Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02166/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02166-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C.S., a minor, by and through his parents

N.S. and M.S.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

OFFICE OF EDUCATION, CONTRA COSTA

COUNTY SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL

PLAN AREA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION in its

supervisory capacity, the CALIFORNIA

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, and

BOB STEWART, in his individual capacity,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02166 WHA

ORDER RE

ADMINISTRATIVERECORD ISSUE

With respect to the issue posed in the letter dated August 18, 2006, appended hereto, the

following procedure will be used. By OCTOBER 6, 2006, defendants shall certify under oath the

full “administrative record.” The declaration shall state what is and is not in the full

“administrative record” and the manner and guidelines by which it was compiled. Since it is

voluminous, do not file it with the Court but it must be served on plaintiff’s counsel (or

alternatively, if the pages have been previously provided and Bates numbered, the declaration

may identify the full administrative record by Bates numbers). Based thereon, defendants must

file by OCTOBER 19, 2006, any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, to be heard on a

Case 3:06-cv-02166-WHA Document 75 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

35-day track. This will tee-up the issue of whether the action may be decided based on the

administrative record. Plaintiff is free to oppose the motion based upon a need for further

discovery. This procedure is without prejudice to discovery proceeding in parallel. 

If any party disagrees with this procedure, please file an objection by FRIDAY,

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006, AT NOON.

The motions should excerpt the portions of the record needed for the motions but do not

file the entire voluminous record. 

In the future, please follow the supplemental order and e-file all submissions to the

Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02166-WHA Document 75 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2