Escondido Union High School District v. Aloy

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL Case No.: 24-cv-1653-RSH-JLB DISTRICT, 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT v. RECORD 14 C.A. By and Through her Guardian Ad 15 [ECF No. 18] Litem ASHLEY WENDEL, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is a motion to supplement the administrative record, filed 20 by minor defendant C.A. (“Student”), by and through her guardian ad litem, Ashley 21 Wendel. ECF No. 18. As explained below, the motion is denied. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On September 16, 2024, plaintiff Escondido Union High School District (the 24 “District”) filed the instant action seeking reversal of a decision from the State of 25 California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), pursuant to the Individuals with 26 Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. ECF No. 1. 27 1 In April 2024, the OAH held a due process hearing in this matter over the course of 2 seven days. ECF No. 18-1 at 2. On June 18, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 3 issued a final administrative decision finding for Student on both of the District’s issues 4 and all six of Student’s issues. AR 1512–13. As to the District’s issues, the ALJ found that: 5 (1) the District’s psychoeducational assessment, dated May 25, 2023, as amended on 6 September 8, 2023, was not legally sufficient and Student was entitled to an independent 7 educational evaluation at public expense; and (2) the District’s speech and language 8 assessment, dated May 30, 2023, was not legally sufficient and Student was entitled to an 9 independent educational evaluation at public expense. As to Student’s issues, the ALJ 10 found that: (1) the District denied Student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) 11 when it failed to assess Student for autism from March 3, 2023 through February 20, 2024; 12 (2) the District’s psychoeducational assessment failed to comply with the requirements of 13 34 C.F.R. § 300.304 by not being sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of Student’s 14 educational needs and by not utilizing assessment tools and strategies to produce relevant 15 information; (3) the District denied Student a FAPE beginning in March 2023 by failing to 16 assess Student for autism and by failing to consider autism when designing Student’s 17 educational program; (4) the District’s speech and language assessment was not legally 18 sufficient as it was not sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of Student’s speech and 19 language needs and by not utilizing assessment tools and strategies to produce relevant 20 information; (5) the District denied Student a FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year by 21 failing to consider and adequately address Student’s social emotional and mental health 22 needs; and (6) the District denied Student a FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year by failing 23 to offer Student an appropriate placement in a small, structured setting such as Winston. 24 Id. The District now seeks to overturn the ALJ’s decision as a whole on all the above issues. 25 ECF No. 1 ¶ 69. 26 On September 16, 2024, the District filed this action against Student. ECF No. 1. On 27 January 17, 2025, Student filed an answer to the Complaint. ECF No. 8. 1 On February 13, 2025, the administrative record was filed under seal. ECF No. 17. 2 On February 17, 2025, Student filed a Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record 3 with various documents, discussed further below. ECF No. 18-1. The District filed an 4 opposition on March 10, 2025. ECF No. 19. Student did not file a reply brief. See Docket. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 When reviewing an administrative hearing decision under IDEA, statutory 7 guidelines provide that the court: 8 (i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and 9 (iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall 10 grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate. 11 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C). This form or standard of “judicial review in IDEA cases differs 12 substantially from judicial review of other agency actions, in which courts generally are 13 confined to the administrative record and are held to a highly deferential standard of 14 review.” Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1471 (9th Cir. 1993). Pursuant to 15 IDEA, federal courts have “a continuing obligation to ensure that the state standards 16 themselves and as applied are not below the federal minimums . . . [which] persists despite 17 any state administrative rulings on federal law or state recodifications of federal law.” E.M. 18 ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Off. of Admin. Hearings, 652 F.3d 999, 19 1005 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 736 F.2d 773, 792 (1st 20 Cir. 1984)). “The requirement that federal courts consider additional evidence when 21 evaluating state administrative rulings implements the intent that federal courts enforce the 22 minimum federal standards IDEA sets out.” Pajaro Valley, 652 F.3d at 1005. 23 In Ojai, the Ninth Circuit addressed the standard for the admission of additional 24 evidence by adopting the approach developed by the First Circuit in Town of Burlington v. 25 Dep’t of Education. See Ojai, 4 F.3d at 1472–73 (citing Town of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 26 790–91). That standard construes “additional” to mean “supplemental.” Ojai, 4 F.3d at 27 1472–73 (citing Town of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 790–91). Although the reasons for 1 supplementing the record may vary, “they might include gaps in the administrative 2 transcript owing to mechanical failure, unavailability of a witness, an improper exclusion 3 of evidence by the administrative agency, and evidence concerning relevant events 4 occurring subsequent to the administrative hearing.” Ojai, 4 F.3d at 1473 (quoting Town 5 of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 790–91). The determination of what is proper additional 6 evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court, which must be careful not to allow such 7 evidence to change the character of the hearing from one of review to a trial de novo. Ojai, 8 4 F.3d at 1473 (quoting Town of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 790–91). In considering the 9 admission of after-acquired evidence, the Ninth Circuit has instructed that “[t]he proper 10 inquiry was whether the report was relevant, non-cumulative, and otherwise admissible.” 11 Pajaro Valley, 652 F.3d at 1006. 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 Student seeks to supplement the Administrative Record with four categories of 14 evidence: (1) a speech and language assessment by Ms. Christy Himstreet M.S., dated 15 December 10, 2024, (2) the transcript and recording of a December 11, 2024 Individualized 16 Education Program (“IEP”) meeting, (3) the transcript and recording of a December 19, 17 2024 IEP meeting, and (4) an IEP document dated December 11, 2024. All of these 18 documents post-date the ALJ hearing. The District opposes Student’s request to 19 supplement, arguing that the post-hearing documents and recordings are irrelevant, 20 cumulative, and/or otherwise not admissible. ECF No. 19 at 10. The Court denies Student’s 21 motion as set forth below. 22 A. Speech and Language Assessment 23 Student first offers a Speech and Language Assessment created by Ms. Himstreet. 24 ECF No. 18-1 at 2. Student argues that “Ms. Himstreet’s report offers “significant insight 25 into C.A.’s condition and the reasonableness of the school district’s earlier actions.” ECF 26 No. 18-1 at 8. Student further argues that “Ms. Himstreet’s review of the sufficiency of the 27 district’s initial speech measures informed the specific assessments she later conducted, 1 ensuring an accurate picture of C.A.’s needs.” Id. Student also alleges that “Ms. 2 Himstreet’s report is directly relevant to the controversy in question because it draws upon 3 historical and personal information known to the district at the time of hearing, including 4 the May 2023 assessment completed by the District,” and that “the report provides a deeper 5 understanding of C.A.’s condition along with her placement and service needs.” Id. 6 Student fails to meet her burden of demonstrating that this evidence is relevant. 7 Evidence is relevant if: “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than 8 it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the 9 action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Student does not identify what fact of consequence this evidence 10 tends to make more or less probable nor does Student explain how this evidence supports 11 the ALJ’s decision. At best, from Student’s explanation, the Court can conclude this 12 evidence might be relevant, but Student is asking the Court to take her assertion of 13 relevance on faith. For example, Student argues that that “Ms. Himstreet’s report offers 14 “significant insight into C.A.’s condition and the reasonableness of the school district’s 15 earlier actions.” ECF No. 18-1 at 8. But Student does not explain what that significant 16 insight is. The merits of this action have not yet been briefed, and Student has not 17 adequately articulated or explained her theory of relevance. The Court denies admission of 18 Ms. Himstreet’s assessment. 19 B. December 11, 2024 IEP Transcript and Recording 20 Student next offers a transcript and recording from the December 11, 2024 IEP 21 meeting. Student asserts that during the December 11, 2024 IEP meeting, “Ms. Himstreet 22 spoke at length about the sufficiency of the District’s May 2023 assessment,” that the “IEP 23 team engaged in detailed discussion of C.A.’s longstanding condition and educational 24 needs,” and that “Dr[.] Weckerly highlighted the results of an important test called the 25 Millon Adolescent Clinical Interview (MACI-II).” ECF No. 18-1 at 9. Student further 26 states that “the meeting included a review of Ms. Himstreet and Dr. Weckerly’s 27 assessments” and that “both assessors elaborated upon and provided new details regarding 1 their testing, recommendations, and conclusions. Id. Student also asserts that “the district 2 testing was a solid step in a lot of ways, but it just wasn’t testing what was needed to look 3 at the areas of suspected disability.” Id. at 4. 4 Here, as with Ms. Himstreet’s assessment, Student asserts that the transcript and 5 recording are relevant but fails to say precisely how. For example, Student asserts that the 6 “IEP team engaged in detailed discussion of C.A.’s longstanding condition and educational 7 needs,” id. at 9, but does not state how that discussion makes a fact in issue more or less 8 likely, or otherwise supports the ALJ’s decision. The Court denies admission of the 9 December 11, 2024 IEP transcript and recording. 10 C. December 19, 2024 IEP Transcript and Recording 11 Student next offers a transcript and recording from the December 19, 2024 IEP 12 meeting. Student claims that the discussion at this IEP meeting included “further 13 exploration of Ms. Himstreet’s assessment[] by the District, insight into the appropriateness 14 of C.A.’s current placement, and review of C.A.’s condition, adjustment to different 15 placements, and service needs.” Id. at 10. Student asserts that this evidence “offer[s] critical 16 information regarding C.A.’s educational needs,” and “information as to the kinds of 17 placements the district could have offered in 2023 but chose not.” Id. 18 Here, as above, Student fails to state how this evidence is relevant to the issues of 19 this case. Student alleges that this evidence “offer[s] critical information regarding C.A.’s 20 educational needs,” id., but fails to specify what this critical information is or how it bears 21 on a material fact in dispute, or the correctness of the ALJ’s decision. The Court denies 22 admission of the December 19, 2024 IEP transcript and recording. 23 D. December 11, 2024 IEP 24 Finally, Student offers an IEP for Student dated December 11, 2024. Student claims 25 this IEP “shows that the District ignored most of Dr. Weckerly’s and Ms. Himstreet’s 26 assessment reports, like it ignored Parent input in its testing in 2023.” Id. at 11. Student 27 further states that the IEP “provides information as to the kinds of placements the district 1 ||could have offered in 2023 but chose not [to]” and “shows what the District should have 2 || known at the time of its own testing and development of the IEP in 2023.” Jd. 3 Here, as above, Student states this evidence is relevant but fails to state how. For 4 ||example, Student asserts that the IEP “shows what the District should have known at the 5 || time of its own testing and development of the IEP in 2023,” id., but Student fails to explain 6 || what the District should have known or how it pertains to the disputed issues in this case. 7 || The Court denies admission of the December 11, 2024 IEP. 8 ||IV. CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, Student’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative 10 || Record [ECF No. 18], is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 12 Dated: March 21, 2025 [but [fue Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28