LR v. Pajaro Valley Unified School

Filing 51

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD. Re: Dkt. No. 38 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 7/29/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

L. R., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Case No.15-cv-00368-NC
ORDER RE: MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

v.
PAJARO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

Re: Dkt. No. 38

Defendant.
15
16

On June 1, 2015, plaintiffs moved to supplement the administrative record in this

17

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) administrative appeal. Dkt. No. 38.

18

Plaintiffs requested that nine additional pieces of evidence be permitted to supplement the

19

record. Id. Plaintiffs argue that these pieces of evidence are relevant, non-cumulative, and

20

necessary for the Court’s determination of the case. Id. Defendant objected to eight of the

21

nine pieces of evidence, arguing that the evidence was available to plaintiffs and could

22

have been presented at the administrative hearing, so it should be excluded. Dkt. No. 44.

23

A chart detailing the evidence requested to supplement the record is attached to the end of

24

this order.

25

IDEA mandates that the district court “shall hear additional evidence at the request

26

of a party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(ii). “[E]vidence that is non-cumulative, relevant,

27

and otherwise admissible constitutes ‘additional evidence’ that the district court ‘shall’

28

consider pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(ii).” E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley
Case No.:15-cv-00368-NC

1
2

Unified Sch. Dist. Office of Admin. Hearings, 652 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2011).
The Court has considered the parties’ briefing, the appropriate standard, and the

3

evidence presented by plaintiffs. The Court finds that the evidence, items 1-6, are relevant

4

and non-cumulative and are thus admitted. Evidence item 9 is not objected to and is

5

admitted. Evidence items 7 and 8 are not relevant to the review of the administrative

6

decision, as these pieces of evidence post-date the scope of the administrative hearing’s

7

inquiry. Therefore, items 7 and 8 are excluded.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

1. L.R.’s 2010-2011 and 2013-2014
Report Cards.
2. Report of Assessment for Special
Education dated Dec. 21, 2010.
3. Report of Informal Conference dated
3/15/2011.
4. Behavioral Observation of L.R. at
Lindamood-Bell dated 12/19/2011.
5. Behavioral Support Plan dated
11/30/2011.
6. A work/writing sample completed by
L.R. in January 2012.
7. Dr. Cheryl Bowers C.V.
8. L.R.’s End of Year Report Card from
Chartwell Academy.
9. Page 18 of Dr. Cheryle Bowers’
report dated August 18, 2011.

ADMITTED
ADMITTED
ADMITTED
ADMITTED
ADMITTED
ADMITTED
EXCLUDED
EXCLUDED
ADMITTED

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: July 29, 2015

24

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
Case No.:15-cv-00368-NC

2