Opinion ID: 75776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Rostetter's Affidavit and Testimony

Text: 13 K.C. claims the district court committed reversible error by allowing the Board to supplement the record with the affidavit and expert testimony of Dr. Rostetter. We disagree. The district court is to conduct a de novo review of the ALJ's findings, and IDEA specifically provides that the court may take additional evidence and may fashion relief that the court deems appropriate. Weiss v. Sch. Bd., 141 F.3d 990, 991-92 (11th Cir.1998); see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B). The determination of what is `additional' evidence must be left to the discretion of the trial court which must be careful not to allow such evidence to change the character of the hearing from one of review to a trial de novo. Walker County Sch. Dist. v. Bennett, 203 F.3d 1293, 1298 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 736 F.2d 773, 791 (1st Cir.1984)) (emphasis added). 14 K.C. argues the Board failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C) and 26(e). The Board correctly notes the district court never set an expert witness disclosure deadline other than the Rule 26 requirement that expert witnesses must be disclosed at least ninety days prior to trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2). Since the Board disclosed its desire and intent to use Dr. Rostetter as an expert witness over a year prior to trial, it cannot be said to have violated Rule 26. 15 K.C. also argues the district court failed to meet the  Walker standards for what additional evidence a court may accept in civil actions brought under the IDEA. 4 K.C. contends the Board did not provide a sufficient basis for supplementing the record, failing to demonstrate why Dr. Rostetter did not testify at the administrative hearing. K.C. contends Dr. Rostetter's testimony was cumulative of testimony previously presented at the administrative hearing. These arguments are without merit. 16 When initially presented with the Board's motion to supplement the record, the district court denied it and required an amended motion setting forth the evidence the Board wished to present and how it would assist the court. The Board did so, providing a solid justification for introducing additional evidence. Cf. Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 996-97 (1st Cir.1990) (concluding that deliberately withholding witnesses because of disdain for the administrative process failed as a solid justification). The district court expressly considered the Town of Burlington court's analysis of what additional evidence should be considered. It noted additional expert testimony may be helpful in clarifying certain aspects of the case and that legitimate reasons — such as cost — often exist for not presenting all expert testimony before a state agency. Town of Burlington and Walker County declined to adopt a rule prohibiting a court from considering testimony from those who did, or could have, testified before the administrative hearing. Town of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 790; Walker County, 203 F.3d at 1298. We find no abuse of discretion in allowing this limited additional evidence.