J.L.N. v. Grossmont Union High School District

Filing 39

ORDER denying 35 MOTION to Supplement the Administrative Record by J.L.N. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 7/31/18. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

J.L.N., by and through his Guardian
Ad Litem Jose Nunez,

Case No.: 17cv2097-L-MDD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Plaintiff,
v.
GROSSMONT UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT,

[ECF NO. 35]

Defendant.

17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the administrative

19

record filed on July 8, 2018. (ECF No. 35). Defendant responded in

20

opposition on July 27, 2018. (ECF No. 38). This case is an appeal of the

21

decision of an Administrative Law Judge of the California Office of

22

Administrative Hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities

23

Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (ECF No. 1). The issues are

24

whether Defendant, from February 23, 2015 to February 23, 2017, denied

25

J.L.N. a free appropriate public education by: a. failing to develop

26

appropriate present levels of performance; b. failing to offer appropriate

27

goals; and c. failing to fully implement the specialized academic instruction
1
17cv2097-L-MDD

1

services called for in his individualized education program. (ECF No. 1).

2

Defendant prevailed on these issues in the administrative hearing and that

3

result is challenged in this Court.
LEGAL STANDARD

4

The Court shall consider supplemental evidence that is “non-

5
6

cumulative, relevant and otherwise admissible.” E.M. v. Pajaro Valley

7

Unified Sch. Dist., 652 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2011).
DISCUSSION

8

Plaintiff intends to supplement the record with the Declaration of Dr.

9
10

Rienzi Haytasingh and reports of testing conducted by Dr. Haytasingh in

11

evaluating Plaintiff after the administrative hearing. Defendant challenges

12

the supplementation of the administrative record on the grounds that Dr.

13

Haytasingh’s opinion and testing results are cumulative. (ECF No. 38 at 11).

14

This is not a case where Defendant failed to offer or deliver special

15

education services to Plaintiff. Plaintiff needed special education services

16

and received special education services. The issues here, as presented above,

17

are whether the individualized plan for Plaintiff was adequate and properly

18

implemented. Defendant admits that there is “no dispute that [Plaintiff]

19

performed below average and national grade-level expectations on

20

standardized testing.” (ECF No. 38 at 12).

21

The Court has reviewed the administrative record and finds that it is

22

replete with test results reflecting Plaintiff’s below average performance on

23

standardized testing. The Court finds that the addition of Dr. Haytasingh’s

24

declaration and testing reports would be cumulative.

25

//

26

//

27

//
2
17cv2097-L-MDD

CONCLUSION

1
2
3

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the administrative record is DENIED.
Dated: July 31, 2018

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
17cv2097-L-MDD