Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H

Filing 113

ORDER denying 100 Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/21/2018. (KLL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Independent School District No. 283,

Civil No. 18-935 (DWF/LIB)

Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER

E.M.D.H., a minor, by and through her
parents and next friends, L.H. and S.D.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
Peter A. Martin, Esq., Knutson, Flynn & Deans, PA, counsel for Plaintiff.
Amy J. Goetz, Esq., and Andrea L. Jepsen, Esq., School Law Center, LLC, counsel for
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION
In this action, Independent School District No. 283 (the “District”) requests
judicial review of a March 16, 2018 decision (the “Decision”) issued by an administrative
law judge (“ALJ”). (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) The Decision ruled in favor of the parents of a
high-school student who lodged a due process complaint under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. (“IDEA”). The District seeks
reversal of the ALJ’s Decision and presently moves to supplement the administrative
record. (Doc. Nos. 1, 100.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the
District’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. (Doc. No. 100.)

BACKGROUND
Defendants E.M.D.H. (the “Student”), a minor, by and through her parents and
next friends, L.H and S.D. (the “Parents”) (together “Defendants”) assert that the Student,
a sixteen-year old junior in high school, has been denied her right to a free and
appropriate education under the IDEA. In short, Defendants submit that the Student went
years without special education and related services because she was not properly
classified as having a disability. The Parents hired a private educational team to design
and implement an individualized education program. In June 2017, Defendants initiated
an administrative hearing to correct the conditions and restore the Student’s education.
After a seven-day hearing, the ALJ issued the Decision, requiring Plaintiff to
immediately change the Student’s educational placement by providing her a free
appropriate public education consisting of special education and related services, at
public expense, until her graduation. The District then initiated the present action
seeking judicial review of the Decision and to reverse the findings therein. The District
presently seeks to supplement the administrative record.
ANALYSIS
The IDEA provides that a court reviewing a state administrative decision “(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). While acknowledging that the IDEA permits the admission of
supplemental evidence, the Eighth Circuit has held that “a party seeking to introduce
2

additional evidence at the district court level must provide some solid justification for
doing so.” Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. S.D. ex rel. J.D., 88 F.3d 556, 560 (8th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 996 (1st Cir. 1990)). It has
also noted that “[r]endering a decision on the record compiled before the administrative
agency . . . is the norm.” West Platte R-II Sch. Dist. v. Wilson ex rel. L.W., 439 F.3d 782,
785 (8th Cir. 2006).
“In the absence of ‘solid justification’ for the submission of additional evidence,
the administrative hearing process would be undermined and would render meaningless
Congress’ admonition that the Courts ascribe ‘due weight’ to those underlying
proceedings.” Moubry ex rel. Moubry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 696 (Ely), 951 F. Supp.
867, 900 (D. Minn. 1996) (quoting Roland M., 910 F.2d at 996). The following have
been identified as potential “reasons for supplementation” by the First Circuit as well as
another court in this District: “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.” Id. (quoting Town of Burlington v. Mass. Dep’t of Educ.,
736 F.2d 773, 790 (1st Cir. 1984)).
The District seeks to introduce two declarations into the record – one from Carey
Hermanson, a special education teacher employed by the District, and Deanna Lawrence,
the Supervisor of Student Services for the District. (Doc. Nos. 103 (“Hermanson Decl.”),
106 (“Lawrence Decl.”.) Hermanson worked with the Student numerous times between
April 2018 and July 2018. (Hermanson Decl. ¶ 5.) Hermanson’s declaration describes
3

the Student’s meetings with Hermanson, explaining that the Student “consistently
self-initiated work and tasks,” “was able to focus, carry on her work, and perform at a
high level without interference from emotional or behavioral concerns.” (Id. ¶¶ 12, 15.)
In Hermanson’s opinion, the Student does not need special education. (Id. ¶ 17.)
Lawrence was involved in the development of the Student’s IEP, including identifying
goals “related to increasing the Student’s ‘time on activities’ usage of PLATO, the
School District’s web-based learning tool the Student has been using since September
2017.” (Lawrence Decl. ¶ 2.) Lawrence’s declaration summarizes the Student’s PLATO
data. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 5-7.) Lawrence reaches the conclusion that “the data demonstrates
that the Student has been initiating work and tasks without assistance, and she has been
working very successfully on a self-directed basis.” (Id. ¶ 10.)
The District contends that solid justification exists for permitting the supplemental
evidence because the declarations are relevant to the issue of whether the Student is
eligible for special education. (Doc. No. 102 at 8-9.) The District also argues that even if
the Student is eligible for special education, the declarations are “relevant to the question
of the appropriate placement for the Student.” (Id. at 9.) Defendants argue that the
District has failed to show solid justification for submitting the declarations and that they
are irrelevant, unreliable, and cumulative. (Doc. No. 107 at 2, 10.)
The Court declines to permit supplementation of the voluminous record because
the District has failed to establish a solid justification for doing so. Specifically, the
Court finds that the District has failed to overcome the strong presumption that
administrative appeals should be decided on the record as it existed before the hearing
4

officer. The Eighth Circuit has indicated that reviewing courts should not “judge [a
student’s] IEPs in hindsight.” K.E. ex rel. K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 647 F.3d 795,
808 (8th Cir. 2011). It explained that “[a]n IEP is a snapshot, not a retrospective, and we
must take into account what was, and was not, objectively reasonable when the snapshot
was taken, that is, at the time the IEP was promulgated.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Consistent with this view, it has affirmed a district court’s denial
of supplementation where the proposed evidence consisted of “the progress and status of
[the student] subsequent to the administrative hearing.” West Platte R-II Sch. Dist., 439
F.3d at 785. The Court similarly declines to permit such evidence here. Giving due
weight to the administrative proceedings and recognizing that “[r]endering a decision on
the record compiled before the administrative agency . . . is the norm,” id., the Court
respectfully denies the District’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the District’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative
Record (Doc. No. [100]) is DENIED.
Dated: September 21, 2018

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

5