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

Filing 2350

ORDER RE PARTIES' PROPOSALS IN ADVANCE OF HEARING. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 1/30/2018. (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMMA C., et al.,

Case No. 96-cv-04179-VC

Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE PARTIES' PROPOSALS IN
ADVANCE OF HEARING

v.
TOM TORLAKSON, et al.,
Defendants.

As discussed at the case management conference, the Court is of the view that the
existing process for evaluating the state's compliance with the consent decree is cumbersome,
lacks transparency, and could be better geared towards achieving prompt compliance. The
plaintiffs and the California Department of Education are therefore ordered to each propose a
new process for how the Court will evaluate the state's compliance with the consent decree
moving forward. The proposals are due on March 12, 2018. If the Ravenswood School District
wishes to submit a response to the proposals, it must do so by March 16, 2018. A hearing on
these proposals will take place on March 26, 2018 at 10:30 am.
The Court assumes that it will receive separate proposals from the plaintiffs and the
California Department of Education. The proposals should start from scratch, without reference
to any processes that have been adopted previously. As stated at the case management
conference, the Court is of the tentative view that regular testimony by the policymakers
responsible for ensuring state compliance with federal law is a necessary part of the path
forward.
The Court is operating under the assumption that the Corrective Action Plan, even though

it is somewhat difficult to understand, adequately reflects what is needed for the state to achieve
compliance with the consent decree and with federal law. Of course, if the parties wish to
consolidate various items to address overlap, or identify items that may be addressed
concurrently rather than sequentially, they may do so.
At the March 26 hearing, the Court wishes to hear from the key policymakers to get their
views on the ability of the state to achieve compliance with federal law in short order. The
parties should indicate in their filings who they believe should be speaking at the hearing. (The
parties should also indicate whether the policymakers should actually testify under oath or
simply make presentations.) In addition, the state should provide a list of the names, titles, and
job descriptions of all key people in the Special Education Division who are responsible for
ensuring compliance with federal law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2018
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2