California OAH special education order · November 26, 2013

Order Denying Motions Concerning Records as Moot

OAH Case No. 2013040098 · ALJ Charles Marson

OAH denied Parents' motions to compel the District to produce Student's records and to respond to a records-amendment request as moot, because the District had already provided the records and responded.

Denied as moot Subpoenas, motions to compel, and records

This case went to decision

Student v. Folsom Cordova Unified School District (consolidated): Folsom Cordova Unified must move student to general education English; ALJ finds student no longer eligible for special education. (2014)

Summary

Parents filed two motions. One asked OAH to order the District to turn over teacher reports and other records discussed at an August 2013 IEP meeting. The other asked OAH to order the District to respond to Parents' written request to amend records from that meeting. OAH denied both as moot: the District's attorney declared that staff had provided the records and had responded to the amendment request by offering to meet, and Parents filed no reply disputing this. OAH did not decide the District's argument that it lacks jurisdiction over requests to amend records.

Why it matters

If a district says in a sworn declaration that it has resolved a records request, parents should file a reply showing what is still missing, or OAH may treat the dispute as resolved. Whether OAH can order changes to student records under Education Code section 49070 was left open.

Key authority cited

  • Ed. Code, § 49070

People named in the order

  • Hunt Lin, District Special Education Coordinator
  • Charles Marson, Administrative Law Judge

Topics

student records motion to compel mootness records amendment iep meeting

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 Matter of:

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013040098

v. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

CONCERNING RECORDS AS MOOT

FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT.

On October 28, 2013, Parents on behalf of Student filed a motion for an order requiring the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (District) to provide to them certain of Student’s records, and another motion for an order requiring the District to respond to their pending request to amend certain of Student’s records.

On November 5, 2013, the District filed oppositions to both motions.

Motion for Order Requiring District to Provide Student Records Parents allege that at an individualized education program (IEP) team meeting on August 23, 2013, the District referred to several teacher reports and other records concerning Student but has declined their repeated requests for those records. The District’s opposition is supported by a declaration of its attorney stating that after receiving Student’s motion, its staff met with Parents to clarify their request and since has provided the requested records to Parents. Parents have not filed any response to this claim. The matter appears to have been resolved, so Student’s motion is moot.

Motion for Order Requiring District to Respond to Parents’ Pending Request for Amendment of Records Parents allege that on August 29, 2013, they made a written request of the District that it amend certain of Student’s records relating to the IEP team meeting of August 23,

2013. The District’s opposition is supported by a declaration of its attorney stating that after

receiving Student’s motion, the District’s Special Education Coordinator Hunt Lin sent an email to Parents requesting additional information regarding their concerns about amending the records and offering to meet with them to review the audio recording and meeting notes of the IEP team meeting. However, according to that declaration, Parents declined, requesting that communications concerning their request take place through the District’s attorney. Parents have not filed any response to this claim. Since the District has responded to Parents’ request the matter appears to have been resolved, and so the motion is moot. It is unnecessary to decide whether, as the District claims, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction to rule on Parents’ request that Student’s records be amended. (See Ed.

Code, § 49070.)

Parents’ motions for orders requiring the District to provide to them certain of Student’s records, and requiring the District to respond to their pending request to amend certain of Student’s records, are DENIED as moot.

Dated: November 26, 2013 /s/

CHARLES MARSON

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings