NO T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
D. A. a nd J. A., on be ha lf of the m se lve s and a s le ga l gua

rdia ns a nd pa re nts of M .A., a n individual with a

disa bility , Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. M ER IDIAN JOINT SC HOOL DISTRIC T NO. 2, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35081 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00426-C W D M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho C andy W . Da le , C hie f M a g istra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 8, 2015 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, HAWK INS, and C ALLAHAN, C i rc uit Judge s. 

# FIL E D JUL 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.All pa rtie s a g re e tha

t M a tthe w ha s Aspe rge r’ s Sy ndrom e , a high func tioning form of a utism
. 1 This a

ppe a l is by

M atthe w’ s pa

re nts (the Pare nts) from the distric t c o urt’ s a ffirm anc e of the he aring offic e r’ s de te rm ination tha t M atthe w, de spite having Aspe rge r’ s Sy ndrom e , wa s not in ne e d of spe c ia l e duc ation se rvic e s unde r the Individua ls with Disa bilitie s Educ at ion Ac t (IDEA), 20 U.S.C . § 1400. W e c onc l ude tha

t the Pare nts ha

ve not c arrie d

the ir burde n of showing tha t the he aring offic e r e rre d in e xc luding c e rta in proffe re d e vide nc e or tha t the distric t c ourt a nd the he aring offic e r fa ile d to c onside r both non-a c a d e m i c and a c a de m ic fa c t ors in re vie wing the c onflic ting e vide n c e . Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm
. 2 1. The Pare nts ha

v e not shown tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a ffirm ing the he aring offic e r’ s e xc l usion of c e rta in e vide nc e . The first proc e e d ing be fore a he aring offic e r wa s brought by M e ridia n Sc hool Distric t (M SD) se e king c onfirm ation of its re fusa l in Fe brua ry 2011 to prepa

re an Inde pe nde nt Educ ationa l Eva luation (IEE) for M a tthe w. The se c ond proc e e ding, from whic h this a ppe a l arise s, wa s initia

te d by the Pare nts a fte r the IEE ha d be e n pre pa re d, a nd a fte r M SD,

1 M a tthe w is now a

n a dult, but during m

ost of theunde rly i ng le ga l proc e e dings he wa s a

m inor a nd wa s re fe rre d to a s M .A. 2 The re late d

a p pe a l s by M e ridia n Sc hool Distric t a

re de c ide d in a

n opinion file d c onc urre ntly with this me m orandum disposition. 2having re vie we d the IEE, de t e rm ine d tha t M atthe w did not ne e d spe c ia l e duc ation se rvic e s. The Pare n t s sought to adm it doc um e nts a nd te stim ony

from the first proc e e ding a s e vide nc e in the se c o nd proc e e d ing, but the he aring offic e r de c line d to a d m it the e vide nc e . The Pare nts a rgue d tha t the first he aring offic e r ha d found that M a tthe w ne e d e d spe c i a l e duc ation se rvic e s a nd sought the

a dm i ssion of the te stim ony of the ir e xp e rts in thefirst he aring, Dr. W e bb a nd Dr. B e a

ve r, c la im ing that Dr. W e bb wa s una

va ila ble during thec ourse of the se c ond he aring. The he aring offic e r de c line d to a dm it the e vide nc e be c a u se : (1) he wa s re vie wing e vide nc e a s to M a tthe w’ s ne e ds in thefa l l of 2011, not his ne e ds a t a prior tim e ; (2)
m uc h of the e vide nc e pre se n te d in the prior he aring ha d be e n inc orporate d into the IEE; a nd (3) the Pare nts ha d

fa ile d to show the

pa rtic ula r re le va nc e of the proffe re d e vide nc e . The Pare n ts ha

ve the burde n of proof in the ir c ha lle nge to the he aring offic e r’ s de c ision. Sc haffe r v . W e ast , 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005). We re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s e v i de ntia

ry rulings for a

buse of disc re tion, E.M. v
. Pajaro Valle y Unifie d Sc h. Dist. Offic e of Admin. He arings , 652 F.3d 999, 1003 (9th C ir. 2011), and a he aring offic e r’ s findings a re e ntitle d to som e de fe re nc e . S e e Ashland Sc h. Dist. v . Pare nts of Student E.H. , 587 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th C ir. 2009). 3The Pare n ts ha ve not m e t the ir burde n of showing tha t e ithe r the he aring offic e r or the distric t c ourt e rre d in e xc luding the ir proffe re d e vide nc e . C ontra ry to the Pa re nts’ c onte n tion, thefirst he aring offic e r spe c i fic a lly de c line d to de te rm ine whe the r M a tthe w ne e de d spe c ia l e duc at ion se rvic e s. In a ddition, m uc h of the e vide nc e the Pare nts sought to introduc e ha d be e n inc orporate d into theIEE. M ore o ve r, the y

did not m ake a

pe rsua s ive showing to e ithe r the he aring offic e r or the d istric t c o urt tha

t furthe r te stim ony

c onc e rning M atthe w’ s a

bility and a c tions, be y ond tha

t whic h ha d be e n inc orporate d into theIEE, wa s ne c e s sa ry to e v a luate M a tthe w’ s ne e d s in the fa l l of 2011. On this re c ord, the Pare nts ha ve fa i le d to show tha t the e xc lude d e vide nc e wa s “ re l e va nt, non-c um

u lative and othe rwise a dm issible .” E.M. , 652 F.3d a t 1006. 2 . The Pare n ts ha

ve not m e t the ir burde n of proof, s e e Sc haffe r , 546 U.S. a t 62, of e sta

blishing tha

t M a tthe w ne e de d spe c ia l e d uc ation se rvic e s. Unde r the IDEA, a

“ c hild with a

disa bility ” — tha t is a c hild for whom

the IDEA m andate s the provision of spe c ia l e duc ation se rvic e s — is a c hild with a

n im pa irm e nt or disa

bility “ w h o, by re a son the re of, ne e ds spe c ia l e d u c ation a nd re late d se rvic e s.” 20 U.S.C . § 1401(3)(A)(ii). He re , a ll a g re e tha t M atthe w ha s a re c o gniz e d im

p a irm e nt or disa

bility , Aspe rge r’ s Sy

n drom e . The issue is whe the r be c a use of his Aspe rge r’ s Sy

ndrom e , M atthe w ne e d e d spe c ia l e duc ation se rvic e s. 4The he aring offic e r wa s pre s e nte d with irre c onc i la ble e vide n c e . The Pare nts’ e xpe rts a sse rte d tha t M a tthe w ne e de d spe c ia l se rvic e s to be ne fit from his e duc a tion, a

nd M SD’ s e xpe rts c la im e d, ba se d on the i r obse rvations of M atthe w in sc hool, tha

t he wa s be ne fitting from

the ge ne ra l e duc ation c urric ulum , de spite his a utism . Inde e d, the e vide nc e indic ate d tha t in som e insta

nc e s M atthe w wa s pe rform i ng we ll a

bove the Pare nts’ e xpe rts’ e xpe c t ations. Although the Pare nts a lle ge tha t M SD foc use d too m

uc h on M atthe w’ s a c a de m ic pe rform a n c e , the he aring offic e r an d the distric t c ourt note d tha t M atthe w ha d done we ll in c la sse s that e m pha s iz e d pre -voc a tiona l a nd life skills. W e hav e pre viously he ld, a s the he aring offic e r note d, tha t he aring offic e rs m ay

give we i ght to thete stim ony of sc hool pe rsonne l ba se d

on the ir e xpe rie nc e with thec hild. Se e N
. B. v . He llgate Ele m . Sc h. Dist. , 541 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th C ir. 2008). Our inde pe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord shows tha

t M SD, the he aring offic e r, and the distric t c o urt c onside re d both a c a de m ic and non-a c a de m ic fa c tors in c onc luding tha t M atthe w , de spite his a utism , did not ne e d spe c ia l e duc ation se rvic e s. The Pare nts ha ve not m e t the ir burde n of showing tha

t this c onc lusion wa s e rrone ous or im prope r.

5The distric t c ourt’ s m e m orandum de c ision a ffirm ing the he aring offic e r’ s finding tha

t M SD a ppropria te ly de te rm ine d tha

t M atthe w wa s not e ligible for spe c ia l e duc a tion se rvic e s is A FFIRM E D . 3

3 M SD’ s re que st for a ttorne y s’ fe e s is de nie d. 6