UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark and Linda Lessard,

Plaintiffs

v. Civil No. 05-cv-192-SM

Wilton-Lyndeborough Cooperative

School District and State of New Hampshire,

Department of Education,

Defendants

O R D E R

Defendants appeal the Magistrate Judge’s ruling denying

their motion to strike the administrative record filed by

plaintiffs in this IDEA case. For the reasons set forth below,

that appeal is sustained, the Magistrate Judge’s order is

vacated, and defendants’ motion to strike (document no. 21) is

granted. 

Discussion

Rule 9.3(a) of this court’s Local Rules defines an IDEA

administrative record as consisting of: 

any documents contained in the administrative file [of

the state agency], any findings or decisions of the

hearing officer, a transcript of those portions of the

administrative hearing or hearings that either party or

Case 1:05-cv-00192-SM Document 31 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 4
2

the court reasonably deems to be necessary to the

resolution of the case, and any exhibits produced

during the administrative hearing or hearings. 

L.R. 9.3(a). Local Rule 9(b) requires that the “plaintiff shall

obtain and file a copy of the administrative record within thirty

(30) days after the complaint is filed.” The rule also specifies

the practice for certifying the accuracy of the administrative

record upon which judicial review will be based. 

Although plaintiffs offer all manner of justification for

not doing so, it is plain that they did not “obtain and file a

copy of the administrative record.” It seems that rather than

obtain a copy of the record, they attempted to recreate it on

their own. What they filed as the “administrative record”

consists of a collection of documents or copies of documents

that, in their view, roughly duplicates the actual administrative

record (though some of the filed documents have plaintiffs’ handwritten notations on them and others are facially incomplete). 

Moreover, it seems equally clear that plaintiffs have not

followed the certification procedure specified in Local Rule

9.3(b). 

Case 1:05-cv-00192-SM Document 31 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 4
3

The State is obligated to, and indeed stands ready and

willing to provide an authentic copy of the administrative record

to plaintiffs for filing. It is difficult to understand, then,

why plaintiffs (or more to the point, their legal counsel)

thought it appropriate to waste their time (and plaintiffs’

money) in cobbling together their own version of the

“administrative record” from copies of relevant documents. Nor

is it clear why counsel would think it appropriate to try to pass

such an informal compilation off as the authentic administrative

record in the case. It seems like an entirely futile,

unnecessary, and costly misadventure. No doubt an explanation

exists, but it is not disclosed on this record.

It should go without saying that the administrative record

presented to the court for review must be accurate and reliable, 

and, critically, authentic. What plaintiffs have put together

and filed may or may not roughly approximate what is actually in

the administrative record, but it is hardly authentic, and

certainly is inconsistent with what the rules plainly and

unambiguously require. The court, with the advice and counsel of

the bar, enacted Local Rule 9.3 to avoid precisely the type of

Case 1:05-cv-00192-SM Document 31 Filed 09/09/05 Page 3 of 4
4

problem presented and to insure that the record is authentic and

reliable.

Conclusion

Defendants’ appeal is sustained. The Magistrate Judge’s

order dated August 18, 2005, denying the motion to strike, is

vacated. Defendants’ Motion to Strike IDEA Administrative Record

(document no. 21) is granted. 

The “administrative record” filed by plaintiffs is stricken

and shall be returned to them. Plaintiffs shall obtain and file

an authentic administrative record within thirty (30) days of the

date of this order, and shall comply with the procedures set out

in Local Rule 9(b) relative to certification. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

September 9, 2005

cc: Jennifer A. Eber, Esq.

Richard L. O’Meara, Esq.

Pamela e. Phelan, Esq.

Trina F. Ingelfinger, Esq.

Gerald M. Zelin, Esq.

Karen A. Schlitzer, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00192-SM Document 31 Filed 09/09/05 Page 4 of 4