### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Octob er 7 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 03- 1235 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 00 04 0 C V-FTM-2 9- DNF K.M. an d J .M., in di vi du al ly, an d o n b eh al f of M.M., a m inor, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe lle es , ve rs us SCHOOL BOARD OF LEE COUNT Y FLORIDA, D ef en dant- Appe llant, STATE OF FLORIDA, DE PARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SE RVI CE S, DI VI SIO N O F A DMINI ST RAT IV E H EA RIN GS , Defen da nt .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (O ct ob er 7, 200 5)Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of I nternational Trade sitti ngby * desig nation. 2 Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg e, an d R ESTANI , * Judg e. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant S ch ool Bo ar d of L ee Co unty

( “ Bo ar d” ) ap pe al s f

ro m the aw ar d of

m one tary

dam ag es und er

42 U . S. C. § 19 83 f

or vio la tio n of

the In div idu al s w ithD isa

bil iti es in E duc at ionA ct

( “ ID E A ”) , 20 U . S. C. §§ 1400 - 14 82 . The B oard appeals the denial of its m otion s for j udgm ent as a m atter of law an d f or ane wtr ia l. T he Bo ar d arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de ny ing jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law b ecau se (1) § 1 98 3 d oe s n otpe rm itreco ve ry forIDEA vio la tio ns, ( 2) e ve n if

suc h r ec ove ry

w as pe rm itt ed , P la int if

fs did not e sta bli sh the Bo ar d ha d apol ic y

or c ust om that i nf lic te d P la int if

fs ’ inj ur y a s § 1 983 lia

bil ity re qui re s and ( 3) P la int if

fs f ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t the Bo ar d’ s a ct s w er e the proxim ate ca

use of any

dam ages they

suffere d. T he Board ar gues that the dis trict court err ed in deny ing its m otion for a new tr ial because (1) the verdict wa s ag ai nst the gr eat w ei ght

of the e vid en ce , ( 2) the j ur

y ign or ed j ur y ins tr uc tio ns, m isa ppr eh en de d th e iss ue s, and w as inf lue nc ed by sy m pa thy and p re j udi ce , and (3 ) th e d is tri ctco ur t erredin ex cl ud in g c ert ai n t es ti m on y on th e Bo ard ’s con du ct .3

Beca use the evidence overwhelm inglysuppo rts De fendant’ s posi tion th at the Bo ar d ha d no pol ic y

or c ust om of de ny ing pot en tia lly

dis ab le d st

ude nts a cc es s to d ue pr oc es s he ar ing s or

de lay ing de liv er

y of stu de nt r ec or ds t o th ei r fam ili es , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of D ef en dant’ s m oti on f

or j udgm en t a s a m at te r of law an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on . Be ca use w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n, w e de ny P la int if fs ’ m oti on f

or attor ne y ’ s f ee s. STATEMENT OF FACTS

M.M. wa s a student at Three Oaks Midd le School (“ Thre e O aks”) in the L ee CountySchool district. D uring his seventh and eigh th grade y ears, his grades be ga n t o d ecl in e; an d h e ex hi bi te d p ro bl em s wi th hi s b eh av io r an d a tt it ud e. M.M. ’ s m other and aunt, an E xceptional Stud ent Education (“ ES E” ) teac her, m et with T hree O aks teachers and coun selors to dis cuss M.M. ’ s problem s in October 2001 . At the m eeting, the fam ily m em bers and school o fficials pre pared an Acad em ic Im

pr ov em en t Pl an (“ Pl an ”), wh ic h c al le d fo r aft er-s ch oo l tut or in g, a follow-up m eeting in six we eks, and “ inform al scree ning ” of M. M. The M other testified she und erstood thi s screening would be disabili ty testing. T he Board4

pr es en te d t es ti m on y

th atin fo rm al scr een in g was no t an IDEA fun ct io n a ndth e two tests giv en to M.M. during th e six-we ek period wer e not given as part of an ES E ev al ua tio n. T he P lan di d no t r ec om m en d e xc ep tio na l st

ude nt s er vic es , and the director of T hree O aks’ s ES E pr ogram testified that they

did no t usuallym ake E SE refe rrals during an initial Plan m eeting. M. M.’ s aunt asked if procedural sa feg ua rd s ap pl ie d; sch oo l o ffi ci al s t ol d h er t he y were n otne ces sa ry

fora Pl an . A t the m ee tin g, the Mo the r al so r eque ste d M . M. be te ste d f or a tte nti on deficit disorder (“ AD D” ). School officials told her that M.M .’ s pediatrician wa s the appropriate party

to perform

such an evaluation. L ater in O ctober, the Mother obtained ADD diagnos tic form s from M.M .’ s pediatrician, which M.M. ’ s teachers fi lle d ou t. O n 20 N ove m

be r 2001 , be fo re the f

oll ow -u p m ee tin g w as sc he dul ed to take pla ce , ate ac he r ove rh eard M. M. m ak ing athr eat a ga ins t anothe r te ac he r, Mr s. Jone s. M. M. sa id “ If

she giv es m e an oth er

ba d gr ad e I’ m

goi ng t o ki ll he r. ” T he teacher wr ote up the incid ent as a threat of violence against a teacher , f or which th e Sch oo l Bo ardha d azero -to le ran ce p ol ic y . At M. M.’ s discipl inary

hearing on 29 Novem

ber 2001, M. M. w as suspend ed for ten day s and was assigned to the schoo l district’ s Alter native Learning Center (“ AL C”) for forty -five day s. M. M.’ s parents told scho ol officials M. M. had bee nIn fac t, M.M.’s pediatricia n had dec lined to diag nose M.M. with ADD. 1 5 di ag no se d wi th ADD. M.M.’s pa ren ts req ue st edth athe be gi ve n IDEA 1 pr oc ed ur al sa fe guard s, inc lud ing an a dm ini str at ive due pr oc es s he ar ing be fo re the D ivi sio n of

A dm ini str at ive H eari ngs (“ D O A H ”) . T he Mo the r te sti fi ed that the Thre e O aks principal toldthem that M.M. did no t qualify for I DE A proce dural sa fe guard s be ca

use he did

not have adis ab ili ty ; the pr inc ipa l t es tif ie d sh e did

not say thi s. O n 7 D ec em

be r, the sc hool se nt a

le tte r to M . M. ’ s pare nts a dvi sin g th em of th e h eari ng ’s ou tc om e an d t ha t t he pa ren ts co ul d o bt ai n arev ie w of t he de ci si on . T he sam e day , the pare nts r et ai ne d apsy ch olo gis t t o e va luate M. M. O n 10 De ce m b er , t h e p ar en t s d el i v er eda l et t ert o Th re e O ak s re qu es t i n g th at M. M .’s gr ad es and d isc ipl ine r ec or ds b e av ai la ble f or pic kup the ne xt d ay

and tha t c er

ta in fo rm s whic h th e ne wpsy ch olo gis t w oul d us e fo r ev al ua tio n be f ill ed out by M .M .’s t ea ch er s . Th e s ch o o l d i dn o tco m p l y. On1 3 De ce m

b er , wh en M. M .’s m oth er a tte m pte d to e nr oll him

in A L C, she w as inf

orm ed she c oul d no t do so u n t i l 8 J an u a ry. O n 14 D ec em

be r, M. M. ’ s pare nts se nt a le tte r to the S upe ri nte nde nt o f the sc hool sy ste m , statin g th at the O ct obe r m ee tin g ha d pl ac ed the S ch ool D istri ct

on not ic e that M . M. ha d apot en tia l di sa bil ity . T he le tte r re que ste d th at sc hoolWhether M.M.’s par ents’ letter s befor e 20 De cembe r cle arly asked f or a du e p ro cess he aring 2 un de r IDE A w a s d isp ute d. Th is i ssu e do e s n ot c ha ng e our a na ly sis ; s o for c lari ty

we wi ll r e fe r t o the se re qu e sts a s f

or I DE A d ue pr oc e ss h e ari ng s.

6 o ff i ci al s co m

p l y wi th th e p ar en t s ’ re qu es t s fo r f o rms a n di n v o k edth e I DEA ’s

“ st ay pu t” cla us e to try to k eep M.M. i n re gu la r cl as se s. See 20 U.S.C. § 1 41 5( j). T he le tte r as ke d f

or an I D E Adue pr oc es s he ar ing if tho se r eque sts w er e not gr an te d. 2 On 18 De cem

ber, the parents sent the District’ s staff attorney a letter re que sti ng an I D E Adue pr oc es s he ar ing . T he a tto rn ey ’ s r es pons e, r eg ar din g bo th le tt ers , was t ha t t he sch oo l d is tri ctdi d n ot ag ree t ha t M .M. was en ti tl edto IDEA pr oc ed ur al sa fe guard s. T he a tto rn ey of fe re d ar em ind er

that the pare nts c oul d re que st a due pr oc es s he ar ing r eg ar din g M . M. ’ s a ssi gnm en t t o A L C. O n 20 De cem ber, the parents sent a letter to the District’ s attorney clarif y ing th at they w an te d an I D E Adue pr oc es s he ar ing . T he pare nts de cl ine d th e due pr oc es s he ar ing about

the A L C a ssi gnm en t and b eg anhom e sc hool ing M. M. on 2 0 Ja nu ary. T he pare nts m ad e tw o m or e re que sts f or an I D E Adue pr oc es s he ar ing , on 7 and 10 Janu ary . The S chool District’ s attorney again advised the parents that they we re not entitled to an IDE A due proce ss hearing, and no due process hearing was ev er he ld. A cc or din g to the dir ec tor of the Bo ar d’ s E SE pr ogr am , thi s in ci de ntPla int if fs a dmi tte d th at th e wi nte r br e ak and re c or ds be ingtr ans po rt e d to and fr om A L C lik e ly 3 c a us e d s ome de lay s in

Thre e Oa ks ’ p ro du c tio n o f M .M .’ s r e c or ds .

7 wa s the onlytim e in at least the previous three y ears that a parent requested an IDEA du e p ro ces s h eari ng an d was no t g iv en on e. A lth oughaF lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of E duc at ionRu le r equir es sc hool s to pr ovi de c opi es of

e duc at ionr ec or ds t o pare nts w ith in thirty day s of ar eque st f

or the r ec or ds, M. M. ’ s r ec or ds w er e not pr oduc ed

unt il 30 J anuary , m or e than th irty day s a ft er the r eque st. M. M’ s f

athe r ide nti fi ed

tw o othe r spe ci fi c part s of the re co rd that w er e tur

ne d ov er a ft er 30 J anuary . T he Bo ar d c la im ed that pr oduc tio n wa s delay ed because (1) the school-sy stem ’ s two-w eek w inter break w as betwe en the r eque st f

or r ec or ds and the ir

de liv er y and ( 2) M. M. ’ s r ec or ds w er e dif fi cu lt to loc at e w hil e be ing tr an spor te d to and f

ro m the A L C f

ac ili ty . B ef

or e the r eque st 3 fo r the c um

ulativ e fi le , T hr ee O ak s ha d gi ve n M . M. ’ s f athe r co pie s of

r ec or ds h e spe ci fi ca lly

r eque ste d. M .M .’s fa m i l y b ro u g h ts u i tu n d er4 2 U.S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , c l ai m i n g th e B o ar d ’s failure to deliver M. M.’ s com plete rec ords in th irty

day s and to prov ide M.M. an ID E Adue pr oc es s he ar ing or f or w ar d th ei r re que st f

or adue pr oc es s he ar ing to D O A H vio la te d th ei r ri ght to due pr oc es s un de r the F if th and F ourte en th A m en dm en ts t o th e U . S. Co nst itu tio n.8 DISCUSS ION

W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of am oti on f

or j udgm en t a s a m atter of law. E tienne v. Inter- CountySec . G roup, 173 F.3d 1372, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999 ). W e co nsi de r the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the non m ovi ng party . I d. W e loo k to se e if “ the e vid en ce pr es en ts s uf fi ci en t di sa gr ee m en t t o re qui re sub m iss ionto a j ur y , or w he the r it is s o on e- sid ed that on e party

m ust pr ev ai l a s am atte r of

law . ” Co m

bs v . P lantatio n P atte rn s, 106 F . 3d 1 519, 152 6 (1 1thCi r. 199 7) ( quot ing A nde rs on v . L ibe rty L obby , I nc . , 106 S . Ct . 250 5, 251 2 (1986)). If the f

acts and inference s overwhelm inglysuppo rt one party , such that re as ona ble pe opl e co uld

not dis ag re e ab out

the ve rd ic t, the n th e m oti on s houl d ha ve be en gra nt ed . Id. W e conclude that the district court erred in not granting judgm ent as a m atter of lawbecause Pla intiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to cre ate a j ury que sti on a

bout w he the r the Bo ar d’ s po lic y or c ust om inf lic te d th ei r dam ag es ; so , w e do n ot r ea chD ef

en dant’ s othe r ar gum en ts.9

Mun ic ipa l L ia

bil ity und er 198 3 At the outset, w e stress that Plaintiffs sued the School Board itself, rather than any indiv idual officers of the S chool District. Loca l governm ent bodi es, such as sc hool board s, m ay

be he ld l ia

ble und er § 19 83 o nly

f or a ct s “ ‘ of the m uni ci pa lity ’ - - that i s, a ct s whic h th e m uni ci pa lity

ha s of fi ci al ly sanc tio ne d or or de re d. ” P em

baur v. Ci nc inn atti, 106 S . Ct . 129 2, 129 8 ( 1986 ); se e Cu es tav. Sc hool Bo ar d of

Mi am i- D ad e Co unty , 285 F . 3d 9 62, 967 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . T his

“ ‘ of fi ci al pol ic y ’ r equir em en t w as int en de d to dis tin gui sh a ct s of the m uni ci pa lity from acts of em

ploy ees of the m

unicipalit y , and thereby

m ake clear that m

unicipal liabilityis lim ited to action for which the m unicipalit y

is actually

responsibl e. ” Pe m baur , 106 S . Ct . a t 12 98. P la int if fs have the bur de n to e sta bli sh the e xis te nc e of a m un ic ip al po li cy . State lawdeterm ines which bodies or persons m ay establish m

unicipal po li cy . Jet t v . Dall as Ind ep en de nt Sch oo l Di st ric t, 1 09 S.Ct . 27 02 , 27 23 -2 4 (1 98 9) . U nde r Fl or ida

law , f ina l po lic ym ak ing auth or ity f or asc hool dis tr ic t i s ve ste d in th e Sch oo l Bo ard . Fla. St at . Ann . § 2 30 . 22 (1 ) (2 00 1) (no w cod ifi edat § 10 01 .41 ). The S uperintendent m ay

rec omm end poli cies to the School Board, but is not giv en au th or it y to m ak e fi na l p ol ic y

wit ho ut th e Bo ard ’s app ro va l. Fl a. St at . Ann . §10

230.32 (200 1) (now c odified at § 100 1.49). Nor does state law a utho rize any

other em plo y ee to m ak e fi na l po lic y f or the Bo ar d. “ [A ] lth oughauth or ity to m ak e m unicipal po licy

m ay be . . . delegated by

an official who po ssesses such au tho ri ty [, ] ” Mande l v. D oe , 888 F . 2d 7 83, 792 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) , the re is no e v i d e n c e th e B o a r dd e l e g a t e di t s p o l i c ym a k i n g au th o r i ty. Be ca use F lor ida

lawide nti fi es the S ch ool Bo ar d a s th e pol ic ym ak er f or the S c h o o l Di s tr i c t , as i n g l e d e c i s i o n b y th e B o ar dmay c o n s t i tu t e S c h o o l B o ar dp o l i c y, ev enif not phr as ed a s af orm al pol ic y

state m en t. C ue sta , 285 F . 3d at 96 7- 68; Je tt, 109 S.Ct. at 2723-24 . If, before a decision becom es final, the School Board ratifie d the de ci sio n of

asub or din at e w ho d id n ot h av e fi na l po lic ym ak ing auth or ity , the Bo ar d w ill be li ab le f

or that de ci sio n. G ar

vie v. Ci ty

of F ort W al tonBe ac h, 366 F. 3d 1 186, 118 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ; T hom as v. Ro be rt s, 261 F . 3d 1 160, 117 4 ( 11th Ci r. 200 1) , va cate d onoth er gr ound s by , 122 S . Ct . 265 3 ( 2002 ), r ei nst at ed by 323 F.3 d 9 50 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The S chool Board will also be responsibl e for m ultip le acts by

subordi nates that c onst itu te ac ust om , if that c ust om

c au se d th e pla int if

f’ s in j ur y . Mc D ow el l v. Br ow n, 392 F . 3d 1 283, 129 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . Ac ust om is a pr ac tic e that ha s no t rece ived official approval, but is “ so settled and p erm anent that it takes on th e forc e11

o f th e l aw . ” I d . S h o w i n g an i s o l a t e di n c i d e n ti s n o te n o u g h t o e s t ab l i s h c u s t o m; th e p ract ic e m

us t b e “ pe rs is te nt an d wi de sp read .” Id . T he D ue P ro ce ss H eari ng Fo r the Bo ar d to be li ab le und er § 19 83, P la int if

fs w er e re qui re d to sho wthe de ci sio n to de ny

M. M. an I D E Adue pr oc es s he ar ing w as ( 1) m ad e pur suant t o a cu sto m or ( 2) m ad e pur suant t o apr ee xis tin g f orm al Bo ar d po lic y

or ( 3) m ad e dir ec tly by the Bo ar d, a s th e pol ic ym ak er f or the S ch ool D istri ct

or ( 4) r at if ie d by th e Bo ardbe fo re t he de ci si on be cam e fi na l. Plaintiffs presented no evidence that any other students had ever been denied an ID EAdue process hearing; therefore, Plaintiffs cannot establish th e denial wa s m ade pursuant to a custom . Plaintiffs do not po int to a preexisting form al Board pol ic y and s o do not

e sta bli sh tha t the de ci sio n to de ny ahe ar ing w as m ad e pursuant to a pree xistin g official policy that com pelled no hearing. T herefor e, Plaintiffs m

ust establis h that either the Board itself m ade the decision to denyM.M . (i n part ic ular) an I D E Adue pr oc es s he ar ing or that the Bo ar d r at if

ie d th e de ci sio n be fo re it be cam e fi na l. S o, w e tur n to the e vid en ce P la int if fs pr es en te d a

bout w ho m ad e th e d eci si on to de ny M.M. an IDEA du e p ro ces s h eari ng .12

Plaintiffs established: that the School District’ s ES E D irector w as part of a group th at determ ined M.M. wa s not eligi ble for the hear ing; th at this group m et w iththe S upe ri nte nde nt and d isc uss ed w ithhim that M . M. w as not

e lig ibl e fo r the he ari ng ; an d t ha t t he Sch oo l Di st ric t’s s ta ff at to rn ey , who typic al ly arran ge d IDEA du e p ro ces s h eari ng s wi th DOAH, com m un ic at edth e d eci si on to Pla in ti ffs . But none of this evidence dem onstrates that the Board itself m ade or ratified the de ci sio n. P la int if

fs pr es en te d no e vid en ce that any of the se ind ivi dua ls com m unicated with the Board m em bers about M.M. ’ s situatio n. T he only evidence Plaintiffs presented that the Board m ade – or ratified – the decision were the le tters fr om the S ch ool D istri ct ’ s st af f attor ne y inf orm ing M. M. ’ s f

am ily of the de ci sio n to de ny M. M. the due pr oc es s he ar ing . W e the re fo re tur n our ex am inatio n to the se le tte rs . The D istrict’ s staff attorney ’ s letters w ere wr itten on Schoo l District stationery that listed the School Board m em bers on the letterhead. The letters state d th at

“ T he D istri ct

r es pe ct fu lly

dis ag re es that . . . [ M. M. ] is en tit le d to the [I D E A ’ s] pr oc ed

ur al sa fe guard s” and “ T he D istri ct . . . doe s no t be lie ve that the ID E Aappl ie s to [ M. M. ] ” T he se state m en ts r ai se que sti ons ab out w he the r thi s de te rm inatio n r ep re se nte d S ch ool Bo ar d po lic y . B ut, the le tte rs do n ot s ay that the Board m ade the pertinent ID EAdecision for M.M. nor indicate that the Board even13

kn ew ab o u tM. M .’s s i tu at i o n . No r d o Pl ai n t i ff s es t ab l i s h th at th e S ch o o l Di s tri ct ’s staff attorney

wa s speaking for the Boar d when he wrote the letters - or that he ever ha d be enauth or iz ed

to spe ak f or the Bo ar d. T he le tte rh ea d it se lf spe ci fi ed that a differe nt person was the “ Board A ttorney .” T he attorney who w rote the letters w as a sta ff a tto rn ey of the S ch ool D istri ct . S tandi ng a lon e, the le tte rs , w hic h sp eak on ly of “ the District” and wer e w ritten on behalf of an unspecified decision m aker, are in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th atth e Sch oo l Bo ardm ad e an y de ci si on s ab ou t M .M. Plaintiffs do not present evid ence apar t from the letters to dem onstrate that the letters w ere com

m unicating a Boar d decision, or that any Board m em

bers even kne wabout

M. M. ’ s si tuatio n be fo re the law sui t w as f ile d. P la int if

fs ne ve r poi nt t o a Bo ar d vo te or

oth er a ct or to a fo rm al Bo ar d po lic y . P la int if fs pr es en t no ev ide nc e that the Bo ar d di sc uss ed M. M. ’ s si tuatio n w ithany one , inc lud ing the S c h o o l Di s tr i c t ’s s t a f

f a t t o rn e y. T he m ost f av or ab le c onstru al of

P la int if f’ s e vid en ce is that an e x of fi ci o m em be r of the Bo ar d, the S upe ri nte nde nt, m ad e the de ci sio n to de ny M. M. adue pr oc es s he ar ing . W ithno e vid en ce of any a ct ion– or

e ve n kn ow le dge – by

the Bo ardit se lf abo ut M.M., t hi s i s i ns uf fic ie nt to est ab li sh th e Bo ardha d apo li cy . It i s al so in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th atth e Bo ardrat ifi edth e d eci si on . To es ta bli sh r at if ic at ion , P la int if

fs m ust “ de m onstrate that l oc al gov er nm en t14

policym akers had an opportun ity to reviewthe subordi nate’ s decision andagree d wit h b ot h t he de ci si on an d t he de ci si on ’s bas is ” b efo re i t b ecame fin al . Id.; T hom as , 261 F . 3d at 11 74. A s di sc uss ed above , no l an gua ge in the le tte rs or ev ide nc e in the tr ia l r ec or d in dic at es the Bo ar d e ve n kn ewabout M. M. ’ s si tuatio n w he n th e attor

ne y ’ s le tte rs w er e w ri tte n. T he re fo re , the a tto rn ey ’ s le tte rs do n ot sh ow t ha t t he Bo ardha d re vi ewedan d a gr eedwit h t he de ci si on an d i ts ba si s. Pl ai nti ff s di d no t pr es en t su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce to cr eate aj ur y que sti on o n whe th er a Bo ardpo li cy

or c us to m

was t he m ov in g fo rce b eh in d d en y in g M .M. a due pr oc es s he ar ing . D ef en dant’ s m oti on f

or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawsho uld ha ve be en gra nt ed . P ro duc tio n of

Co m ple te S tud en t R ec or ds

Pl ai nti ff s arg ue that the Bo ar d ha d ac ust om of de lay ing pr oduc tio n of com plete student records to fam ilies of children with disabilit ies. P laintiffs presented testim ony

from two fam ilies of disabled child ren. T he first re quested re co rd s inS ep te m

be r 1998 ; the m oth er

te sti fi ed she be gan r ec ei vin g r ec or ds the fo ll owi ng Feb ru ary orMarc h, af te r sh e h adfil edforan IDEA du e p ro ces s h eari ng . The sec ond b egan litigatio n over records ar oundSeptem ber 1999. T his m other15

t e s t i f i e dth a ts h e d i dn o tr e c e i v e r e c o r d s i n th i rty d ays , mi g h th a v e r e c e i v e ds o me w ith in s ixty

day s, and s por ad ic al ly

r ec ei ve d m or e re co rd s th ro ugho ut h er li tig at ion ov er t he m . T he de lay in pr oduc ing M. M. ’ s r ec or ds i nvol ve d si gni fi cantl y dif fe re nt ci rc um stanc es . F ir st, the dis tr ic t ha d no t i de nti fi ed M. M. a s adis ab le d st

ude nt, a s it m ade clear w hen it denied hi m an ID EAdue process hearing. T herefor e, the denial of his r ec or ds c oul d no t be pur suant t o ac ust om of de lay ing c om

ple te c opi es of records to disabled stu dents, as Plaintiffs argue. In addition , pec uliar ci rc u m s t an ce s ar o s e du ri n g th e t h i rt y d ays fo l l o wi n g th e r eq u es tfo r M .M .’s records. For tw o wee ks, the school sy stem wa s on winter break; and few em ploy ees w ere available to gather and copy rec ords. A lso, M. M.’ s records w ere m oved am ong several locations because of his transfer to AL C and later w ith dr aw al f

ro m the sc hool sy ste m . T he Bo ar d pr es en te d un co nte ste d te sti m ony th atth is m ov em en t co m

pl ic at edfin di ng th e rec or ds an d d el ay edth ei r pr od uc ti on . N ei the r re as on e xc use s th e Bo ar d’ s f ai lur e to p ro vid e the r ec or ds w ith in thirty day s; b ut, the y

do s howthat e xte nuatin g c ir cum stanc es c re at ed ade lay in the pr od uc ti on of M .M.’s reco rd s. Although evidence shows that student s’ rec ords wer e delay ed in three i n s t an c e s , th a tc i r c u ms t a n c e a l o n e d o e s n o te s t ab l i s h ac u s t o m; th e r e mu s tb e s o me16

co nne ct ionbe tw ee n th e thr ee inc ide nts . S ee Chur chv. Ci ty of H unt svi lle , 30 F . 3d 1332 , 134 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ( de te rm ini ng y ear- old inc ide nts of

hom el es s pe rs ons be ing arr es te d and r em ove d f ro m c ity w er e not sho w n to be c onne ct ed

to curr en t inc ide nts a s ne ce ssary

to supp ort pe rv as ive pr ac tic e of dis pla ci ng h om el es s pe rs ons) . I n th is c as e, the dif fe re nc e in whe the r the dis tr ic t pe rc ei ve d th e stu de nts as dis ab le d, the tw o- y ear tim e ga p, and the pe cu liar adm ini str at ive dif fi cu lti es of M. M. ’ s si tuatio n m ak e M. M. ’ s c as e m at er ia lly dif fe re nt f ro m the oth er inc ide nts and m ake Plaintiffs’ evidence inadequate to show a sufficient connection between the inc ide nts to de m onstrate ac ust om . D ef en dant’ s m oti on f

or j udgm en t a s a m at te r of law s ho ul d h av e b een gra nt ed . Be ca use the e vid en ce ove rwhe lm ing ly sup ports D ef

en dant’ s po sit ionthat the Board did not h ave a policy of deny ing stu dents no t y et determ ined to be dis abled ac ce ss t o I D E Adue pr oc es s he ar ing s or ac ust om of de lay ing pr oduc tio n of co m ple te r ec or ds t o di sa

ble d st ude nts , w e de te rm ine that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in not gr an tin g D ef

en dant’ s m oti on f

or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

law . T he de ci sio n of the district court is therefore REVERSED.