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

Filing 2364

ORDER RE MONDAY'S HEARING. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 3/22/2018. (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMMA C., et al.,

Case No. 96-cv-04179-VC

Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE MONDAY'S HEARING

v.
TOM TORLAKSON, et al.,
Defendants.

The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions in advance of Monday's hearing. The
Court welcomes a presentation from Kristin Wright, Alison Greenwood, and Shiyloh Becerril in
the format CDE suggested in its March 19 filing. CDE may also include Kathy Gee in the
presentation if it wishes, but in any event, Kathy Gee should be present at the hearing. In
addition to providing a thorough overview of the relevant components of CDE's current system
of monitoring and supervising special education, and a thorough discussion of their view of
CDE's ability to achieve compliance with the relevant federal law, the policymakers should be
prepared to address the following issues, in no particular order:


CDE has taken the position in this litigation that there will be no separate or
special monitoring system for Ravenswood; in other words, its system for
monitoring Ravenswood is the same system that it uses, and will use, to monitor
other districts. This means that any changes needed to comply with the consent
decree (and to ensure ongoing compliance with federal law) will be made to
CDE's statewide system, and that this Court's review for compliance with the
consent decree involves the review of that system. However, at the most recent

status conference, counsel for CDE appeared to be attempting to back away from
this, so the Court would like clarification from the policymakers.


In light of the above, there appears to be substantial overlap between this case and
Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of
Education, No. 2:11-cv-3471-KJM-AC, which is being litigated in federal court
in Sacramento. However, at a prior status conference in this case, counsel for
CDE stated that he had not been coordinating with the lawyers in the Attorney
General's Office who are defending CDE in the Morgan Hill case. The Court
would like clarification from the policymakers about the degree to which the two
cases overlap.



The Court is tentatively inclined to adopt a process in this case going forward that
is fairly similar to what the plaintiffs have proposed in their March 12 filing (but
without such long time intervals between reports from the various parties, and
without such long time intervals between the filing of those reports and the court
hearings on CDE compliance). The Court would like to hear from the
policymakers about this proposed approach.

Following this discussion with the policymakers, the Court will ask the Court Monitor to
make a presentation on the biggest concerns he has with CDE's ability to get in compliance with
federal law and with the consent decree. After that, the Court will ask the plaintiffs (and
Ravenswood, if it wishes) to offer comments on any of the topics discussed that they may wish
to address. If there are any other issues that the parties or Court Monitor wish to bring to the
Court's attention relating to the case, they will have an opportunity to do so.
In addition, the plaintiffs should prepare a draft document that elaborates on the four
categories of compliance they identified in their March 12 filing. This document should
describe, in narrative form, each of the things the plaintiffs believe CDE must accomplish to get
in compliance on each category. The document should be written so that the reader does not
have to cross-reference other documents, and if the plaintiffs wish to include language from the

2

existing Corrective Action Plan in preparing this draft document, they may do so. The goal of
the draft document should be to help the Court understand the steps necessary for CDE to be in
compliance with the Corrective Action Plan. It is not meant to be a rewrite of the Corrective
Action Plan – just to recategorize the already agreed upon steps in the four proposed categories.
The plaintiffs should file this draft document by 10 a.m. on the day of the hearing. CDE is
welcome to share its views on the draft document and the four proposed categories at the
hearing.
The Court has blocked out the full day for this hearing but is assuming it will end around
3 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 22, 2018
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

3