Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01390/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01390-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E.P.
Plaintiff
San Ramon Valley Unified School District
Defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E.P.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendant. /

No. C05-01390 MJJ

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff E.P.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In reviewing the

briefing and record, the Court notes that the parties have submitted an audiotape recording of part of the

August 25, 2004 Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) team meeting into evidence. (Joint Exhibit

“Alpha”.) Joint Exhibit “Alpha” begins on Side A with the introduction of Kim Stokes and Vickie

Wells but ends as the discussion concerning the scheduling of the August 30, 2004 IEP meeting begins.

Side B is blank. In the Administrative Record (“AR”), the Hearing Officer references these scheduling

discussions from Joint Exhibit “Alpha.” (Administrative Record, SEHO Decision 9-10, fn3.) Further,

both parties refer to Joint Exhibit “Alpha” when giving their competing accounts of the discussion

about the scheduling of the August 30, 2004 IEP team meeting. (AR Student’s Closing Argument 2:14-

3:22; AR District’s Closing Brief 8:25-9:16.) However, this scheduling conversation is not included

on the Court’s copy of Joint Exhibit “Alpha.” 

Because the scheduling discussion at the end of the August 25, 2004 IEP meeting is at the heart

of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that the audiotape recording of the entire IEP meeting on that date

Case 3:05-cv-01390-MJJ Document 27 Filed 06/26/06 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

would be helpful in resolving this matter. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to submit a joint

statement indicating whether the audio recording of this part of the August 25th proceeding exists and

why it was not filed. Additionally, if the parties agree that is should be part of the Court’s record, they

may concurrently file the audiotape with their joint statement. The parties’ joint statement shall be due

within 5 days of the filing date of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01390-MJJ Document 27 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2