Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07218/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07218-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

1

It is unclear whether defendant seeks both the Martinez recording and the transcript, or whether

either one would suffice.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

K.S.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-07218 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Via letter brief, defendant Fremont Unified School District has filed a motion to compel or, in

the alternative, to supplement the administrative record. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

IN PART defendant’s motion.

In this case, plaintiff seeks to reverse the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

regarding a special education matter. Apparently, portions of the administrative record from the hearing

before the ALJ are missing. In particular, the testimony of Judith Paton (plaintiff’s expert), and Linda

Martinez (defendant’s expert), are missing from the record. Fortunately, plaintiff independently

recorded much of the hearing, including portions of the Paton and Martinez testimony. After learning

of this, defendant informally and formally requested production of the recordings, and/or transcripts

thereof. Plaintiff objected to defendant’s requests, but ultimately produced a transcript of its recording

of Paton’s testimony. Defendant now moves to compel production of the Martinez recording, or a

transcript thereof.1

 

This dispute is largely one of logistics and cost. Plaintiff argues that it cannot simply provide

Case 3:06-cv-07218-SI Document 68 Filed 07/31/07 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

Defendant already offered to bear the cost of transcribing the Martinez testimony. Plaintiff

insisted that defendant also pay for transcription of the Paton testimony. Considering that plaintiff has

already voluntarily transcribed the recording of Paton’s testimony (presumably because, as their expert,

Paton gave valuable testimony that plaintiff wishes to be part of the record in this Court), the Court will

not require defendant to pay for transcription of the Paton testimony. The gaps in the administrative

record would disadvantage both parties, and the relevant statute does not specify whose burden it is to

supply and pay for the administrative record. As such, it is just that the parties share the cost of filling

in gaps in the record. 

2

defendant with the audio recording because: (1) the audio recording will be difficult to extract from its

location on plaintiff’s small server; and (2) the recording captured privileged communications among

those sitting at plaintiff’s table during the hearing. The Court shares plaintiff’s concern with turning

over recordings of privileged communications, and therefore ORDERS plaintiff to provide defendant

with a transcript of the Martinez testimony, as captured on the recording, without transcription of any

communication between those seated at plaintiff’s table. Defendant shall bear the cost of transcribing

the Martinez testimony.2 The Court DENIES the parties’ motions for sanctions, and DENIES AS

MOOT defendant’s motion to supplement the administrative record. The Court also DENIES

defendant’s request for a copy of the recordings with which to verify the accuracy of the transcripts.

The Court assumes that the transcriber will provide the parties with verification of the accuracy of the

transcripts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31 , 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07218-SI Document 68 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 2