California OAH special education order · January 10, 2013
Order Denying Motion to Redact Without Prejudice
OAH Case No. 2012020458, 2012020005, 2012090247 · ALJ Susan Ruff
OAH denied without prejudice Student's motion to redact a sibling's confidential information from District documents, finding the District had already redacted the information from what it filed.
This case went to decision
Student v. Temecula Valley Unified School District (consolidated): Temecula Valley Unified must provide 24 hours of psychotherapy for delaying an IEE response; August 2012 nonpublic school offer upheld. (2013)
Summary
After the hearing record was reopened so both sides could add declarations and attachments, Student moved to redact confidential information about Student's sibling from the District's documents. The District opposed, saying it had already redacted the child's name from the documents it filed with OAH. The ALJ reviewed the filed documents, agreed the information had already been redacted, and denied the motion without prejudice. Student may file a new motion that specifically identifies any information that still needs redaction.
Why it matters
A party asking OAH to redact confidential information, such as a sibling's details, should point to the exact information that remains in the filed documents. A general request may be denied if the other side has already redacted the material.
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Consolidated Matters of:
STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2012020458; 2012020005;
and 2012090247 v.
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISTRICT, REDACT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND RELATED ACTIONS
The hearing in this matter was taken under submission on December 10, 2012, upon receipt of the parties’ written closing argument. On that same date, Student filed a motion to reopen the record to add a declaration and attachments. On December 12, 2012, the Temecula Valley Unified School District (District) filed a response. The District did not oppose Student’s motion, provided that the District was also permitted to add a declaration and attachments to the record. OAH granted both motions on December 20, 2012.
On December 26, 2012, Student filed a motion to redact information from the District’s documents. Student contends that those documents contain confidential information about Student’s sibling. On December 27, 2012, the District filed an opposition, contending that the District already redacted the child’s name from the documents filed with
OAH.
Upon reviewing the documents the District filed, it appears the District is correct – information was already redacted from the filed document. On that basis, Student’s motion is denied without prejudice. If Student believes there is still information that must be redacted, Student may file another motion, specifically describing which information still remains in the document that Student believes should be redacted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2013 /s/
SUSAN RUFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings