Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03470/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03470-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Office of Administrative Hearings
Defendant
R.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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.P., a minor, by and through

R.K.P, His Guardian Ad Litem,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-3470 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

AND CONDUCT DISCOVERY

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant San Ramon Valley Unified School District

("Defendant" or "District") moves the Court for an order to

supplement the record and conduct discovery. See Docket Nos. 32,

33. Plaintiff, a student and his father, seek review of the

decision of the California Office of Administrative Hearings

("OAH") regarding the appropriateness of Defendant's educational

program; Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion. See Docket No. 38. 

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant's

Motion to Supplement the Record and Conduct Discovery.

II. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff is a 10-year-old boy who has been diagnosed with

autism. See Compl., ¶ 9. He and Defendant were parties to an

administrative due process hearing before OAH to resolve a dispute

Case 3:06-cv-03470-SC Document 43 Filed 04/25/07 Page 1 of 3
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-

regarding the appropriateness of the District's offer for an

individualized education plan ("IEP") for RP for the 2005-2006

school year, 2005 extended school year, and 2005 extended-extended

school year. See id., ¶¶ 12-15. OAH held a six-day hearing,

which included testimony from several witnesses and multiple

exhibits. After reviewing the evidence, the administrative law

judge ("ALJ") produced a written decision finding in Defendant's

favor on all issues. See Pl.'s Mot., Ex. A.

Plaintiff filed the present action for this Court to review

the ALJ's decision pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Improvement Act ("IDEIA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.

See Compl. The parties have learned that large portions of the

administrative record for the case are missing, possibly due to a

recording failure. See Levine Decl., ¶ 11. While the exhibits,

correspondence and pleadings are intact, approximately four out of

the six days of testimony are missing. See Levine Decl., ¶¶ 5-6;

D's Opp'n, 2. 

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant's motion requests an order to allow it to conduct

discovery in order to reconstruct and supplement the

administrative record. Under the IDEIA, the Court "shall hear

additional evidence at the request of a party." 20 U.S.C. §

1415(i)(2)(C). Proper additional evidence is supplemental in

nature. See Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467,

1472-73 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Case 3:06-cv-03470-SC Document 43 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 3
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-

The reasons for supplementation will vary; they might include

gaps in the administrative transcript owing to mechanical

failure, unavailability of a witness, an improper exclusion

of evidence by the administrative agency, and evidence

concerning relevant events occurring subsequent to the

administrative hearing. The starting point for determining

what additional evidence should be received, however, is the

record of the administrative proceeding.

Id. at 1473. The trial court may exercise its discretion in

determining when to allow supplemental evidence. See id. 

Both parties agree that significant portions of the hearing

transcripts are missing. As a result, the Court finds that

Defendant should be allowed to conduct additional discovery to

recreate the testimony that was presented to the ALJ and help

narrow the issues in the instant review.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS

Defendant's Motion to Supplement the Record and Conduct Discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-03470-SC Document 43 Filed 04/25/07 Page 3 of 3