In the Matter of Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 v. M.N.B.

Filing 54

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Supplement Record(Written Opinion). See the order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 3/21/2018. (JMK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Osseo Area Schools, Independent School
District No. 279,

Case No. 17-cv-2068 (DSD/HB)

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
M.N.B., by and through her parent, J.B.,
Defendant.

HILDY BOWBEER, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant M.N.B.’s Motion to Supplement the
Record [Doc. No. 44]. The motion is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth below.
I.

Background
Plaintiff Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (“ISD 279” or

“District”), commenced this action pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (“IDEA”) against M.N.B., a student who does not reside in, but is open-enrolled in, the
District. ISD 279 is appealing a decision by a state administrative law judge (“ALJ”) that
requires the District to provide special transportation between M.N.B.’s home and school
because her Individual Education Program (“IEP”) plan requires it. At the time of the
ALJ’s decision, ISD 279’s policy was to provide special transportation for students openenrolled by parent choice only from the District’s boundaries to school. ISD 279 took the
position that parents who chose to open-enroll their children had the duty to transport the
students to and from the District’s border, and the District would provide transportation

between its borders and the school.
After ISD 279 commenced this action, M.N.B. sought limited discovery on the
District’s transportation policy and the Minnesota Department of Education’s (“MDE”)
directives about the policy. M.N.B. now asks for permission to supplement the record with
the following evidence: (1) the District’s responses to M.N.B.’s Requests for Admission
(“RFA”) Nos. 5, 11, 12, and 13; (2) the District’s response to M.N.B.’s Interrogatory No. 4;
(3) the District’s responses to M.N.B.’s Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 2, 4, 5, and
6; and (4) a stipulation between the District and M.N.B. regarding the District’s
consideration of the costs associated with transporting M.N.B. out of district. 1
II.

Discussion
Under the IDEA, a court reviewing an ALJ’s decision made in a state administrative

proceeding “(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear
additional evidence at the request of a party; and (iii) basing its decision on the
preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is
appropriate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C). Although the IDEA permits a federal court to
expand the administrative record, a“[d]ecision on the record compiled before the
administrative agency is the norm.” Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. S.D. ex rel. J.D., 88 F.3d
556, 560 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 670 (7th Cir. 1994)).
A party who wants “to introduce additional evidence at the district court level must provide
some solid justification for doing so.” Id. (quoting Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm.,
1

M.N.B. narrowed her motion to this specific evidence in her reply memorandum.
Initially, she had sought to introduce responses to all RFAs and all interrogatories. In
addition, M.N.B. did not include RFP No. 6 in her original motion but added it in her reply
memorandum.
2

910 F.2d 983, 996 (1st Cir. 1990)). Reasons to allow supplementation “might include gaps
in the administrative transcript owing to mechanical failure, unavailability of a witness, an
improper exclusion of evidence by the administrative agency, and evidence concerning
relevant events occurring subsequent to the administrative hearing.” Moubry v. Indep. Sch.
Dist. No. 696, 951 F. Supp. 867, 900 (D. Minn. 1996).
Some of the evidence M.N.B. has asked to add to the record is already a part of the
record, such as the fact that her school is not located within the District’s boundaries; a
letter dated October 12, 2016, from the MDE to the District; a redacted list of student
names filed in MDE Complaint File No. 16-138C; and a form letter the District sent to
parents regarding transportation. M.N.B.’s motion to supplement the record is denied to
this extent.
M.N.B. also seeks to supplement the record with other material that is not really
“evidence,” such as the District’s decision not to appeal a Minnesota Court of Appeals’
decision and a stipulation between the parties included in a joint letter filed with the Court
[Doc. No. 42]. M.N.B. does not need to supplement the administrative record to refer to
these procedural matters, and her motion is denied to this extent.
The remaining evidence relates to events that occurred after the administrative
proceedings or spanned the school year during which the administrative proceedings
occurred: the District’s provision of transportation outside its boundaries for some openenrolled, non-resident students during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years; options
available to M.N.B. for transportation between her home and school at the District’s
expense; documents showing the District’s compliance with MDE Complaint Decision
3

No. 16-138C; documents reflecting the District’s policies and procedures for the openenrollment of non­resident students for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years; nonresident and non-member transfer application forms for the open-enrollment of non­resident
students for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years; and non-resident open-enrollment
student transportation request forms for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years.
M.N.B. argues this evidence is relevant to the District’s rationale and legal
justification for denying her transportation between her home and school. M.N.B. contends
the evidence demonstrates that ISD 279 abandoned the offending transportation policy after
the MDE demanded that it do so, and that the District now provides out-of-district
transportation to some open-enrolled students. M.N.B. also argues that she would have
submitted this evidence at the administrative level if the matter had progressed past
summary disposition.
The District responds that the evidence is irrelevant to the narrow issue presented in
this case, specifically, whether M.N.B., who has chosen to open-enroll in the District, is
entitled to publicly-funded transportation from her home to the District’s border. The
District also argues that the administrative record is extensive and that M.N.B. necessarily
agreed by agreeing to the summary administrative procedure that there were no genuine
issues of material fact.
The Court finds that M.N.B. has provided a solid justification to present the
remaining additional evidence—with one exception—to the District Court in connection
with anticipated summary judgment motion practice so that the District Court can
determine the relevance of and weight to give the evidence in the context of the fully
4

briefed motions for summary judgment. The Court has doubts about the relevance of the
evidence, but the relevance is best assessed in the context of the arguments the parties
actually make, not in a vacuum or with reference to arguments one party suspects the other
might make. Thus, in granting this aspect of the motion, the Court is only allowing M.N.B.
to submit the additional evidence to the District Court. Nothing in this Order should be
read to preclude the District from arguing that the additional evidence is not relevant or that
it should not be considered because M.N.B. did not submit it in the administrative
proceeding.
The one exception to the above order is the District’s response to Interrogatory No.
4, which asked the District to describe options available to M.N.B. for transportation
between her home and school at the District’s expense. The ALJ explicitly excluded this
issue from consideration in the written decision. (Compl. Ex. 1 at 15 (“The issue raised by
the parties concerned only the question of inter-district transportation and not whether the
Student’s transportation requirements could be met by other means.”) [Doc. No. 1-1].)
M.N.B. may not supplement the record with the District’s response to Interrogatory No. 4.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant M.N.B.’s Motion to
Supplement the Record [Doc. No. 44] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
as set forth fully herein.

Dated: March 21, 2018

s/ Hildy Bowbeer
HILDY BOWBEER
United States Magistrate Judge
5