or analyze OP 77.13. It does not address the mandatory statutory language ("shall,"
"entitled," "may not") or the mandatory policy language ("must arrange," "must appoint"). It
does not address the Houston Belt or Hensley frameworks.
Instead,
Defendants
argue
generically
that
"academic
discipline,
transcript
designations, and student status determinations are quintessential discretionary institutional
judgments." Plea at 5. This conflates two fundamentally different things: (1) the substantive
decision about what a record should say (discretionary), and (2) the obligation to run the
inspection, review, and correction/annotation procedure at all (ministerial).
10
129
Plaintiff challenges only the latter. The petition repeatedly states--in its title, its firewall
clause (¶7), its factual section (¶¶9-30), and its prayer (¶40)--that Plaintiff does not ask this
Court to decide whether any record is accurate, to direct any substantive change to the
transcript, or to second-guess any substantive disciplinary determination. Plaintiff asks only
that Defendants implement the procedure their own policy requires.
Defendants' silence on Section 559.004 is telling. Plaintiff's petition identifies Section
559.004 as the primary statutory basis for his claims. Pet. ¶¶9-10. Defendants' Plea does not
address it. A plea to the jurisdiction that fails to engage with the statute at the heart of the
plaintiff's claim effectively concedes that the statute imposes the duties the plaintiff alleges.
See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 (the burden shifts to the governmental unit to establish the
plea's meritorious basis).
More than silent, Defendants' own position in their parallel federal filing affirmatively
contradicts their "no ministerial duty" claim here. In their Motion to Dismiss filed January 21,
2026--nineteen days before filing this Plea--Defendants told the federal court that "even if the
hearing did not comply with the procedures set forth in the Student Handbook (which it did)."
Plea, Ex. 3 at 15 (parenthetical in original). That concession-- "(which it did)"--presupposes
that Handbook procedures impose obligations specific enough to comply with. Compliance is
a concept that applies only to mandatory requirements. Officials do not "comply with"
discretionary guidelines; they either follow them or they do not. If the Student Handbook
procedures are specific enough for Defendants to tell a federal court they complied with them,
those procedures are ministerial duties under Heinrich--not "discretionary institutional
judgments."
Defendants further told the federal court that "Plaintiff's eleventh-hour request
prevented Defendants from completing the interactive process contemplated by federal law
and TTUHSC policy." Plea, Ex. 3 at 9. This sentence acknowledges that TTUHSC policy
mandates an interactive process--a process sufficiently obligatory that Defendants cite its
11
130
existence as a defense. If TTUHSC policy creates obligations mandatory enough to serve as a
shield in federal court, those same obligations are ministerial duties under Heinrich in this
Court. Defendants cannot tell one court that their policies impose mandatory procedures they
diligently followed while telling another court--nineteen days later--that no ministerial duties
exist.
5. Defendants' Characterization of Plaintiff's Claims as a "Disguised Merits Challenge"
Is Incorrect
Defendants assert that "the relief sought necessarily implicates TTUHSC's disciplinary
dismissal and transcript notation" and that Plaintiff "cannot circumvent sovereign immunity by
recasting that same academic controversy as a ministerial records dispute." Plea at 5-6.
This mischaracterizes the petition. The relief Plaintiff seeks is an order compelling
Defendants to provide a workable inspection/review opportunity and to process Plaintiff's
amendment/annotation request through the OP 77.13 procedure. This order would not require
the Court to evaluate any substantive disciplinary judgment, alter any transcript notation,
reverse any outcome, or direct any substantive change to any record. It would require only that
Defendants run the procedure their own policy prescribes--and leave the substantive outcome
of that procedure entirely to TTUHSC in this action.
Indeed, Defendants' own position in federal court confirms that a procedure-only order
poses no threat to their substantive determinations. In the federal action, Defendants assert that
the transcript notation is "[a]n accurate description of a student's enrollment status or
disciplinary outcome." Plea, Ex. 3 at 14. If Defendants are confident the notation is accurate,
they should have no objection to the OP 77.13 amendment/annotation procedure running its
course--the procedure would confirm accuracy. Defendants' simultaneous insistence that the
records are accurate and refusal to allow the procedure that would verify accuracy are
inconsistent positions.
12
131
The Texas Supreme Court addressed the procedure-versus-merits distinction in the
university context in Hartzell v. S.O., 672 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2023). There, students challenged
university officials' conduct in connection with degree revocation proceedings. The university
argued that the claims targeted academic judgment. The Court rejected that argument, allowing
procedural challenges to proceed. The Court permitted claims alleging that the university
"conducted [proceedings] in an ad hoc manner" without adequate notice or impartial
decision-makers--procedural challenges, not merits challenges. Hartzell, 672 S.W.3d 304; see
also Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232, 234 (Tex. 2017) ("Ultra vires claims depend on the
scope of a state official's authority.").
Plaintiff's claim is narrower than the claims that survived in Hartzell. Plaintiff does not,
in this state-court proceeding, challenge the conduct of any hearing or the quality of any
decision. Plaintiff challenges only the refusal to run a mandatory inspection/review procedure
at all. If procedural challenges to how a university conducted adversarial proceedings survive a
plea to the jurisdiction under Hartzell, then a challenge to a university's refusal to provide any
procedure at all survives a fortiori.
6. The Cases Defendants Cite Are Inapposite
Defendants cite Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985), and
University of Tex. Med. Sch. at Houston v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1995), for the
proposition that academic decisions are discretionary and entitled to judicial deference. Plea at
5-6. Those cases are inapposite here because Plaintiff does not, in this proceeding, challenge
any substantive disciplinary decision. Ewing involved a court reviewing the merits of a
student's academic performance. Than involved a court reviewing a medical school's
disciplinary dismissal of a student for academic dishonesty. Neither case involved a state
official's refusal to run a mandatory statutory record-inspection procedure.
Defendants also cite Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex.
1991), for the definition of a ministerial act: one where "the law clearly spells out the duty to
13
132
be performed by the official with sufficient certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of
discretion." That definition supports Plaintiff's position. Section 559.004 prescribes that a
governmental body "shall" establish a "reasonable procedure" that "may not unduly burden" an
individual. OP 77.13 prescribes that the records custodian must "arrange access" within 45
days. There is no discretion about whether to comply with these mandates.
7. Alcorn v. Vaksman Does Not Apply to Procedure-Only Claims
Defendants cite Alcorn v. Vaksman, 877 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.]
1994, writ denied), for the proposition that courts defer to academic judgments. Alcorn
involved a graduate student's expulsion from a doctoral program where the trial court found the
dismissal was motivated by bad faith and violated the student's constitutional rights. Id.
Plaintiff does not, in this proceeding, challenge any substantive disciplinary judgment. Plaintiff
challenges only Defendants' failure to perform the ministerial record-inspection and
correction/annotation procedure that Section 559.004 and OP 77.13 require. Alcorn is
inapposite because it addresses the scope of judicial deference to substantive disciplinary
decisions--a question this case does not present.
B. THE CLAIMS ARE RIPE
Defendants argue that the claims are "premature" because "institutional review
processes concerning education records remain ongoing and available." Plea at 7. This
assertion is factually incorrect.
OP 77.13 provides that the records custodian must "arrange access" for inspection and
review within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a proper written request. Pet. ¶11(a). Plaintiff
submitted his written request on December 30, 2025. Pet. ¶13. The 45-day window expired on
February 13, 2026--four days after Defendants filed this Plea. The timing is significant:
Defendants filed their ripeness challenge on February 9, 2026, while the 45-day administrative
window was still open--then allowed the deadline to lapse without completing the procedure.
Having chosen to seek dismissal rather than comply, Defendants cannot now argue that the
14
133
administrative process "remains available."
As of February 13, 2026:
- Defendants had not completed the inspection/review process under a
workable format; - Defendants had not issued any written response to
Plaintiff's amendment/annotation request; - Defendants had not
scheduled any hearing under OP 77.13; - The escorted-session format
Defendants offered--no copies, no recording, no observer, no spouse,
mandatory laptop return to escort upon leaving the room, and a
forfeiture threat--made it structurally impossible for Plaintiff to
complete inspection/review and identify record items "as precisely as
possible" within the 45-day window. Pet. ¶¶15-22, 30; and - Defendants
have not proposed any alternative arrangement--such as secure portal
access, electronic copies, or any other format--to allow completion. Pet.
¶29.
The 45-day deadline has passed. The procedure has not been completed. On February
22, 2026, Plaintiff sent a written follow-up to the Registrar documenting the deadline lapse and
requesting written confirmation of how TTUHSC intends to comply; no response has been
received. Exhibit D. Meanwhile, the disputed transcript notation is republished to third parties
each time an official transcript is requested or issued--a continuing harm that compounds with
each day the procedure remains incomplete. Pet. ¶10. The administrative process is not
"ongoing and available"--it has lapsed without result.
Moreover, the inspection/review process is not the only avenue that has lapsed. On
January 26, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a Step-2 written amendment/annotation request under OP
77.13 to Dr. Justyna, with both named Defendants copied. Exhibit I. As of the date of this
filing, the Step-2 request has been pending for thirty-five days with no written decision, no
hearing scheduled, and no written response of any kind from any recipient--including the two
named Defendants. On January 27, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a detailed 22-item punch list with
TTUHSC production numbers for records referenced but not produced during the January 5-8
inspection. Exhibit J. No response has been received.
The record thus reflects that Defendants have failed to perform three distinct
ministerial obligations: (1) arranging a workable inspection/review format within 45 days; (2)
15
134
processing Plaintiff's Step-2 amendment/annotation request to a written decision; and (3)
producing records that were referenced in their own production but not themselves produced.
Each is a separate ministerial duty under OP 77.13, and each remains unperformed.
This is not a case where the plaintiff seeks judicial intervention before the agency has
reached a final position. The institution's own deadline has passed without compliance. The
dispute is ripe.
Defendants themselves have foreclosed the administrative avenue by offering only an
inspection format that was structurally incapable of allowing completion within OP 77.13's
time limits. When the governmental body itself renders the administrative process unavailable
through its own procedural choices, the resulting dispute is ripe for judicial resolution.
Defendants cite Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Southeast Texas, Inc.,
971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998), for the proposition that claims must be ripe before judicial
intervention. Patterson's ripeness standard requires that the plaintiff's injury be "concrete" and
not contingent on future events. Id. at 442. That standard is satisfied here. The 45-day deadline
has passed. The procedure has not been completed. The injury is not speculative or
contingent--it has already occurred. Patterson supports Plaintiff's position, not Defendants'.
Defendants also cite Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services v. Mega
Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 198 (Tex. 2004), for the proposition that an agency must
reach a "final, definitive position" before judicial intervention is appropriate. Here, the 45-day
deadline has passed without a written decision, Defendants filed this Plea seeking dismissal
rather than completing the procedure, and no alternative inspection format has been proposed.
That is a final position.
Moreover, Defendants' ripeness argument is circular: they argue that administrative
review "remains available" while simultaneously asserting that sovereign immunity bars this
Court from ordering them to provide that review. Defendants cannot claim that Plaintiff must
exhaust a procedure that Defendants themselves refuse to implement.
16
135
Defendants' cross-forum positioning further undermines their ripeness claim. In the
parallel federal action, Defendants told the federal court that "Plaintiff exhausted the
administrative appeal process afforded to him" and that the relief Plaintiff requests is "largely
tethered to the already-completed December 2023 hearing." Plea, Ex. 3 at 10. The
federal-court frame is that institutional processes are complete--there is nothing left to do.
Nineteen days later, Defendants told this Court that "institutional review processes concerning
education records remain ongoing and available" and that "no final institutional refusal has
occurred." Plea at 7. The state-court frame is that institutional processes are ongoing--Plaintiff
has not finished. Defendants cannot simultaneously characterize TTUHSC's administrative
processes as exhausted (to defeat federal standing) and ongoing (to defeat state ripeness).
Either the processes are complete or they are not.
C. THE PLEA IN ABATEMENT IS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE AND
SUBSTANTIVELY UNWARRANTED
1. The Plea in Abatement Lacks Statutory Foundation and Is Procedurally Defective
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 93(3) requires verification for a plea asserting "[t]hat
there is another suit pending in this State between the same parties involving the same claim."
Defendants' Plea in Abatement fails under this rule for two independent reasons.
First, Rule 93(3) by its plain text applies only to suits pending "in this State"--that is, in
Texas state courts. The federal action Defendants cite (Civil Action No. 5:25-cv00244-H-BV) is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas--a federal court, not a court of this State. Texas procedural law consistently
distinguishes between "this State" (state courts) and federal courts. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code § 71.051(b) (distinguishing suits "in this state" from suits "in a forum other than
this state"); Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a (distinguishing "courts of this state" from other courts). No
Texas authority has held that "in this State" under Rule 93(3) encompasses federal courts
sitting in Texas. If it does not, then Rule 93(3) provides no statutory basis for a plea in
17
136
abatement premised on a pending federal action, and the plea fails as a matter of law.
Second, even if Rule 93(3) encompasses federal actions, Defendants' Plea in
Abatement is not verified. It contains no affidavit, no jurat, no verification language, and no
sworn statement. The Plea concludes with a standard attorney signature block and certificate of
service. See Plea at 10-12. Failure to verify a plea required to be verified under Rule 93
constitutes waiver of the defense. See Huddleston v. Case Power Equip. Co., 748 S.W.2d 102
(Tex. App.--Dallas 1988, writ denied) (holding that failure to file a sworn denial under Rule 93
waived the right to introduce evidence disputing the matter); see also John Flood of DC Inc. v.
Supermedia, L.L.C., 408 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2013, pet. denied) (when a matter
falls within Rule 93, a general denial is insufficient and verification is required). An unverified
Rule 93 plea is not presumed to be true; the matter is deemed admitted, and the admission is
conclusive.
Moreover, Defendants' own Plea acknowledges that this Court was the first to acquire
jurisdiction (November 5, 2025, vs. the federal filing on November 7, 2025). Under Texas's
dominant-jurisdiction rule, if either case should be abated on grounds of duplicative litigation,
it is the subsequently filed federal action--not this one. Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760
S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex. 1988).
The Plea in Abatement should be denied or struck on these grounds alone.
2. Even If Properly Raised, Abatement Is Unwarranted
Regardless of whether the Court treats the plea in abatement as governed by Rule 93(3)
or by the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket, the substantive standard is identical:
abatement requires pending suits involving the same parties and the same controversy. Curtis
v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex. 1974); Wyatt, 760 S.W.2d at 248. Neither condition is
met.
Defendants argue that this state action is "duplicative" of the separately filed federal
action (Civil Action No. 5:25-cv- 00244-H-BV) and should be abated. Plea at 8-9. This
18
137
argument fails because the two cases have no overlap in claims, legal theories, or requested
relief.
On January 22, 2026--simultaneously with the filing of the Fourth Amended
Petition--Plaintiff nonsuited all defendants except D'Agostino and McSween without
prejudice. The remaining configuration demonstrates the absence of duplication:
STATE CASE
FEDERAL CASE
Defendants
2 (D'Agostino, McSween)
13+ (TTUHSC + 12+ individuals)
Capacity
Official only
Individual + Official
Claims
Ultra vires (state law) Sec. 559.004
(state statute)
Sec. 504, ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
First Amendment
Relief
Procedure-only injunction
Damages + injunctive
Damages
None
Yes
Federal claims
None
Yes
Legal theories
State ultra vires
Federal constitutional/ statutory
The state case seeks only to compel TTUHSC officials to run the OP 77.13
record-inspection and correction/annotation procedure--as the Fourth Amended Petition's
"FIREWALL / PROCEDURE-ONLY SCOPE LOCK" (¶7) expressly confirms, disclaiming in
this state-court proceeding any challenge to record accuracy, any adjudication of the
underlying disciplinary decision, and any federal cause of action.
The federal case asserts constitutional and statutory claims for disability
discrimination, retaliation, due process violations, and name-clearing relief. These are
complementary, not duplicative.
3. The Interrelationship Test Does Not Support Abatement
Defendants cite In re J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2016) for the
proposition that courts examine whether controversies are "inherently interrelated." But the
test for abatement requires more than a shared factual background--it requires that the cases
involve "the same parties" and "the same controversy." Curtis, 511 S.W.2d at 267; see also
19
138
Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex. 1988).
After the nonsuit, the parties are not the same: the state case names two officials; the
federal case names the institutional entity and twelve-plus individuals. The controversy is not
the same: the state case challenges only post-December 30, 2025 procedural implementation;
the federal case challenges a disciplinary process and its continuing effects dating from late
2023. The legal theories are not the same: the state case asserts state ultra vires and Section
559.004; the federal case asserts federal constitutional and statutory claims. The relief is not
the same: the state case seeks only a procedure-only injunction; the federal case seeks damages
and broader injunctive relief.
Defendants' assertion that D'Agostino and McSween appear in both suits (Plea at 8)
does not establish duplication. The two officials are sued in different capacities (official only
in state court vs. individual and official in federal court), on different legal theories, for
different relief. Overlapping party names do not make different lawsuits duplicative when the
claims, legal theories, and relief sought are entirely distinct.
4. The "Claim-Splitting" Argument Is Inapplicable
Defendants assert that Plaintiff "divided a single disciplinary controversy into dual
sovereign forums within forty-eight hours" and that "claim-splitting" warrants abatement. Plea
at 9. This argument fails for three independent reasons.
First, claim-splitting is a branch of res judicata (claim preclusion) that bars a second
suit after the first has reached a final judgment on the merits. See Pierce v. Reynolds, 329
S.W.2d 250 (Tex. 1959); Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex. 1992).
Where both suits remain pending with no final judgment in either, the claim-preclusion
framework has no application. The proper mechanism for addressing pending parallel suits is a
plea in abatement--which, as shown above, fails both procedurally (for lack of verification
under Rule 93) and substantively (because the cases do not involve the same parties, the same
claims, or the same relief).
20
139
Second, the cases Defendants cite do not support the argument. Van Dyke v. Boswell,
O'Toole, Davis & Pickering, 697 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. 1985), addressed whether a trial court
could grant separate trials on a claim and counterclaim within a single lawsuit and then use
collateral estoppel from the first trial to preclude the second. It did not involve a plaintiff filing
two separate lawsuits in two separate courts, and it does not establish a general
"claim-splitting" prohibition applicable to parallel proceedings in different sovereign forums.
Third, even if claim-splitting doctrine applied, it contains a recognized exception where
claims cannot be joined in a single proceeding due to jurisdictional limitations. The state ultra
vires claim under Section 559.004 operates through the Texas ultra vires exception to
sovereign immunity--a doctrine of Texas state law that federal courts do not apply as a basis
for jurisdiction over state officials. The federal claims (42 U.S.C. § 1983, ADA, Section 504)
require federal question jurisdiction and seek remedies (compensatory and punitive damages
against individuals) unavailable in a state ultra vires action. These claims structurally cannot
all be brought in one forum through the same procedural vehicle. Where the plaintiff has no
single forum in which all claims can be adjudicated, maintaining separate proceedings is not
"claim-splitting"--it is the necessary consequence of the jurisdictional architecture.
5. Immunity "Sequencing" Does Not Warrant Abatement
Defendants argue that the federal court is "presently considering sovereign-immunity
and qualified-immunity defenses" and that this Court should await those rulings. Plea at 9.
This argument conflates federal and state immunity doctrines. The federal court is
considering Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and qualified immunity under 42
U.S.C. § 1983--doctrines that have no application to the state ultra vires claims asserted here.
A federal court ruling on qualified immunity for individual- capacity Section 1983 claims
would have zero bearing on whether Texas officials have a ministerial duty under Section
559.004 and OP 77.13. The state ultra vires doctrine is governed exclusively by Texas
law--Heinrich, Houston Belt, Hensley--and is within this Court's sole competence to
21
140
adjudicate.
Defendants also cite Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), for the principle that
immunity is an "entitlement not to stand trial." Mitchell is a federal qualified immunity case
involving a Fourth Amendment damages claim against the former Attorney General of the
United States, addressing whether federal interlocutory appeal is available from denial of
qualified immunity. Id. at 525-26. Mitchell has no application to state ultra vires claims. The
ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity is a distinct Texas doctrine governed exclusively
by Heinrich, Houston Belt, and Hensley--not by federal qualified immunity precedent. The
mere fact that both doctrines involve some form of governmental immunity does not make
federal qualified immunity case law relevant to the state ultra vires analysis.
Defendants also cite Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004), for the
principle that immunity shields governmental entities from suit. But Sykes addressed
sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act--a context in which immunity applies
because the claims fell within the Act's framework. Here, the ultra vires exception means
immunity does not apply. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372. Sykes's holding that dismissal is with
prejudice when claims fall outside the Tort Claims Act's waiver has no bearing on ultra vires
claims, which operate outside the immunity framework entirely.
Moreover, this Court was the first to acquire jurisdiction (November 5, 2025, vs. the
federal filing on November 7, 2025). Under Texas's dominant-jurisdiction rule, the court in
which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. Wyatt,
760 S.W.2d at 247; Curtis, 511 S.W.2d at 267. Defendants do not address this principle. If
either case should be abated on grounds of duplicative litigation, it is the subsequently filed
federal action--not this one.
Finally, Defendants invoke "comity and judicial economy." Plea at 9. Comity does not
require a state court to defer to a federal court on a state-law question that the federal court has
no jurisdiction to adjudicate. The Texas ultra vires doctrine is exclusively a creature of Texas
22
141
state law, and this Court's adjudication of that doctrine neither conflicts with nor duplicates any
federal proceeding.
6. No Risk of Inconsistent Rulings
Defendants argue that parallel proceedings create a risk of "inconsistent rulings." Plea
at 9. There is no such risk here because the two courts would be adjudicating entirely different
legal questions. This Court would determine only whether Defendants must run the OP 77.13
procedure. The federal court would determine whether TTUHSC violated the ADA, Section
504, the First Amendment, and procedural due process. These are independent legal questions
with no possibility of inconsistent results. An order requiring Defendants to implement the
record-inspection procedure prescribed by their own policy cannot conflict with any ruling the
federal court might issue on constitutional or statutory claims arising from the December 2023
disciplinary proceedings.
Indeed, the only inconsistency risk runs against Defendants, not Plaintiff. Defendants
ask this Court to treat the two proceedings as "functionally duplicative" involving "the same
disciplinary nucleus." Plea at 8. Yet across those same proceedings, Defendants take
irreconcilable positions: in federal court, they assert that specific Handbook procedures exist,
that they were followed, and that TTUHSC policy mandates an interactive process (Plea, Ex. 3
at 9, 15); in this Court, they assert that "no ministerial duty exists" and that all such
determinations are "quintessential discretionary institutional judgments." Plea at 5-6.
Defendants cannot simultaneously argue that the cases present the same controversy while
taking contradictory positions across those same cases. The inconsistency confirms that each
proceeding presents distinct legal questions requiring independent adjudication--precisely the
opposite of what abatement requires.
D.
PLAINTIFF'S
PETITION
DOES
NOT
AFFIRMATIVELY
NEGATE
JURISDICTION, AND PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE GRANTED LEAVE TO
AMEND IF ANY DEFICIENCY IS FOUND
23
142
Even if this Court were to find any pleading deficiency, Plaintiff's petition does not
"affirmatively negate" jurisdiction. Under County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555
(Tex. 2002), the Court must provide the plaintiff an opportunity to amend before dismissing
where the pleadings are merely deficient rather than affirmatively negating jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's petition identifies specific statutory authority (Section 559.004), specific
policy provisions (OP 77.13), specific officials with defined ministerial roles (the EVPA and
the Registrar), specific facts demonstrating non-compliance (the escorted format, the
restrictions, the 45-day deadline expiration), and specific prospective relief (procedure-only
injunction). Any deficiency in these pleadings is curable, and Plaintiff respectfully requests
leave to amend if the Court identifies any such deficiency.
Moreover, dismissal would leave Plaintiff with no forum to enforce Section 559.004's
record-procedure obligation. The federal court does not adjudicate Texas ultra vires
claims--that doctrine operates exclusively under state law (Heinrich, Houston Belt, Hensley)
and provides no basis for federal jurisdiction over state officials. No other procedural vehicle
exists to compel state officials to perform state-law ministerial duties outside the Texas ultra
vires framework. If this Court declines jurisdiction, the Legislature's mandatory "shall
establish" and prohibitory "may not unduly burden" commands in Section 559.004 become
effectively unenforceable for this Plaintiff--a result the ultra vires exception was designed to
prevent.
V. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass respectfully
requests that this Court:
1. DENY Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction in its entirety;
2. DENY Defendants' Plea in Abatement in its entirety, or strike the Plea in Abatement as
lacking statutory foundation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 93(3) and as
24
143
procedurally defective for failure to verify;
3. In the alternative, if the Court finds any pleading deficiency, GRANT Plaintiff leave to
amend within thirty (30) days to cure any curable defect;
4. Set this matter for hearing at the Court's earliest practical availability;
5. Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which he may be justly
entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
KEVIN N. BASS (pro se)
Telephone: (512) 333-4092
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
EXHIBIT INDEX
The following exhibits are attached to this Response:
Exhibit
Description
A
HSC OP 77.13 ("Student Education Records"),
TTUHSC Operating Policy and Procedure, March 31,
2017 (full text, 9 pages)
B
Student Request to Access His/Her Education Records
form (Attachment B to OP 77.13), signed December
22, 2025, submitted December 30, 2025
C
December 3, 2025 email from Office of the Registrar
to Kevin Bass (no-copy restriction, proposed Zoom
session schedule)
D
February 22, 2026 follow-up letter from Kevin Bass to
Office of the Registrar (documenting 45-day deadline
expiration)
E
Email chain: December 30, 2025 email from Office of
the Registrar to Kevin Bass (denying observer,
recording, and spouse; threatening forfeiture of review
rights) and Kevin Bass's January 2, 2026 reply
(submitting FERPA § 99.30 consent form designating
spouse as authorized recipient; requesting written
policy basis for any refusal)
25
144
F
December 19, 2025 email from Office of the Registrar
to Kevin Bass (proposed inspection schedule, escort
protocol, open-door and laptop-surrender conditions)
G
Email chain: December 23, 2025 Registrar reschedule
from Dec 29-31 to Jan 5/6/8; Kevin Bass's December
23 and December 25, 2025 replies (confirming
attendance and requesting audio recording, remote
witness, or spouse as observer alternatives)
H
March 1, 2026 unsworn declaration of Kevin Bass re:
session limitations (~1,600 records / ~1,500 pages in 4
days, 14-hour hearing video not reviewed in full, no
alternative proposed)
I
January 26, 2026 email from Kevin Bass to Dr. Erin
Justyna (Step-2 OP 77.13 written request to
amend/annotate transcript notation "Administrative
Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024"), with CC to
Defendant D'Agostino, Defendant McSween, and
TTUS Assistant General Counsel Staugaard
J
January 27, 2026 email from Kevin Bass to Office of
the Registrar (22-item punch list identifying records
referenced but not produced during January 5-8
inspection, with TTUHSC production numbers)
K
January 6, 2026 email chain between Kevin Bass and
Office of the Registrar confirming addition of
Wednesday, January 7, 2026 (9 AM to 4 PM) to the
previously scheduled inspection sessions of January 5,
6, and 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 2, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's
Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Plea in Abatement was
served in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a upon:
Scott D. Smith
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 917-3132
Email: scott.smith@oag.texas.gov
via the electronic filing manager.
26
145
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
VERIFICATION
(Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 132.001)
My name is Kevin N. Bass. My date of birth is December 7, 1984. My address is
I declare under penalty of perjury that the factual statements in the foregoing document
are true and correct.
Executed in Lubbock County, Texas, on March 2, 2026.
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
27
146
TABLE OF CONTENTS — EXHIBITS
Bass v. D’Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
Exhibit A
HSC OP 77.13 — Student Education Records (March 31, 2017)
Exhibit B
Student Request to Access Education Records Form (Dec 22/Dec 30, 2025)
Exhibit C
Registrar Email — No-Copy Restriction & Zoom Schedule (December 3, 2025)
Exhibit D
Follow-Up Letter — 45-Day Deadline Expiration (February 22, 2026)
Exhibit E
Registrar Denials & FERPA Consent Form Submission (Dec 30, 2025 – Jan 2, 2026)
Exhibit F
Registrar Inspection Protocol (December 19, 2025)
Exhibit G
Reschedule Chain & Denied Alternatives (December 23–25, 2025)
Exhibit H
Unsworn Declaration of Kevin N. Bass (March 1, 2026)
Exhibit I
Step-2 Amendment Request to Dr. Justyna (January 26, 2026)
Exhibit J
22-Item Records Punch List (January 27, 2026)
Exhibit K
Schedule Change — January 7 Addition (January 6, 2026)
147
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT A
HSC OP 77.13 — STUDENT EDUCATION RECORDS
Date:
March 31, 2017
Description:
TTUHSC Operating Policy and Procedure governing student education records, including
inspection/review rights under FERPA, amendment/annotation procedures, and 45-day
compliance deadline. Full text, 9 pages.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
148
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER
Operating Policy and Procedure
77.13,
This Health Sciences Center Operating Policy and Procedure (HSC OP) is intended to
implement the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20
U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and other federal and state laws governing access to
and confidentiality of records and information pertaining to Students. To the extent that
there is any dispute regarding the terms and conditions of this policy, the provisions of
FERPA will prevail in each instance, notwithstanding anything in this policy which may
provide otherwise.
This HSC OP will be reviewed on March 1 of every odd-numbered year (ONY) by the
TTUHSC Registrar and the Senior Associate General Counsel, with recommendations for
revisions forwarded to the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs by May 1.
1.
a. Directory Information. “Directory Information” is information in a Student’s Education Record
that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed.
(1) The following information is designated by TTUHSC as Directory Information:
(a) Student’s name, address, previous institution(s) attended, major field of study, dates
of attendance, enrollment status (e.g., undergraduate or graduate, part-time or fulltime), classification, degree(s) conferred, date(s) of degree(s) (including degrees
from previous institutions), honors and awards (including scholarships), participation
in officially recognized activities, and postgraduate training/clinical sites for R.N., M.D.
or Ph.D. graduates and degree candidates.
(2) “Dates of Attendance” means the period of time during which a Student attends or
attended TTUHSC, such as an academic year, a spring semester, or a first quarter. The
term does not include specific daily records of a Student’s attendance at TTUHSC.
b. Education Records. “Education Records” are records that are directly related to a Student
and that are maintained by TTUHSC or by a party acting for TTUHSC. The term does not
include:
(1) Records of instructional, administrative and educational personnel that are kept in the
sole possession of the maker, are used only as a personal memory aid, and are not
accessible or revealed to any other person except a temporary substitute for the maker of
the record;
(2) Records of the Texas Tech Police Department, subject to the provisions of 34 C.F.R.
99.8;
(3) Records relating solely to an employee of TTUHSC in his/her capacity as an employee
that are not available for any other purpose, unless the Student is employed as a result of
his/her status as a Student;
(4) Student medical and counseling records created, maintained, and/or used only in
connection with providing medical treatment or counseling to the Student, that are not
disclosed to anyone other than the individuals providing the treatment; and,
(5) Alumni records or other records that contain information about an individual after he/she
is no longer a Student at that agency or institution (e.g., information gathered on the
accomplishments of alumni).
149
c.
Eligible Student. An “Eligible Student” is a Student who has reached the age of 18 or is
attending an institution of postsecondary education.
d. Legitimate Educational Interest. A “University Official” has a “Legitimate Educational Interest”
if the official is:
(1) Performing a task that is specified in his/her position description or responsibilities
designated by contract or state law;
(2) Performing a task related to a Student’s education;
(3) Performing a task related to the discipline of a Student; or,
(4) Providing a service or benefit relating to the Student or Student’s family, such as health
care, counseling, job placement, or financial aid.
Questions regarding “Legitimate Educational Interest” should be referred to the Registrar or
the Dean of the school in which the Student is enrolled. Instances of dispute regarding
“Legitimate Educational Interest” will be resolved by the Executive Vice President for
Academic Affairs.
e. Records Custodian. TTUHSC office or individual responsible for maintaining a specific
Education Record.
f.
Student. A “Student” is any individual who is or has been in attendance at TTUHSC, either
full-time or part-time, pursuing undergraduate, graduate or professional studies, and
regarding those individuals for whom TTUHSC maintains Education Records, but specifically
excluding School of Medicine House staff.
(1) “Attendance” means enrollment in a course that is taken in person, by correspondence,
electronic distance education or other means.
(2) An individual who is or has been enrolled in one component unit of TTUHSC and applies
for admission to a second unit, has no right to inspect the records accumulated by the
second unit until enrolled therein.
g. University. “University” means Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC),
inclusive of all regional sites and their components.
h. “University Official.” A “University Official” includes:
(1) A person employed by TTUHSC in an administrative, supervisory, academic, research, or
support staff position, including, but not limited to, law enforcement unit personnel and
health staff;
(2) A person or organization with whom TTUHSC has contracted, such as an attorney,
auditor, or collection agent;
(3) A Student serving on an official committee, such as a disciplinary or grievance
committee, or assisting another school official in performing his/her tasks;
(4) A person serving on the Texas Tech Board of Regents; or,
(5) A person or organization acting as an agent of TTUHSC and performing a business
function or service on behalf of the University.
2.
a. Subject to Sections 2(b)-(c) and (3) below, a Student may request that his/her Directory
Information be withheld at any time by:
(1) Submitting a written request to the TTUHSC Registrar’s Office to withhold the
information; or,
(2) Changing the Directory Information release indicator via http://webraider.ttuhsc.edu.
150
b. A request to withhold Directory Information may take up to one (1) business day to process
and may not be effective until such time.
c.
A Student’s notification to restrict the release of Directory Information will remain in effect until
the Student either:
(1) Submits written notice to the TTUHSC’s Registrar’s Office to release the information; or,
(2) Changes the Directory Information release indicator via http://webraider.ttuhsc.edu .
d. If an “Unlisted in Web Directory” is indicated in Banner for a Student, that Student’s name will
not appear in the commencement bulletin and other University publications, and employers,
credit card companies, loan agencies, friends, parents, relatives, news media and the like will
be denied any Directory Information.
e. TTUHSC may disclose Directory Information about a former Student, unless the Student, at
his or her last opportunity as a Student, requested that Directory Information not be disclosed
and the Student has not informed TTUHSC, either electronically or in writing, to the contrary.
3.
a. TTUHSC will disclose information from a Student’s Education Records only with the written
consent of the Student (Student Consent to Release Education Records form, Attachment A),
except for disclosures in the following situations.
(1) University Officials. University Officials determined by TTUHSC to have a Legitimate
Educational Interest in the records.
(2) Agents of TTUHSC. Agents acting on behalf of TTUHSC (e.g., Clearinghouses,
degree/enrollment verifiers, etc.)
(3) Officials of Another School. Officials of another school in which a Student seeks or
intends to enroll.
(4) U.S. Government Officials. Certain officials of the U.S. Department of Education, the
Comptroller General, and state and local educational authorities in connection with an
audit, authorized representatives of the U.S. Attorney General, or certain state or
federally supported education programs.
(5) Financial Aid. Individuals needing this information to determine the eligibility of a Student
for financial aid, the amount or conditions of a Student’s financial aid, or to enforce the
terms and conditions of a Student’s financial aid.
(6) State and Local Officials. State and local officials and authorities to whom disclosure is
specifically allowed pursuant to state statute adopted:
(a) before November 19, 1974, if the allowed disclosure concerns the juvenile justice
system and that system’s ability to effectively serve the Student whose records are
released; or,
(b) after November 19, 1974, if the allowed disclosure concerns the juvenile justice
system and that system’s ability to serve effectively, prior to adjudication, the Student
whose records are released, and if the officials to whom the information is disclosed
certify in writing to TTUHSC that the information will not be disclosed to any other
party without the Student’s written consent, except as provided under state law.
(7) Organizations Conducting Studies. Organizations conducting certain studies for or on
behalf of the University for those functions set forth in 34 CRF 99.31.
(8) Accrediting Organizations. Accrediting organizations to carry out their functions.
(9) Parents of Dependent. Parents, as defined in 34 CFR 99.3, of an Eligible Student who
claims the Student as a dependent for income tax purposes, provided that the parent
provides adequate written documentation of the dependent status.
(10)Subpoena or Judicial Order. Individuals requiring such information by means of a judicial
order or a lawfully issued subpoena, provided that TTUHSC makes a reasonable attempt
to inform the Student in advance of compliance with the order or subpoena. TTUHSC’s
151
notice to the Student will be in writing and inform the Student that it has received an order
or a subpoena, that it intends to comply (if it does) 14 calendar days from the date of the
notice, and that a motion to quash by the Student must be filed before the date TTUHSC
intends to comply with the order or subpoena. However, TTUHSC will not inform the
Student when:
(a) A federal grand jury subpoena and the court have ordered that the existence or the
contents of the subpoena, or the information furnished in response to the subpoena,
not be disclosed; or,
(b) Any other subpoena issued for a law enforcement purpose and the court or other
issuing agency has ordered that the existence or the contents of the subpoena, or
the information furnished in response to the subpoena, not be disclosed.
If a Records Custodian or other University Official receives a court order, a subpoena, or
similar document, such individual should immediately contact the Office of General
Counsel and the respective Dean’s Office.
(11)Health and Safety. Appropriate parties in a health or safety emergency, subject to 34
CFR 99.36.
(12)Directory Information. Individuals requesting a Student’s “Directory Information,” unless
the Student has requested such Directory Information be withheld. Refer to Section 7
above, Release of Directory Information.
(13)Parent (when Student is under 18). Parent of a Student who is not an Eligible Student.
(14)Victims – Violence or Non-forcible Sex Offenses. Alleged victims of any crime of violence
or a non-forcible sex offense, subject to the requirements in 34 CFR 99.39. The
disclosure may only include the final results of any disciplinary proceeding related to the
alleged crime or offense, regardless of whether TTUHSC concluded a violation was
committed. As used herein, the term "crime of violence" means arson, assault offenses,
burglary, criminal homicide, destruction/damage/vandalism of property,
kidnapping/abduction, robbery and forcible sex offenses, as those terms are defined by
29 CFR 99.39, and the term "non-forcible sex offense" means statutory rape or incest.
The term "final results" means a decision or determination made by any entity or
individual authorized to resolve disciplinary matters. Disclosure of final results may
include the name of the student who is the alleged perpetrator, any violation committed
and any sanction imposed (including description of disciplinary action, date imposed and
the sanction's duration).
(15)Third Parties – Violence or Non-forcible Sex Offenses. Third parties regarding the final
results of any disciplinary proceeding against a Student who is an alleged perpetrator of
any crime of violence or non-forcible sex offense, if on or after October 7, 1998, the
Student is found responsible for violating the University’s rules or policies with respect to
such crime or offense. Such disclosure shall include only the name of the Student, the
violation committed, and any sanction imposed by TTUHSC on that Student. Such
disclosure may include the name of any other Student, such as a victim or witness, only
with the written consent of that other Student.
(16)Parent or Legal Guardian – Alcohol or Drugs Violations. Parent or legal guardian of a
Student regarding information with respect to a violation of federal, state or local law, or
of any rule or policy of the University, governing the use or possession of alcohol or a
controlled substance, regardless of whether that information is contained in the Student’s
Education Records, if the Student is under the age of 21 at the time of disclosure to the
parent, and TTUHSC determines that the Student is responsible for a disciplinary
violation with respect to such use or possession.
(17)Legal Action by TTUHSC against Parent or Student. TTUHSC may disclose to the court,
without a court order or subpoena, if TTUHSC initiates legal action against a parent or
Eligible Student. TTUHSC may disclose the Education Records of a Student that are
relevant for TTUHSC to precede with legal action. In addition, if a parent or Eligible
Student initiates legal action against TTUHSC, TTUHSC may disclose to the court,
without a court order or subpoena, the Student's Education Records that are relevant for
TTUHSC to defend itself. The Office of General Counsel should be consulted before
TTUHSC discloses Education Records to a court pursuant to this section.
152
(18)Student Exchange Visitor Information System. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the purpose of complying with
Request Form ICE relative to TTUHSC’s participation in Student Exchange Visitor
Information System (SEVIS).
(19)Military Recruiters. Military recruiters who request “Student Recruiting Information” for
recruiting purposes only (Solomon Amendment, 10 U.S.C. § 983; 32 C.F.R. Part 216),
unless the Student has elected to withhold this information under Section 2 above.
Student Recruiting Information is name, address, telephone listing, age (or year of birth),
class level, major, degrees received and most recent educational institution of enrollment.
(20)Internal Revenue Service. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for purposes of
complying with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
(21)Veterans Affairs. Authorized representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs for
Students receiving educational assistance from the agency.
b. When personally identifiable information is disclosed from a Student’s Education Records
pursuant to his/her written consent, the Student may, upon request, obtain a copy of the
information disclosed.
c.
Each Records Custodian shall maintain with the Student’s Education Records documentation
for each disclosure request that he/she receives and each disclosure, except the following
disclosures:
(1) To the Student himself or herself;
(2) Pursuant to the written consent of the Student;
(3) To University Officials with Legitimate Educational Interest(s);
(4) Pursuant to a law enforcement subpoena and the issuing court or other issuing agency
has ordered that the existence or the contents of the subpoena or the information
furnished in response to the subpoena shall not be disclosed or the order concerns an
authorized investigation or prosecution of domestic or international terrorism; or,
(5) Directory Information. (34 C.F.R. 99.32).
4.
a. Education Records Subject to Inspection. With certain exceptions, a Student has the right to
inspect and review his/her Education Records.
b. Education Records
Subject to Inspection (34 C.F.R. 99.12). Some records related to a
Student may be “Education Records”, but are not subject to inspection by the Student.
TTUHSC reserves the right to refuse the inspection and review of certain records, including,
but not limited to:
(1) Financial information submitted by the Student’s parents, if applicable;
(2) Confidential letters and statements of recommendations associated with admissions,
employment or job placement, or honors, to which the Student has waived rights of
inspection and review;
(3) Confidential letters and statements of recommendation placed in the Education Records
of the Student prior to January 1, 1975, as long as the statements are used solely for the
purposes for which they were specifically intended; and,
(4) Education Records containing information regarding more than one Student, in which
case TTUHSC will permit access only to the part of the record that pertains to the
inquiring Student.
c.
Student Requests for Access of Education Records.
(1) A Student’s request for access to his/her Education Records should be made by
completing a Student Request for Access to His/Her Education Records form
153
(Attachment B) and returning the form to the Records Custodian. The Student must
identify as precisely as possible the record(s) the Student wishes to inspect.
(2) Although principal locations for Student Education Records are referenced below, a
Student is in the best position to determine which offices or officials are likely to possess
his/her Education Records. If a Student is uncertain as to what office maintains the
records at issue, the Student shall submit a written request for assistance to the
Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs.
(3) Proper photographic identification must be presented to the Records Custodian before
the documents may be reviewed.
(4) Records authorized to be disclosed under FERPA will be made available to the Student
within forty-five (45) days from the Records Custodian’s receipt of the written request. If
the records are not excepted from access, and are covered by FERPA, the Records
Custodian will make arrangements for access and notify the Student of the time and
place the records may be inspected.
(5) Copies of all written requests are to be maintained in the Student file in which the
requested educational record is maintained.
d. Principal Locations for Student Education Records. Any TTUHSC office or official may
possess an Education Record regarding a Student. A Student is in the best position to
determine which offices or officials are likely to have his/her Education Records. Records
Custodians include, but are not limited to, the following offices and/or officials:
(1) Academic Records
(a) Registrar’s Office – admission records, basic scholastic records, and disciplinary
records when a Student is placed on suspension or is dismissed;
(b) Dean’s Office for each School – academic progress and disciplinary records; or,
(c) Admissions Office for each School – admission records.
(2) Student Services Records
(a) Registered Student organizations records;
(b) Disabled Student Records (ADA); or
(c) Disciplinary records.
(3) Financial Records.
(a) Student Business Services – Student tuition and fees; or,
(b) Student Financial Aid – Student loans.
e. Copies of Education Records (34 CFR 99.10(d)).
(1) Generally, if the Education Record is covered under FERPA, the Student may inspect or
review the Education Record at the office of the Records Custodian, but does not have
the right to receive copies of the Education Record unless a Student is effectively
prevented from onsite inspection or review of his/her Education Record. The Student
may then have a right to receive copies of the Education Record at the Student’s
expense after evaluation of the circumstances by the Records Custodian.
(2) Official copies of academic records or transcripts will not be released for Students who
have a delinquent or unpaid financial obligation to the University, have a “hold” at the
University, or have an unresolved disciplinary action pending at the University, provided
that applicable law does not otherwise require disclosure of the records.
(3) While TTUHSC is not required to give student access to treatment records under FERPA
(see section 1(b)(4) above), a Student may request in writing that those records be
reviewed by a physician or other appropriate professional of the student's choice.
5.
a. Informal Discussion. A Student who believes that his/her Education Records are inaccurate
or misleading, or that the records violate his/her privacy rights, must first request an informal
discussion regarding the questionable item with the Records Custodian, who may or may not
honor the request.
154
b. Written Request to Amend Records. If the result of the informal discussion with the Records
Custodian is not satisfactory to the Student, and the Student still wishes to have the record
corrected, the Student should submit a Student Request to Amend Education Records form
(Attachment C) to the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee. The
request shall clearly identify the part of the record the Student believes should be changed,
and specify why it should be changed, i.e., why the Student believes the record is inaccurate,
misleading or in violation of his/her privacy rights.
c.
Review by the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. After receiving the written
request from the Student for a change in his/her Education Records, the Executive Vice
President for Academic Affairs (“EVPAA”) or designee shall request, and the Records
Custodian shall provide, a written statement that explains why the request for the change in
the Education Record was denied at the informal stage. After reviewing the request by the
Student and the response of the Records Custodian, the EVPAA or designee will provide
written notification to the Student whether or not TTUHSC will implement the change. If not,
the EVPAA or designee will notify the Student of the right to a hearing to challenge the
information believed by the Student to be inaccurate, misleading, or in violation of the
Student's rights.
d. Hearing Procedures (34 C.F.R. 99.22). Upon receiving a written request from the Student for
a hearing, the EVPAA or designee shall arrange for a hearing and provide written notice to
the Student reasonably in advance of the date, time and place of the hearing. The hearing
will be conducted according to the following procedures:
(1) The hearing shall be conducted by a hearing official or committee appointed by the
President or designee. Such individual(s) must have no direct interest in the outcome of
the case and shall decline to serve if a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict
of interest, exists with either the Student or the Records Custodian.
(2) At least five (5) days prior to the date scheduled for the hearing, the Student and the
Records Custodian, shall submit to each other, as well as to the hearing official or
committee, any and all pertinent documents and a list of witnesses and advisors who are
to be involved in the hearing process. The Student may, at his/her own expense, be
assisted or represented by one or more individuals of his/her own choice, including an
attorney. If the Student has an advisor, the Office of General Counsel shall represent the
University. The Student and the Records Custodian are each responsible for presenting
relevant information. Therefore, the advisors and/or attorneys for the Parties are not
permitted to speak or participate directly in the hearing.
(3) At the hearing, the Student shall have the opportunity to present evidence to support
his/her position that the content of the relevant educational record is inaccurate,
misleading and/or otherwise in violation of the privacy rights of the Student.
(4) Any additional information regarding the hearing procedures will be provided to the
Student when notified of the right to a hearing.
(5) Within seven (7) business days after the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer or
chair of the hearing committee, if applicable, will transmit the decision in writing to the
Student, the Records Custodian, and the EVPAA or designee. The decision must include
a summary of the evidence and the reasons for the decision. If, as a result of the
hearing, the hearing official or committee determines that the information in the Education
Record is not inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the privacy rights of the
Student, the Student will be notified of the right to place a statement in the record
contesting the information in the record or stating why the Student disagrees with the
155
decision of the agency or institution, or both. Any statement provided by the Student
shall be maintained with the contested portion of the record for as long as the record is
maintained. In the event the contested portion of the record is later requested, the
statement shall be disclosed with the record to the extent it pertains to the contested
portion.
6.
Students will be notified of their FERPA rights annually through the TTUHSC Student Handbook /
Code of Professional and Academic Conduct, the TTUHSC orientation process, and the Office of
the Registrar website located at http://www.ttuhsc.edu/registrar . The TTUHSC Student
Handbook and this operating policy and procedure are available in hard copy to all Students who
request it. In addition to this notice, individual TTUHSC schools may annually notify Students of
their rights under FERPA.
7.
Students shall maintain an accurate, local physical address, with the TTUHSC Registrar’s Office.
These addresses are used for official notifications including, but not limited to, grade reports,
billing, and notification of university requirements and other correspondence. In addition,
Students may provide current telephone numbers to the Registrar’s Office.
8.
A Student has the right to file a complaint within 180 days of the alleged violation with the U.S.
Department of Education concerning alleged failures by TTUHSC to comply with the
requirements of FERPA. The name and address of the office that administers FERPA is:
Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20202-4605.
9.
a. Banner is an integrated online and web-based student information system that includes
admissions, student records and financial aid information.
b. Each individual requesting access must complete the FERPA training referenced below and
the Confidentiality Agreement (Attachment D) and request access at
http://team.texastech.edu. The individual must select the “Request Access to Banner” link
and complete the required steps provided. Each School will have their Student Security
Administrator evaluate the request, determine whether access should be granted, and
forward their approval to the TTUHSC Registrar to grant the appropriate access level, if any.
c.
Each individual given access to Banner will be assigned a user name and password. In all
transactions, employees shall use their own user name and passwords. Each employee shall
keep his/her password confidential.
d. When additional access is needed, the employee shall make a request for additional access
to the School Student Security Administrator.
e. If a personnel change occurs, the Department Head/Supervisor shall notify the School
Student Security Administrator, and they will inform the TTUHSC Registrar to modify access
when an employee terminates employment or transfers to another department or campus.
156
10.
a. As part of the general orientation of all new employees, the TTUHSC Office of Human
Resources will provide a brief introduction to FERPA and reference this policy.
b. In addition to the brief introduction for all employees, all new and existing faculty, staff and
volunteers who have access to Education Records shall receive detailed training regarding
FERPA and this policy. This training will be administered through the TTUHSC Registrar’s
Office.
c.
All training shall be documented in the Registrar’s Office. New employees (faculty and staff)
must complete the online FERPA training before obtaining BANNER Student access,
including access to the faculty and/or advisor portal in Webraider or grade course section
access. FERPA training will be required every two years for all faculty and staff. FERPA
compliance will be reviewed by the Office of the Registrar quarterly. All faculty and staff who
are not compliant will be notified by the Registrar and have 7-10 working days to become
compliant. After 10 working days, all access to the student information system will be
removed until training is completed and the Office of the Registrar is notified through the
TEAM site requesting access.
11.
a. An individual who uses or discloses information from an Education Record, or allows access
to an Education Record by another individual, in violation of this policy and/or state or federal
laws and regulations may be subject to disciplinary action, including, but not limited to,
dismissal/termination from TTUHSC.
b. Inappropriate use or misuse of Student Education Records is also a violation of federal and
state laws and regulations and could result in criminal and/or civil prosecution.
12.
TTUHSC reserves the right to interpret, change, modify, amend or rescind any policy in whole or
in part at any time without the consent of employees, faculty or Students.
: Attachment A, Student Consent to Release Education Records
Attachment B, Student Request to Access His/Her Education Records
Attachment C, Student Request to Amend Education Records
Attachment D, Confidentiality Agreement
157
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT B
STUDENT REQUEST TO ACCESS EDUCATION RECORDS FORM
Date: Signed December 22, 2025; submitted December 30, 2025
Description: Student Request to Access His/Her Education Records
form (Attachment B to OP 77.13), completed and signed by Kevin
Bass on December 22, 2025, and submitted to the TTUHSC Office of
the Registrar on December 30, 2025, invoking OP 77.13 and Texas
Government Code Section 559.004.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
158
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER
STUDENT REQUEST TO ACCESS HIS/HER EDUCATION RECORDS
This form must be submitted to the appropriate record custodian's office at TTUHSC. If a student
is uncertain as to what office maintains the records at issue, the student shall submit a written
request for assistance to the Assistant Vice Provost for Student Affairs or designee. If access to
the record is granted, the record custodian will place the original copy of the completed form with
the student's record which was accessed.
Please Print or Type
Student Name: Kevin Bass
Student ID Numbe
Address:
City/State/Zip Code:
School: School of Medicine
Telephone Number: 512-333-4092
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Classification: MS3 (former)
Cell Phone (if available): 512-333-4092
TO: Office of the Registrar (Insert Name of Records Custodian)
Under the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), I hereby
request access to my education records as follows:
A. I request to inspect the following education records:
Dec 11, 2023 dismissal hearing video recording(s) (native file; all versions/copies; incl. audio tracks)
Any transcripts/notes/summaries/hearing record for that hearing, and any maintained metadata for the recording(s
B. These records are located in the following office(s):
Registrar/Enrollment Services; Dean's Office; Student Affairs; IT; Office of General Counsel
and any TTUHSC vendor/system maintaining copies of the Dec 11, 2023 dismissal hearing recording(s).
C. I have read the information provided in TTUHSC OP 77.13, Student Education Records.
D. I understand that it is my responsibility to arrange an appointment to review my records
and to bring this form with me at the appointed time.
12/22/2025
Student Signature Signature Date
Official Use Only:
· Request approved by: Date:
· Request denied by: Date:
Reason for
Approval/Denial:
Time and Place for Inspection:
(To be completed by student following visual inspection of the requested education records)
I, (Print Name), Student ID Number (Insert Number),
was granted access to the education records requested above on (Insert Date)
at (Insert Location).
Student Signature Signature Date
ATTACHMENT B
HSC OP 77.13
November 30, 2024
159
159
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT C
REGISTRAR EMAIL — NO-COPY RESTRICTION & ZOOM SCHEDULE
Date:
December 3, 2025
Description:
Email from Office of the Registrar to Kevin Bass establishing no-copy restriction on
education records and proposing initial Zoom inspection session schedule.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
160
From: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
To: "kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com" <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 16:40:17 +0000
Subject: RE: TTUHSC Student Record
Mr. Bass,
Thank you for your email on November 27, 2025. With the University being closed
for Thanksgiving (Thursday and Friday) it was not seen until Monday, December 1.
Unfortunately, our staff is unavailable at your proposed times due to prior
commitments. As you requested, below are proposed dates and times in which our
staff is available to conduct a Zoom session:
Monday, December 8, 2025, 1:00-2:00 p.m. CST
Wednesday, December 10, 2025, 1:00-2:00 p.m. CST
Friday, December 12, 2025, 10:00-11:00 a.m. CST
Please reply to this email with the dates/times that work for you and we will
then send you a Zoom link. As you noted in your email below, under FERPA you are
entitled to inspect and review your educational records; however, during the
Zoom sessions you are not permitted to take any action that may create a copy of
any document you review, to include but not limited to, recording, capturing,
photographing, etc. If after the initial Zoom session, you find that you need
additional time, you may make a request for an additional Zoom Session.
Thank you,
Office of the Registrar
> Enrollment Services
> Academic Classroom Building | Room 2C400
> 3601 4th Street | STOP: 8310 | Lubbock, TX 79430 Registrar@ttuhsc.edu
> O: 806.743.7347 | F: 806.743.3027
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2025 4:47 AM
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Subject: Re: TTUHSC Student Record
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of TTUHSC. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Office of the Registrar,
Thank you for your email of November 17, 2025 regarding my FERPA request dated
161
161
apologize that I did not see your message in time to attend the November 18,
ExhibitCC—· continued
continued
Exhibit
October 2, 2025, which your office deemed received on October 3, 2025. I
2025 Zoom session you scheduled from
2:00-3:00 p.m. CST.
Your email was sent at 3:54 p.m. on November 17, offering the Zoom session for
the following afternoon, which provided less than twenty-four hours· notice. I
did not see the message in time to make arrangements to attend.
I continue to request access to and inspection of the education records your
office has collected in response to my October 2 FERPA request, including all
categories of records described in that request.
Under FERPA·s implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 99.10(b), an educational
institution must provide a parent or eligible student the opportunity to inspect
and review education records within 45 days of receipt of a request. Because my
request was deemed received on October 3, 2025, that 45-day deadline fell on
November 17, 2025. In addition, 34 C.F.R. § 99.10(e) provides that an
educational institution may not destroy any education records if there is an
outstanding request to inspect and review them.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that my FERPA request be treated
as still outstanding, and that we schedule a new one-hour Zoom session at a
mutually convenient time so that I may inspect and review the records.
I am available for a one-hour Zoom session on the following dates and times (all CST):
- Monday, December 1, 2025, 10:00-11:00 a.m. CST
- Wednesday, December 3, 2025, 1:00-2:00 p.m. CST
- Friday, December 5, 2025, 3:00-4:00 p.m. CST
If none of these times work, please propose alternative times within the next two weeks.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your confirmation
of a new appointment.
Sincerely,
Kevin Bass
Kevin Bass PhD MS
Phone: 512-333-4092
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 3:54 PM LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
>
> Mr. Bass,
>
>
>
> The Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Office of the
> Registrar received your FERPA request dated October 2, 2025 after
> normal business hours (7:49 PM) on October 2, 2025. Therefore, it was
162
162
ExhibitCC—
· continued
continued
Exhibit
> deemed received on October 3, 2025. Your educational record has been
> collected. The records are available for you to review on Tuesday,
> November 18th from 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. CST via this Zoom at this link
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ttuhsc.zoom.us/j/93815542637__;!!P
> ZU9J6Y!Yk4X00Oo-3jZNQoCSYG3Wyuo2qbt8gIifYHQ-qXRnbldk_rkcETirobP3nm4LHw
> zrcpl_PtdAfqzhEGxFeLwTBHZLqiC$
>
>
>
> Please reply to this email confirming this date and time. If you are unable to
view your records on this date, please reply back to this email with an
alternative date.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Office of the Registrar
> Enrollment Services
>
>
> Academic Classroom Building | Room 2C400
> 3601 4th Street | STOP: 8310 | Lubbock, TX 79430 Registrar@ttuhsc.edu
> O: 806.743.7347 | F: 806.743.3027
>
>
163
163
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT D
FOLLOW-UP LETTER — 45-DAY DEADLINE EXPIRATION
Date:
February 22, 2026
Description:
Letter from Kevin Bass to Office of the Registrar documenting that the 45-day compliance
deadline under OP 77.13 expired February 13, 2026 without written response, scheduled
hearing, or workable inspection arrangement.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
164
Kevin N. Bass
Phone: (512) 333-4092
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Student I
February 22, 2026
VIA EMAIL (Registrar@ttuhsc.edu)
Office of the Registrar
Enrollment Services
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
Academic Classroom Building, Room 2C400
3601 4th Street, STOP: 8310
Lubbock, TX 79430
CC: Darrin D'Agostino, D.O., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs / Provost
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
RE: Follow-Up to Written Request Submitted December 30, 2025
Invoking HSC OP 77.13 and Texas Government Code § 559.004
45-Day Compliance Deadline Expired February 13, 2026
Dear Registrar's Office:
I write to follow up on my written request submitted
December 30, 2025, invoking HSC OP 77.13 ("Student Education
Records") and Texas Government Code Section 559.004, to inspect,
review, and initiate the correction/annotation process for
education-record materials relating to my transcript notation
"Administrative Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024."
OP 77.13, Section 4(c)(4) provides that records authorized
to be disclosed under FERPA "will be made available to the
Student within forty-five (45) days from the Records Custodian's
receipt of the written request." Forty-five days from
December 30, 2025 was February 13, 2026.
As of the date of this letter, February 22, 2026--nine days
past the OP 77.13 deadline--the following remains true:
1. No written response to my amendment/annotation request
·
—11
—
·
165
165
has been issued under OP 77.13, Section 5.
2. No hearing has been scheduled under OP 77.13,
Section 5(d).
3. The in-person inspection/review sessions conducted
January 5-8, 2026 did not provide a workable opportunity
to complete the inspection/review and amendment/annotation
process. As I documented in my December 12, 2025
correspondence and my January 2026 sworn statement, the
sessions were conducted under the following restrictions:
(a) No copies of any document were permitted;
(b) No audio recording was permitted;
(c) No third-party observer was permitted, including my
spouse, even with a signed FERPA consent form under
34 C.F.R. § 99.30; and
(d) The door to the review room was required to remain
open at all times, and the inspection laptop was
required to be surrendered any time I left the room.
Under these conditions, with approximately 1,600+ records
to inspect, I was unable to complete meaningful
inspection/review of the full document set within the
four-day window, and was unable to identify record
components "as precisely as possible" as OP 77.13 requires
for an amendment/annotation request.
4. TTUHSC has not proposed any alternative arrangement (such
as secure portal access or copies under 34 C.F.R.
§ 99.10(d)) to allow completion of the process.
I respectfully request written confirmation of how TTUHSC
intends to comply with its obligations under OP 77.13 and Texas
Government Code Section 559.004, including:
(a) Whether and when TTUHSC will provide a workable method
for me to complete inspection/review of the full
education-record set;
(b) Whether and when TTUHSC will accept and process my
amendment/annotation request under OP 77.13, Section 5;
and
(c) Whether TTUHSC contends that the 45-day deadline has
been satisfied, and if so, on what basis.
I am copying the Executive Vice President for Academic
Affairs because OP 77.13, Section 5(b)-(c) routes amendment
·
2
—2—
·
166
166
requests through the EVPAA, and because OP 77.13, Section 4(c)(2)
provides that if a student is uncertain where records are
maintained, the student "shall submit a written request for
assistance to the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs."
Please respond in writing to my email address above.
Sincerely,
___________________________________________
Kevin N. Bass
·
3
—3—
·
167
167
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT E
REGISTRAR DENIALS & FERPA CONSENT FORM SUBMISSION
Date:
December 30, 2025 — January 2, 2026
Description:
Email chain: (1) December 30, 2025 email from Registrar denying observer, audio
recording, and spouse attendance, threatening forfeiture of review rights; (2) January 2,
2026 reply from Kevin Bass submitting signed FERPA § 99.30 consent form designating
spouse as authorized recipient and requesting written policy basis for refusal.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
168
From: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
To: "kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com" <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 18:34:25 +0000
Subject: RE: TTUHSC Student Record
Mr. Bass,
You are authorized to view your education records from 9 AM to 4 PM on Monday,
January 5; Tuesday, January 6; and Thursday, January 8. Pursuant to FERPA, you
are entitled to inspect and review your educational records; however, you will
not be permitted to take any action that may create a copy of any document, to
include but not limited to, recording, capturing, photographing, etc. The door
to the room you will be provided must remain open at all times to ensure
compliance. At any time you decide to leave the room you will be required to
provide the laptop to the escort.
The escort will meet you by the west corner of Knoxville and 6th Street (north
side of the HSC building in front of the large set of stairs leading to the
second floor) at 9 AM. A Google Maps pin drop of the location is here
(https://maps.app.goo.gl/4yZqPL3DkWW6jqhM9).
You did not refer to either statute or policy that authorizes you to (1) bring a
third party observer, (2) record the FERPA education record review sessions, or
(3) have a third party observer on the phone, teleconference call, or similar
listening/viewing platform during the FERPA education record review sessions.
Your request is therefore not permitted and you will not be permitted to record
or have a third party involved during your review.
Failure to follow the established protocol will result in you forfeiting the
ability to review your record until you can comply with the protocol.
Thank you,
> Office of the Registrar
> > > > > Enrollment Services
> > > > > Academic Classroom Building | Room 2C400
> > > > > 3601 4th Street | STOP: 8310 | Lubbock, TX 79430
> > > > > Registrar@ttuhsc.edu<mailto:Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
> > > > > O: 806.743.7347 | F: 806.743.3027
169
169
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2026 15:05:38 -0600
Subject: Re: TTUHSC Student Record
Subject: Jan 5/6/8 FERPA review: confirmation, written consent for spouse,
and protocol clarifications
Registrar·s Office,
Thank you. I confirm I will attend Jan 5, Jan 6, and Jan 8 (9:00 a.m.-4:00
p.m.) and will comply with the protocol described in your email.
Observer/authorized recipient: Attached is my signed written consent under
34 C.F.R. § 99.30 identifying my spouse,
, as an authorized
recipient for my education records for the purpose of assisting me during
inspection/review. (This is consistent with TTUHSC's "Student Consent to
Release Education Records" form language regarding permitting inspection
with student permission.)
If TTUHSC will not permit her to be present even with written consent,
please confirm that refusal in writing and identify the TTUHSC policy basis
(separate from FERPA consent rules).
To avoid misunderstandings: Please confirm in writing what materials I may
bring for note-taking (e.g., pen/paper), and whether TTUHSC will maintain a
session log noting the date/time, the escort(s) present, and any protocol
instructions given at the start.
Sincerely,
Kevin Bass
Kevin Bass PhD MS
Phone: *512-333-4092*
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 12:34 PM LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
wrote:
> Mr. Bass,
>
>
>
> You are authorized to view your education records from 9 AM to 4 PM on
> Monday, January 5; Tuesday, January 6; and Thursday, January 8. Pursuant to
> FERPA, you are entitled to inspect and review your educational records;
> however, you will not be permitted to take any action that may create a
170
170
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT F
REGISTRAR INSPECTION PROTOCOL
Date:
December 19, 2025
Description:
Email from Office of the Registrar to Kevin Bass establishing inspection session schedule,
escort requirement, open-door policy, and mandatory laptop surrender upon leaving room.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
171
From: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
To: "kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com" <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 16:53:59 +0000
Subject: RE: TTUHSC Student Record
Mr. Bass,
We are finalizing logistics for you to be escorted into the HSC building,
provided a room, and a laptop for you to view the records. You will be
authorized to view the records from 9 AM to 4 PM on Monday, December 29;
Tuesday, December 30; and Wednesday, December 31. Pursuant to FERPA, you are
entitled to inspect and review your educational records; however, you will not
be permitted to take any action that may create a copy of any document, to
include but not limited to, recording, capturing, photographing, etc. The door
to the room you will be provided must remain open at all times to ensure
compliance. At any time you decide to leave the room you will be required to
provide the laptop to the escort. Please respond to this email account to
confirm your availability for these dates.
Thank you,
Office of the Registrar
> > > Enrollment Services
> > > Academic Classroom Building | Room 2C400
> > > 3601 4th Street | STOP: 8310 | Lubbock, TX 79430
> > > Registrar@ttuhsc.edu
> > > O: 806.743.7347 | F: 806.743.3027
-----Original Message----From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2025 7:49 PM
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Subject: Re: TTUHSC Student Record
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of TTUHSC. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Registrar/Records Custodian,
Thank you for today's FERPA inspection session.
During the Dec 12 session, TTUHSC staff stated the responsive set consisted of
approximately 2,000 records. Under the current session format and restrictions
(including the no recording/capturing/photographing condition stated in your Dec
172
172
ExhibitFF—· continued
continued
Exhibit
3, 2025 email), I was able to review approximately 20 records during that
session. As a result, the current arrangement is not a workable method to permit
inspection and review of the full set within a reasonable period.
FERPA requires an opportunity to inspect and review education records within a
reasonable period (not more than 45 days), and where circumstances effectively
prevent inspection/review, the institution must provide copies or make other
arrangements that permit inspection/review. See 34 C.F.R. § 99.10(b), (d).
To ensure this inspection/review can be completed, please confirm that the
responsive records will be retained and not destroyed while my request to
inspect/review remains pending. See 34 C.F.R. § 99.10(e).
Scope clarification (no waiver): This request covers (1) the complete set
displayed during the Dec 12 session (the full universe shown), and
(2) any additional education records responsive to my Oct 2, 2025 FERPA request
and Oct 20, 2025 supplemental request that were not included in the Dec 12 set.
Please confirm that the Dec 12 set reflects the complete set TTUHSC collected as
responsive to those requests (subject only to redactions/segregation under 34
C.F.R. § 99.12(a)).
To make this workable at this scale, please implement ONE of the following
access methods (reasonable security controls and required redactions/segregation
are fine):
A) Secure view-only portal access (or equivalent) to the complete set for a
defined period (e.g., 30 days); or
B) A concrete high-cadence inspection schedule (e.g., multiple multi-hour blocks
per week) sufficient to complete inspection/review of the full set within a
reasonable timeframe; or
C) If (A) or (B) cannot be provided promptly, provide copies of the complete set
(with any required redactions) or propose another arrangement that complies with
34 C.F.R. § 99.10(d).
By close of business Monday, December 15, 2025, please (i) acknowledge receipt
of this email and (ii) confirm which option (A), (B), or (C) TTUHSC will
implement. By close of business Friday, December 19, 2025, please provide the
full plan and logistics (including the earliest start date and, if applicable,
proposed session dates/times or portal access details).
Additionally, please make available the 34 C.F.R. § 99.32 record of disclosures
for my education records, and confirm the total item count for the Dec 12 set
and provide a simple inventory/manifest of that set to facilitate navigation.
If TTUHSC does not provide a workable plan by December 19, 2025, I will seek
compliance assistance from the U.S. Department of Education Student Privacy
Policy Office.
Sincerely,
Kevin Bass PhD MS
Phone: 512-333-4092
173
173
ExhibitFF—· continued
continued
Exhibit
On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 1:10 PM LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
>
> Mr. Bass
>
> Please see the below link to the zoom meeting scheduled for Friday, December
12th at 10:00 - 11:00 am CST.
>
> This meeting will only be to go through the educational documents pursuant to FERPA.
>
> Join Zoom Meeting
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ttuhsc.zoom.us/j/92711546946__;!!P
> ZU9J6Y!aPreIQzuUEz6ku623fZ9F_-8BixNbQ5Yt04uoqQPwZSDPvKbWahidzLa3OBZbv8
> 4MsPHMkbITRR4-TG52N06qUtvdSVa$
>
> Meeting ID: 927 1154 6946
>
> One tap mobile
> +13462487799,,92711546946# US (Houston) 17193594580,,92711546946# US
> Join by SIP
> · 92711546946@zoomcrc.com
> Join instructions
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ttuhsc.zoom.us/meetings/9271154694
> 6/invitations?signature=LW67RuXyK81BiPhdbqFSUQ_bo0A_6QL20nVegJTQvlM__;
> !!PZU9J6Y!aPreIQzuUEz6ku623fZ9F_-8BixNbQ5Yt04uoqQPwZSDPvKbWahidzLa3OBZ
> bv84MsPHMkbITRR4-TG52N06qcegciAM$
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> Office of the Registrar
> > > Enrollment Services
> > > Academic Classroom Building | Room 2C400
> > > 3601 4th Street | STOP: 8310 | Lubbock, TX 79430
> > > Registrar@ttuhsc.edu
> > > O: 806.743.7347 | F: 806.743.3027
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 3:20 PM
> To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
> Subject: Re: TTUHSC Student Record
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of TTUHSC. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Dear Office of the Registrar,
>
> Thank you for your email and for offering times to review my education
records. I am available on Friday, December 12, 2025, 10:00-11:00 a.m.
> CST and would like to schedule the Zoom session at that time.
174
174
ExhibitFF—· continued
continued
Exhibit
>
> As you know, on October 2, 2025 I submitted a FERPA request for access to and
copies of my education records and the 34 C.F.R. § 99.32 disclosure log, with
electronic delivery preferred. On October 20, 2025, I submitted a supplemental
request identifying additional categories of education records, including (among
other things) the broadcast email and related metadata, distribution/recipient
lists, BOLO or campus access communications, transcript/notation policies and
audit logs, and communications to third parties such as residency programs or
hospitals. My understanding is that the proposed Zoom session is intended to
allow me to inspect and review the records you have collected in response to
those requests.
>
> For purposes of this FERPA Zoom session only, I will comply with your stated
condition that I not make recordings, photographs, screenshots, or other copies
of the documents shown. However, my agreement to proceed with this session and
to comply with that condition does not waive or limit any rights, claims, or
arguments I have asserted or may assert regarding TTUHSC·s past handling of my
records or its FERPA obligations, including my request for the § 99.32
disclosure log and for copies/electronic delivery of my records, and does not
waive my right to obtain copies of relevant records through formal discovery or
other lawful means in the pending litigation.
>
> Please also confirm that the Zoom session will include an opportunity to
inspect the § 99.32 disclosure log and all categories of education records
identified in my October 2 and October 20, 2025 requests.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Kevin Bass PhD MS
> Phone: 512-333-4092
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:40 AM LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Bass,
> >
> > Thank you for your email on November 27, 2025. With the University being
closed for Thanksgiving (Thursday and Friday) it was not seen until Monday,
December 1. Unfortunately, our staff is unavailable at your proposed times due
to prior commitments. As you requested, below are proposed dates and times in
which our staff is available to conduct a Zoom session:
> >
> > Monday, December 8, 2025, 1:00-2:00 p.m. CST Wednesday, December 10,
> > 2025, 1:00-2:00 p.m. CST Friday, December 12, 2025, 10:00-11:00 a.m.
> > CST
> >
> > Please reply to this email with the dates/times that work for you and we
will then send you a Zoom link. As you noted in your email below, under FERPA
you are entitled to inspect and review your educational records; however, during
the Zoom sessions you are not permitted to take any action that may create a
copy of any document you review, to include but not limited to, recording,
capturing, photographing, etc. If after the initial Zoom session, you find that
you need additional time, you may make a request for an additional Zoom Session.
175
175
ExhibitFF—
· continued
continued
Exhibit
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Office of the Registrar
> > > Enrollment Services
> > > Academic Classroom Building | Room 2C400
> > > 3601 4th Street | STOP: 8310 | Lubbock, TX 79430
> > > Registrar@ttuhsc.edu
> > > O: 806.743.7347 | F: 806.743.3027
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message----> > From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2025 4:47 AM
> > To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
> > Subject: Re: TTUHSC Student Record
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of TTUHSC. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > Dear Office of the Registrar,
> >
> > Thank you for your email of November 17, 2025 regarding my FERPA
> > request dated October 2, 2025, which your office deemed received on
> > October 3, 2025. I apologize that I did not see your message in time
> > to attend the November 18, 2025 Zoom session you scheduled from
> > 2:00-3:00 p.m. CST.
> >
> > Your email was sent at 3:54 p.m. on November 17, offering the Zoom session
for the following afternoon, which provided less than twenty-four hours· notice.
I did not see the message in time to make arrangements to attend.
> >
> > I continue to request access to and inspection of the education records your
office has collected in response to my October 2 FERPA request, including all
categories of records described in that request.
> >
> > Under FERPA·s implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 99.10(b), an educational
institution must provide a parent or eligible student the opportunity to inspect
and review education records within 45 days of receipt of a request. Because my
request was deemed received on October 3, 2025, that 45-day deadline fell on
November 17, 2025. In addition, 34 C.F.R. § 99.10(e) provides that an
educational institution may not destroy any education records if there is an
outstanding request to inspect and review them.
> >
> > In light of the above, I respectfully request that my FERPA request be
treated as still outstanding, and that we schedule a new one-hour Zoom session
at a mutually convenient time so that I may inspect and review the records.
> >
> > I am available for a one-hour Zoom session on the following dates and times
(all CST):
176
176
ExhibitFF—· continued
continued
Exhibit
> >
> > - Monday, December 1, 2025, 10:00-11:00 a.m. CST
> > - Wednesday, December 3, 2025, 1:00-2:00 p.m. CST
> > - Friday, December 5, 2025, 3:00-4:00 p.m. CST
> >
> > If none of these times work, please propose alternative times within the
next two weeks.
> >
> > Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your
confirmation of a new appointment.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Kevin Bass
> >
> > Kevin Bass PhD MS
> > Phone: 512-333-4092
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 3:54 PM LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mr. Bass,
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Office of the
> > > Registrar received your FERPA request dated October 2, 2025 after
> > > normal business hours (7:49 PM) on October 2, 2025. Therefore, it
> > > was deemed received on October 3, 2025. Your educational record
> > > has been collected. The records are available for you to review on
> > > Tuesday, November 18th from 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. CST via this Zoom at
> > > this link
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ttuhsc.zoom.us/j/93815542637___;!
> > > !P
> > > ZU9J6Y!Yk4X000o-3jZNQoCSYG3Wyuo2qbt8gIifYHQ-qXRnbldk_rkcETirobP3nm
> > > 4L
> > > Hw
> > > zrcpl_PtdAfqzhEGxFeLwTBHZLqiC$
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> > > Please reply to this email confirming this date and time. If you are
unable to view your records on this date, please reply back to this email with
an alternative date.
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> > > Kind Regards,
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
177
177
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT G
RESCHEDULE CHAIN & DENIED ALTERNATIVES
Date:
December 23–25, 2025
Description:
Email chain: (1) December 23, 2025 Registrar email rescheduling inspection from Dec
29–31 to Jan 5/6/8; (2) Kevin Bass's December 23 reply confirming attendance and
requesting audio recording, remote witness, or spouse as observer; (3) Kevin Bass's
December 25 follow-up reiterating alternative requests.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
178
From: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
To: "kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com" <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 21:15:00 +0000
Subject: RE: TTUHSC Student Record
Mr. Bass,
Due to logistical issues, the FERPA review scheduled from 9 AM to 4 PM December
29 through December 31 will need to be postponed until the following week. We
propose the following three days:
- Monday, January 5, 2026 9 AM to 4 PM
- Tuesday, January 6, 2026 9 AM to 4 PM
- Thursday, January 8, 2026 9 AM to 4 PM
Please respond to this email confirming your availability for these three days.
Upon your confirmation we will send you additional information regarding where
to meet the person who will escort you into the building to view the files.
Thank you,
Office of the Registrar
Enrollment Services
Academic Classroom Building | Room 2C400
3601 4th Street | STOP: 8310 | Lubbock, TX 79430 Registrar@ttuhsc.edu
O: 806.743.7347 | F: 806.743.3027
179
179
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:53:36 -0600
Subject: Re: TTUHSC Student Record
Registrar·s Office,
I confirm I can attend Jan 5, Jan 6, and Jan 8, 2026 (9:00 a.m.-4:00
p.m.). Please send the check-in/escort logistics and location details
in advance so there are no further delays.
Separately, I need a neutral way to document the session
logistics/instructions and avoid any later misunderstandings about
what occurred. Because the rescheduled January dates mean I cannot
bring an in-person companion, I·m requesting one of the following:
Option 1 (preferred): Audio recording (disclosed and visible). I will
use a small audio recorder/phone placed on the table, and I will pause
recording while I am silently reviewing records if you prefer (i.e.,
recording only covers logistics/instructions and any interactions).
The recording would be for accuracy and dispute-prevention only; I
will not publish it.
Option 2: Remote witness (listen-only). If recording is not allowed,
please permit a listen-only phone/Zoom witness. I can provide the
witness·s name in advance and sign any confidentiality acknowledgment
you require.
If TTUHSC will not allow either option, please provide the specific
written policy basis for the denial and then propose a workable
alternative arrangement for inspection/review (e.g., secure read-only
portal access for a defined period or copies where appropriate),
because an in-person session with no neutral record is not workable
given the rescheduling and the risk of later factual disputes.
Please reply confirming which option TTUHSC will permit.
Thank you,
Kevin Bass
Kevin Bass PhD MS
Phone: 512-333-4092
180
180
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 22:34:13 -0600
Subject: Re: TTUHSC Student Record
For transparency, I provided SPPO a brief update that TTUHSC postponed the
Dec 29-31 inspection dates to Jan 5/6/8 and that the §99.32 disclosure
record, manifest/index, and a completion plan remain outstanding.
Kevin Bass PhD MS
Phone: *512-333-4092*
On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:24 PM Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Registrar·s Office,
>
> Following up on my email below regarding the Jan 5/6/8 records review: I
> may be able to have my wife accompany me as an in-person companion/neutral
> observer, but only if we can arrive/check in at 7:45 a.m. (instead of 9:00
> a.m.), because
She would not
> access any records and can sign any confidentiality acknowledgment you
> require.
>
> Please let me know if this is permitted (and if so, what ID/paperwork she
> should bring). If it·s not permitted, please confirm which of the two
> alternatives I proposed (disclosed audio recording or listen-only remote
> witness) TTUHSC will allow.
>
> Thank you,
> Kevin Bass
> Kevin Bass PhD MS
> Phone: *512-333-4092*
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 3:53 PM Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Registrar·s Office,
>>
>> I confirm I can attend Jan 5, Jan 6, and Jan 8, 2026 (9:00 a.m.-4:00
>> p.m.). Please send the check-in/escort logistics and location details
>> in advance so there are no further delays.
>>
>> Separately, I need a neutral way to document the session
>> logistics/instructions and avoid any later misunderstandings about
181
181
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT H
UNSWORN DECLARATION OF KEVIN N. BASS
Referenced in: Statement of Facts ¶¶6, 8; Section IV.A.1
Date:
March 1, 2026
Description:
Unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury detailing the limitations of the January 5·8, 2026
inspection sessions: approximately 1,600 records spanning approximately 1,500 pages
reviewed across four days with no copies permitted, plus a 14-hour hearing video that could
not be fully reviewed.
Plaintiff·s Exhibit to Response to Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
182
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARRIN D'AGOSTINO, D.O.,
M.P.H., M.B.A., in his official
capacity as Provost and Executive
Vice President of Academics of Texas
Tech University Health Sciences
Center; and
AMANDA McSWEEN, in her official
capacity as Managing Director of
Enrollment Services and University
Registrar of Texas Tech University
Health Sciences Center,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
UNSWORN DECLARATION OF KEVIN N. BASS
(Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 132.001)
My name is Kevin N. Bass. My date of birth is December 7, 1984. My address is
I declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned action and a former student at Texas Tech
University Health Sciences Center ("TTUHSC"). I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein.
2. This declaration concerns the conditions under which I inspected my education records at
TTUHSC pursuant to HSC OP 77.13 and Texas Government Code Section 559.004
during sessions on January 5, 6, 7, and 8, 2026.
1
183
I. THE WRITTEN REQUEST
3. On December 30, 2025, I submitted a written request to the Office of the Registrar invoking
OP 77.13 and Section 559.004 to inspect, review, and initiate the correction/annotation
process
for
education-record
materials
relating
to
my
transcript
notation
"Administrative Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024."
4. My request was accompanied by a completed "Attachment B -- Student Request to Access
His/Her Education Records" form as prescribed by OP 77.13.
II. THE ACCESS CONDITIONS
5. The Registrar's office scheduled in-person inspection sessions for January 5, 6, 7, and 8,
2026, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day, at the Academic Classroom
Building, Room 2C400.
6. Prior to the sessions, the Registrar's office communicated the following conditions by email:
a. No copies of any document would be permitted. I was permitted to
take handwritten notes only. (December 3, 2025 email; December 19,
2025 email.)
b. No audio recording of the inspection sessions would be permitted.
(December 30, 2025 email.)
c. No third-party observer would be permitted to attend the sessions.
(December 30, 2025 email.)
d. My spouse would not be permitted to attend as an observer, even with
a signed FERPA consent form under 34 C.F.R. § 99.30 designating her
as an authorized recipient of my education records. (December 30, 2025
email; January 2, 2026 follow-up requesting written basis for refusal.)
e. The door to the review room was required to remain open at all times.
(December 19, 2025 email.)
f. A TTUHSC staff member would be present at all times as an escort.
(December 19, 2025 email.)
g. The inspection laptop was required to be surrendered any time I left
the room, including for restroom breaks. (December 19, 2025 email.)
7. On December 23 and 25, 2025, I requested that the Registrar's office permit at least one of
three alternatives: (a) audio recording of the sessions, (b) a remote witness via phone,
2
184
or (c) my spouse as an in-person observer. All three alternatives were denied.
8. On December 30, 2025, the Registrar's office stated: "Failure to follow the established
protocol will result in you forfeiting the ability to review your record until you can
comply with the protocol."
III. THE INSPECTION SESSIONS
9. I attended the inspection sessions on January 5, 6, 7, and 8, 2026 and complied with all
conditions imposed by the Registrar's office.
10. The records were presented on a laptop computer. The production consisted of
approximately 1,600 or more individual records, spanning approximately 1,500 pages.
These included emails, memoranda, forms, evaluations, policies, correspondence, and
other documents relating to my enrollment, disciplinary proceedings, and
administrative dismissal.
11. I took contemporaneous handwritten notes throughout each session, recording verbatim
quotes, document identifiers (TTUHSC production numbers), dates, authors, recipients,
and descriptions as I reviewed each document.
12. Under the conditions described above--no copies, no recording, no observer, handwritten
notes only--I was unable to complete a meaningful inspection and review of the full
document set within the four-day window. I was also unable to identify record
components "as precisely as possible" as OP 77.13 requires for an amendment or
annotation request.
13. Certain records in the production required extended review because they contained
complex information such as multi-page email chains, evaluation rubrics with attached
narratives, and administrative memoranda with cross- references to other documents.
The handwritten-notes-only restriction made it impractical to capture sufficient detail
from these records to support a precise amendment or annotation request.
3
185
IV. THE HEARING VIDEO
14. The production included what appeared to be a video recording of the December 11, 2023
dismissal hearing; however, TTUHSC did not identify the source, format, or chain of
custody of the video file. The hearing lasted approximately 14 hours. The video was
available for viewing on the inspection laptop under the same conditions: no copies, no
recording, no observer, and mandatory laptop surrender upon leaving the room.
15. Given the volume of document records to review, the four-day time constraint, and the
conditions imposed, I was unable to meaningfully review the 14-hour hearing video
while also inspecting the approximately 1,600 document records. A meaningful review
of the hearing video alone would require most or all of the allotted session time.
V. ONGOING NON-RESPONSE
16. On January 20, 2026, the Registrar's office responded to my initial amendment/annotation
submission with "rejected...resubmit"--declining to process the request on formatting
grounds without issuing a written decision under OP 77.13.
17. On January 26, 2026, I submitted a Step-2 written request under OP 77.13 and Section
559.004 to Dr. Erin Justyna (TTUHSC Associate Vice President/Provost), requesting
amendment and/or annotation of the transcript notation. Defendant D'Agostino and
Defendant McSween were both copied. As of the date of this declaration, no response
has been received.
18. On January 27, 2026, I submitted a 22-item punch list to the Registrar identifying, by
TTUHSC production number, records that were referenced in the January 5-8
production but not themselves produced for review. No response has been received.
19. As of the date of this declaration, TTUHSC has not proposed any alternative
arrangement--such as secure portal access, electronic copies, or copies under 34 C.F.R.
§ 99.10(d)--to allow me to complete the inspection/review and amendment/annotation
4
186
process.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Lubbock County, Texas, on March 1, 2026.
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
5
187
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT
STEP-2 AMENDMENT REQUEST TO DR. JUSTYNA
Date: January 26, 2026
Description: Email from Kevin Bass to Dr. Erin Justyna (TTUHSC Associate Vice
President/Provost) submitting Step-2 OP 77.13 written request to
amend/annotate transcript notation ·Administrative Dismissal
Effective 01-11-2024.· CC: Defendant D·Agostino, Defendant
McSween, TTUS Assistant General Counsel Staugaard.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Response to Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
188
188
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
To: Erin.Justyna@ttuhsc.edu
CC: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>, provost@ttuhsc.edu,
"Mcsween, Amanda" <amanda.mcsween@ttuhsc.edu>, "Staugaard, Bronte"
<bronte.staugaard@ttu.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 18:43:06 -0600
Subject: Step-2 OP 77.13 / Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004 · Written Request to
Amend/Annotate Transcript Notation (·Administrative Dismissal
Effective 01-11-2024·)
Hello Dr. Justyna,
I am submitting this as my Step-2 written request to amend and/or annotate an
education record under TTUHSC HSC OP 77.13 and Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004,
regarding a transcript notation on my official SOM transcript.
This submission is intended to cure the Registrar·s January 20, 2026
·rejected·resubmit· response by routing the request through the Step-2
decision channel. If TTUHSC requires use of a specific OP 77.13 ·Student
Request to Amend Education Records· form, please provide it promptly and treat
this email as containing the required fields rather than rejecting the request
on a formatting technicality.
Record item at issue: My official transcript (issued 16-Oct-2025) reflects
under ·Spring 2024 Lubbock Medicine·: ·Administrative Dismissal Effective
01-11-2024.· (See attached transcript excerpt.)
Requested action:
1. Primary: Amend/correct the transcript notation (including any eligible
factual/metadata aspects such as wording and effective date) so it
accurately reflects the disposition/terminology authorized by TTUHSC·s
controlling written decision record; or
2. Alternative (if TTUHSC declines to amend): Provide a written denial and
the hearing/statement pathway information contemplated by OP 77.13 / FERPA,
including the procedure to place and maintain a statement of
disagreement/annotation with the contested portion and to ensure it is
disclosed with that contested portion when disclosed.
The notation is inaccurate and/or materially misleading as presented because:
- The transcript wording ·Administrative Dismissal· is materially ambiguous
and does not match TTUHSC·s published transcript terminology scheme for
dismissal sanctions (e.g., Non-Academic Dismissal with ·Eligible/Ineligible
to Re-Enroll· phrasing), making the current transcript presentation
misleading to third parties.
- I received a final institutional appeal decision email/letter at the
time, but I cannot currently locate it in my records. To the extent TTUHSC
relies on that final appeal decision (or any other controlling written
189
189
Exhibit I · continued
authorization) to establish the specific transcript label ·Administrative
Dismissal· and the effective date 01-11-2024, please re-provide it or
identify it by date, sender/office, and the location where it is maintained
so it can be inspected/reviewed.
- Because the transcript entry is disputed and used in high-stakes
third-party contexts, continued disclosure of the contested entry without a
maintained dispute statement/annotation (if TTUHSC declines to amend) is
materially misleading.
Scope clarification: This request concerns education-record
amendment/annotation mechanics and record presentation only. It does not
request reconsideration of any underlying disciplinary merits.
Procedural request: Please confirm receipt and provide the expected timeline
for a written decision. If any portion is denied, please include the specific
basis for denial and the instructions/timeline for the hearing request and (if
applicable) placement and maintenance of a statement of
disagreement/annotation that will be kept with and disclosed with the
contested portion.
Additionally, please identify the SIS/Banner status code and/or transcript
remark code basis used to generate the transcript label ·Administrative
Dismissal,· and the record/authority relied upon for that coding.
Thank you, Kevin Bas
12-333-4092
Attachments: (A) transcript excerpt showing the notation; (B) Student Conduct
Board determination excerpt; (C) Dean decision letter; (D) January 20, 2026
Registrar rejection email.
--- Attachments (binary content not included in API fetch) ---
1. Email_Attachment_Packet_Exhibits_A-D.pdf (application/pdf, 209515 bytes)
190
190
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT J
22-ITEM RECORDS PUNCH LIST
Date: January 27, 2026
Description: Email from Kevin Bass to Office of the Registrar identifying 22
records referenced in the January 5·8, 2026 production but not
themselves produced for inspection, listed by TTUHSC production
number.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Response to Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
191
191
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:12:45 -0600
Subject: Re: Follow-up to Jan 5-8 FERPA inspection: Request #2 outstanding
items (OP 77.13)
Dear Office of the Registrar,
Thank you for your January 20, 2026 email. Per your request, below are the
corresponding TTUHSC production numbers (Bass_####) for each of the 22
·Referenced-But-Not-Produced· punch-list items referenced during the Jan 5-8,
2026 in-person inspection:
1. Dec 11, 2023 hearing video/recording · Bass_0204; Bass_0725; Bass_0727; Bass_0728
2. June 26-27, 2023 meeting materials · Bass_0887; Bass_0889
3. Dr. Cobbs memorandum · Bass_1031; Bass_0234
4. Appeal decision draft (Williams · DeToledo; Sept. 7, 2023) · Bass_0949
5. OB/GYN ·Incident 11· internal letter · Bass_0950
6. UMC poster/BOLO/related text message · Bass_1057; Bass_1059
7. Covenant Students.docx · Bass_1124
8. Psych clerkship evals (Oct. 31, 2023) · Bass_1139; Bass_1186; Bass_1189
9. Investigation report memorandum (Bates · Trotter; Dec. 5, 2023) · Bass_1150
10. Fully redacted ·Kevin Bass just responded· message · Bass_1182
11. Texas Medical Board / Form D / MSPE attachments (July 11, 2023) · Bass_1211; Bass_1251
12. ·Urgent concern· email with attachments (Mendoza; Nov. 4, 2023) · Bass_1052 (appro
13. OSCE grading attachment (Conser.pdf) · Bass_1357
14. ·Filed grievances· packet(s) · Bass_1399
15. Calendar entry (July 6, 2023 meeting-moved/deleted) · Bass_0699
16. Dismissal drafts/templates · Bass_0224; Bass_0935; Bass_0141; Bass_0142
17. Admissions inbox emails re: social-media posts (Apr. 26, 2023) · Bass_1012; Bass_1052
18. Newsweek/Twitter backlash chain (Feb. 1-2, 2023) · Bass_1004; Bass_1091; Bass_0220
19. ·Tips· and threat-assessment meeting artifacts (Aug. 24, 2020) · Bass_1326 (email c
20. Information provided by Renee Posey · Bass_1320; Bass_1401
21. Jax Bates memo about behavior / Wail Amor grievance report · Bass_1151; Bass_1156
22. ·FW: Notes Today· / Zavala interaction / Wedavos notes (June 27, 2023) · Bass_134
For convenience, I·m attaching a crosswalk document with the same mapping.
Item 12 is noted as approximate (·Bass_1052 (approx.)·) based on inspection
notes; if TTUHSC needs more precision to locate it, I can provide additional
context.
As stated in my January 12, 2026 email, this is a continuation of my pending
FERPA Request #2 and is not intended to restart or ·reset· any request
timeline. For the 22 items above, I am requesting access to the referencedbut-not-produced materials (e.g., missing attachments and underlying
files/records). If electronic copies or exports (preserving available metadata
where maintained) are feasible, that would be most efficient; otherwise,
please propose next steps for meaningful inspection/review. Rolling
availability is fine.
192
192
Exhibit J · continued
Please confirm receipt and advise on next steps.
Thank you, Kevin Bas
evin Bass PhD MS Phone: 512-333-4092
--- Attachments (binary content not included in API fetch) --1. TTUHSC_Request2_22Item_PunchList_BassNumber_Crosswalk_2026-01-27.txt (text/plain, 2630 bytes
2. TTUHSC_Request2_22Item_PunchList_BassNumber_Crosswalk_2026-01-27.pdf (application/pdf, 5752
193
193
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT K
SCHEDULE CHANGE — JANUARY 7 ADDITION
Date: January 6, 2026
Description: Email chain between Kevin Bass and Office of the
Registrar confirming addition of Wednesday, January 7, 2026
(9 AM to 4 PM) to the previously scheduled inspection sessions
of January 5, 6, and 8. Bass requested the Wednesday slot after
learning on January 5 that a scheduling conflict had been
resolved; the Registrar confirmed the addition the same day.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
194
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 14:29:48 +0000
Subject: Schedule change
Dear Registrar,
Yesterday was mentioned that a meeting was moved out of the Weds. slot,
allowing the Thursday date to be moved to Weds. potentially.
I am therefore requesting that we use the Weds slot and hold the Thursday
in reserve in case my review is not complete by the end of Weds.
Sincerely,
Kevin Bass
Kevin Bass PhD MS
Phone: 512-333-4092
From: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
To: "kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com" <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 22:45:39 +0000
Subject: RE: Schedule change
Mr. Bass,
You requested to have both January 7 and 8 available to review your
education records. This email confirms that Wednesday, January 7, from
9 AM to 4 PM will be added in addition to the previously scheduled days
of 9 AM to 4 PM on January 5, 6, and 8.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 8:30 AM
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Subject: Schedule change
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of TTUHSC. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Registrar,
Yesterday was mentioned that a meeting was moved out of the Weds. slot,
allowing the Thursday date to be moved to Weds. potentially.
I am therefore requesting that we use the Weds slot and hold the Thursday
195
Exhibit K — continued
in reserve in case my review is not complete by the end of Weds.
Sincerely,
Kevin Bass
Kevin Bass PhD MS
Phone: 512-333-4092
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2026 01:32:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Schedule change
Noted. Thank you.
Kevin Bass PhD MS
Phone: 512-333-4092
From: Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
To: LUB_FMB_Registrar <Registrar@ttuhsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2026 01:32:42 +0000
Subject: Re: Schedule change
I will be there at 9AM tomorrow.
Kevin Bass PhD MS
Phone: 512-333-4092
196
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 111913822
Filing Code Description: APLD - Amended Pleading
Filing Description: Fourth Amended Verified Original Petition
Status as of 3/3/2026 8:23 AM CST
Case Contacts
Tristan AGarza
tristan.garza@oag.texas.gov
3/3/2026 7:16:06 AM
SENT
Karla Gutierrez
karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov
3/3/2026 7:16:06 AM
SENT
Scott D. Smith
scott.smith@oag.texas.gov
3/3/2026 7:16:06 AM
SENT
Kevin N. Bass
kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com
3/3/2026 7:16:06 AM
ERROR
197