G.R. v. Del Mar Union High School District

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G.R. By and Through His Guardians Ad Case No.: 3:19-cv-0132-AJB-MSB Litem DARCY MIRAMONTES and 12 CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT Plaintiff, (Doc. No. 22) 14 v. 15 Del Mar Union School District, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is Defendant Del Mar Union School District’s motion to 19 supplement the administrative record. (Doc. No. 22.) For the reasons stated herein, the 20 Court GRANTS the motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff seeks review of an administrative hearing in which his claim regarding 23 reimbursement of costs spent seeking private placement at a residential treatment center 24 was denied. 25 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 26 In evaluating a complaint under the IDEA, the district court “shall receive the record 27 of the [state] administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a 28 party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief 1 as the court determines is appropriate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C). The Ninth Circuit has 2 interpreted this as calling for de novo review. Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519, 3 1524 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 965 (1994). However, it has cautioned that this 4 court must give deference to the state hearing officer’s findings, particularly when they are 5 thorough and careful. Id. This court also “must give ‘due weight’ to judgments of education 6 policy when [we] review state hearings. . . . [C]ourts should not substitute their own notions 7 of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.” Seattle 8 Sch. Dist., No. 1 v. B.S ., 82 F.3d 1493, 1499 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Union Sch. Dist., 15 9 F.3d at 1524 (quotations omitted)). In San Diego v. California Special Educ. Hearing 10 Office, the Ninth Circuit stated: 11 [T]he court in recognition of the expertise of the administrative agency, must consider the findings carefully and endeavor to respond to the Hearing 12 Officer's resolution of each material issue. After such consideration, the court 13 is free to accept or reject the findings in part or in whole. . . . Despite their discretion to reject the administrative findings after carefully considering 14 them, however, courts are not permitted simply to ignore the administrative 15 findings . . . . At bottom, the court itself is free to determine independently how much weight to give the administrative findings in light of the 16 enumerated factors. 17 93 F.3d 1458, 1466 (9th Cir.1996) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 18 Grounds for introducing additional evidence could include “gaps in the 19 administrative transcript owing to mechanical failure, unavailability of a witness, an 20 improper exclusion of evidence by the administrative agency, and evidence concerning 21 relevant events occurring subsequent to the administrative hearing.” Id. Under Ninth 22 Circuit precedent, “evidence that is non-cumulative, relevant, and otherwise admissible 23 constitutes ‘additional evidence’ that the district court ‘shall’ consider pursuant to 20 24 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(ii). E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Office of 25 Admin. Hearings, 652 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2011). 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 Defendant wishes to include video evidence of “Raz Gibson, a Del Mar Union 28 1 School District psychologist, [who] testified on behalf of Defendant.” (Doc. No. 22-1 at 2 3.) These two short videos include testimony regarding “the 10 days she spent at Sandhill 3 with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s needs, Plaintiff’s behaviors, and her belief that Plaintiff’s needs— 4 including his behavior-related needs—could be appropriately addressed in a less restrictive 5 setting than a [residential treatment center].” (Id.) At the underlying hearing, Plaintiff’s 6 counsel objected to the video’s admissions arguing they were irrelevant, incomplete, and 7 cumulative. The ALJ ultimately sustained the objection. 8 Defendant now argues the evidence is relevant because the videos are “part of an 9 assessment which was at issue in the underlying due process hearing.” (Doc. No. 22-1 at 10 5.) Defendant also argues the videos are not cumulative in nature because it is a different 11 form of evidence and “provides additional details not included in Ms. Gibson’s personal 12 notes and Sandhill’s related incident report.” (Id. at 5–6.) Defendant finally argues that 13 Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice if the exhibits are admitted, while Defendant will. (Id. at 14 6–7.) Defendant claims the videos are short in nature, that Plaintiff is already aware of 15 them, that Plaintiff has already cross-examined the witness in the videos, and the transcript 16 of such is already in the record so the Court can analyze everything for itself. (Id. at 7.) 17 Plaintiff argues the ALJ “properly excluded” the evidence “because the videos are 18 cumulative in nature.” (Doc. No. 24 at 5.) Plaintiff’s other complaints with the evidence 19 are that the video failed to capture enough information to have probative value because it 20 “does not capture the entire lead-up to the hold, the duration of the hold, or the events after 21 the hold. D-106 shows only two minutes of a 45-minute incident.” (Id.) 22 Weighing these arguments against the legal standards, the Court finds that 23 supplementing the record with the video evidence is appropriate. However, the Court also 24 caveats that by reminding the parties the Court will give appropriate deference to the ALJ’s 25 findings regarding the video’s cumulative effects and potential for prejudice. But if the 26 Court is to conduct essentially a de novo review, the Court finds having all the evidence 27 the ALJ had in front of it is beneficial to the parties and the Court’s analysis. Further, the 28 Court cannot determine whether the ALJ improperly excluded the evidence without being 1 || able to consider it. Of course, the Court will give the parties an opportunity to make similar 2 || arguments here at the appropriate time. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to 5 || supplement the record. (Doc. No. 22.) 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: August 14, 2019 | □□ iz : LE 8 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28