California OAH special education order · January 23, 2013
Order Granting Request for Second Prehearing Conference
OAH Case No. 2012090499, 2012110300, 2012110702 · ALJ Marian H. Tully
OAH granted District's request for a second prehearing conference after consolidation, but warned District it may face sanctions for a frivolous motion if nothing material changes.
Summary
At the first prehearing conference, the parties agreed to consolidate Student's case with District's two cases. They also agreed on the issues and said no further motions were expected. District later asked for a second prehearing conference, saying it had not filed a prehearing statement or identified witnesses and exhibits for Student's case. Student neither joined nor objected. OAH granted the request so the parties could discuss any changes to evidence or hearing procedure caused by consolidation, and set the conference for February 4, 2013. Because District had not identified any new issue, witness, or exhibit, OAH warned that District could be sanctioned for a frivolous motion if the second conference produces no material change.
Why it matters
OAH may let a party revisit prehearing matters after consolidation, but a party that asks without showing any real need risks sanctions for a frivolous motion. Parties should be ready to show what has actually changed.
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:
HEMET UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH CASE NOS. 2012090499 and 2012110300 v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2012110702
v.
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
HEMET UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. SECOND PREHEARING CONFERENCE
On January 14, 2013, a telephonic pre-hearing conference (PHC) was held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Marian H. Tully, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). At the PHC, the parties stipulated to the consolidation of Student’s case with District’s consolidated cases and to proceed with the PHC as to all three cases. An Order Following Prehearing Conference issued January 15, 2013. The PHC Order and the record reflect that the parties agreed to the issues as to all three consolidated cases, and that no further motions were anticipated before the date set for hearing, and neither party sought to amend their previously filed prehearing conference statements, witness or exhibit lists.
On January 17, 2013, District filed a motion to set a second PHC on the grounds it had not filed a prehearing conference statement in Student’s case, and it had not had an opportunity to identify witnesses and exhibits relevant to Student’s case. Student neither joins nor objects to District’s motion. District has not proffered any issue or identified witnesses or exhibits not previously disclosed that would be relevant to the defense of Student’s case. To the extent Student or District needs to discuss changes to the evidence or hearing procedure due to the consolidation of Student’s case, District’s motion is granted.
District may be subject to sanctions for filing a frivolous motion if there is no material change to the evidence or hearing procedure at the second prehearing conference.
ORDER
1. District’s request for a second prehearing conference is granted.
2. The second telephonic prehearing conference shall be held at 1:30 PM, on
February 4, 2013.
Dated: January 23, 2013 /s/
MARIAN H. TULLY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings