Emma C., et al v. Eastin, et al

Filing 2245

ORDER Re: CDE's Complaint Resolution Reporting. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 1/20/17. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2017)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

EMMA C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8
9

v.
DELAINE EASTIN, et al.,

Case No. 96-cv-04179-TEH
ORDER RE: CDE’S COMPLAINT
RESOLUTION REPORTING

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendant California Department of Education (“CDE”) recently decided to ignore

12

the procedure it agreed to over eleven years ago to provide the Monitor with information

13

he needs to evaluate whether CDE is complying with the First Amended Consent Decree

14

(“FACD”) in this case. This is simply unacceptable. The Court issues this order to

15

confirm – lest there was any doubt – that CDE must provide the Monitor with information

16

necessary to fulfill his duties, and that failure to do so will be punishable by contempt.

17

Section 6.1.1 of the FACD tasks the Monitor with “monitor[ing] the CDE’s

18

performance of its obligations to ensure the provision of FAPE [free appropriate public

19

education] in the LRE [least restrictive environment] to children with disabilities in

20

Ravenswood.” Section 4.1 of the FACD provides that CDE’s obligations in doing so

21

include “implement[ation of] an effective monitoring system and complaint resolution

22

procedure.” Thus, there is no doubt that the Monitor is entitled to information regarding

23

CDE’s resolution of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) complaints in

24

the Ravenswood City School District.

25

In 2005, the parties agreed with the Monitor that CDE would submit, no later than

26

the third Monday following the end of each RSIP monitoring quarter, either full copies of

27
28

1

CDE’s files for resolved IDEA complaints concerning Ravenswood or a statement that no

2

complaints were resolved during that quarter.1 ECF No. 2223 at 2. CDE has characterized

3

this process as “appropriate and effective” and acknowledged that “CDE’s complaint

4

resolution process is subject to the Court’s oversight.” Id. at 3 n. 2.

5

For eleven years, CDE followed the agreed-upon procedure without incident.

6

However, CDE failed to provide timely complaint resolution information in August 2016.

7

Although CDE ultimately showed the Monitor that it had provided the information in its

8

August quarterly and semi-annual report, see ECF No. 2214 at 10, CDE also stated that it

9

“does not agree that it is required to do so in the future.” Id. at 3–4. For the following
quarter, CDE once again failed to provide any information concerning complaint

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

resolution to the Court Monitor. ECF No. 2237 at 5. After the Monitor filed the draft

12

RSIP monitoring report and cover memo, CDE provided a follow-up email stating no

13

complaints concerning Ravenswood were resolved during the quarter. ECF No. 2241.

14

However, the Monitor noted in his most recent quarterly report that CDE’s August

15

quarterly and semi-annual report included “two entries indicating that at least one

16

complaint should have been resolved during this quarter, assuming the resolution of this

17

complaint was timely. . . .” ECF No. 2237 at 5. The Monitor has observed that without

18

timely submission of this information, he is prevented from fulfilling his obligations under

19

Section 4.1 of the FACD. ECF No. 2237 at 5–6.

20

CDE cannot decide unilaterally to violate long-standing procedures developed by

21

the Monitor in consultation with the parties, or to ignore requests for information from the

22

Monitor pursuant to his obligations. The Court issues this order to make clear that CDE

23

must, and shall, respond promptly to all requests for information from the Monitor

24

concerning “CDE’s performance of its obligations to ensure the provision of FAPE in the

25

LRE to children with disabilities in Ravenswood.” FACD § 6.1.1. This includes a

26

requirement that CDE must, and shall, no later than the third Monday following the end of

27
1

28

Quarters end on January 31, April 30, July 31, and October 31 of each year.
2

1

each quarter, provide the Monitor with either copies of files for resolved IDEA complaints

2

concerning Ravenswood or a statement in writing that no complaints were resolved during

3

that quarter. CDE shall file a statement with the Court, on or before February 3, 2017,

4

identifying the person or persons responsible for complying with this order, and it shall

5

update the name(s) of such person(s) whenever necessary.

6

The Court intends this order to provide a basis for entering sanctions should CDE

7

fail to provide the Monitor with the information discussed above. Sanctions may include

8

contempt proceedings against the responsible person or persons identified by CDE. If

9

CDE believes that this order does not provide a sufficient legal basis to enter such
sanctions, then it shall file a brief, no later than February 3, 2017, explaining the perceived

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

deficiencies and proposing language to correct them. Other parties may submit an optional

12

response to CDE’s brief no later than February 10, 2017.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 1/20/17

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3