Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179-68/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

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

EMMA C. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DELAINE EASTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C96-4179 TEH

ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO COURT MONITOR’S

QUARTERLY REPORT AND SETTING STATUS

CONFERENCE

The Court has reviewed the recent correspondence from the Ravenswood School

District (“the District”) and the California Department of Education (“CDE”) to the Court

Monitor regarding the Monitor’s RSIP Quarterly Review Report covering the period

November 2009-January 2010 (“Second Quarter Report”). Since the concerns raised by the

parties implicate the procedures put in place by the First Amended Consent Decree

(“Consent Decree”), the Court – after consulting with the Monitor on these developments –

furnishes the following guidance to assist in the resolution of these questions.

The Consent Decree directs the Monitor to prepare quarterly reports assessing the

District’s compliance with the requirements set forth in the Ravenswood Self-Improvement

Plan, or RSIP. “At least seven days prior to finalizing a report, the Monitor shall deliver a

draft report to the Parties to allow the Parties to object to any findings or to provide

additional evidence relevant to any findings.” Consent Decree § 6.1.2 (as amended August

11, 2005). To comply with this procedure, the Monitor indicates in the cover memo for each

draft report that, “[i]f the parties do not object to any findings or provide additional relevant

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1506 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 4
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

evidence, this draft will become final on” a date seven days following its filing. When the

Monitor receives no objections or further evidence by that deadline, he notifies the Court and

the parties that the draft report “is now final.”

The Monitor filed a draft Second Quarter Report on March 8, 2010. On March 12, the

District submitted 41 objections to the draft report. The Monitor amended and finalized the

draft report on March 15, correcting two errors identified by the District and responding to

the broad questions raised in the District’s objections. Four days later, the Monitor provided

more detailed student-by-student responses to each of the District’s objections. On March

22, the District renewed many of its objections in a memo to the Monitor, disputing the

Monitor’s determinations and requesting that certain student files be redesignated as

compliant. The District also requested (1) to be present for the Monitor’s review of files for

purposes of monitoring compliance; (2) to receive the names of files or service providers

deemed noncompliant; and (3) to receive a written response from the Monitor to the specific

concerns raised by the District, “in order to facilitate the continuing improvement of the

District’s compliance with the RSIP.”

CDE did not object to the draft report, but requested – in a March 15 email to the

Monitor – a list of the student files examined for the report, and a five-day extension to

respond to the draft. The Monitor supplied a list of noncompliant file names, but did not

grant the extension request. In a March 22 video conference, the Monitor agreed to provide

counsel a list of all audited files, compliant and noncompliant, within a day of the filing of

each draft report. CDE further requested, in a March 25 letter, that the Monitor extend the

time frame for objecting to the draft reports from seven to twenty calendar days.

The Consent Decree is the framework agreed to by all parties to ensure that children

with disabilities in the District receive a free appropriate public education in the least

restrictive environment. The authority for measuring the District’s progress toward that goal

resides in the Monitor, who “shall at all times retain sole discretion to reach his or her own

independent judgments regarding Ravenswood’s compliance with each of the

Requirements.” Consent Decree § 6.1.2. The seven-day window for objecting to the

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1506 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Monitor’s findings strikes a balance between accountability and finality: the right to object

and submit additional evidence requires that the Monitor be accountable to the parties, while

the limited window for lodging objections ensures finality and consistency in the Monitor’s

findings.

The Court is concerned that the recent requests by the District and the CDE may

upset the balance struck in the Consent Decree. Monitoring the District’s compliance is a

constant, ongoing process. The findings for one quarter are finalized halfway into the next. 

Asking the Monitor to revisit a final report – as the District has done – disrupts the

monitoring cycle and disturbs the integrity of his findings. Although the seven-day period is

a floor, not a ceiling, whether to expand that window – as requested by CDE – is a matter of

the Monitor’s discretion. If a party disputes the Monitor’s final conclusions after raising a

timely objection, there is always recourse to the Court. See § 7.3. Furthermore, the parties

have the ability to amend the Consent Decree if they agree to revised terms. See § 12.0. 

The Court recognizes that the parties have rarely exercised their right to object to the

Monitor’s findings, and that the novelty of the process brings with it inevitable questions. To

that end, the Court encourages the Monitor – on this one occasion – to exercise his discretion

and address the District’s renewed objections to the Second Quarter Report. However, the

Court also advises the parties that the Monitor would be acting well within his authority to

deny their requests to alter the monitoring procedures. The Monitor has informed the Court

that he will not alter the timeframe for responding to draft reports, except as necessary to

research objections prior to finalizing the report, nor will he agree to the presence of any

party for the review of student files.

The Court had stated, at the previous status conference, that it would await the results

of the Second Quarter Report before setting the next case management conference. The

Court, having reviewed that report, hereby sets the next status conference for Wednesday, 

//

//

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1506 Filed 04/06/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

June 30, 2010, at 3:00 PM, in Courtroom 12. Status conference statements from all parties

must be submitted on or before Wednesday, June 23, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/6/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1506 Filed 04/06/10 Page 4 of 4