California OAH special education order · June 5, 2013
Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference
OAH Case No. 2013050627, 2013040291 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH denied Student's request to have seven doctors testify by telephone because Student offered no facts showing good cause, and set a two-day consolidated hearing on home/hospital services and the District's February 2013 IEP.
Summary
At the prehearing conference in these consolidated cases, Student asked that Drs. Pumphrey, Leaf, Shabani, Baron, Khachoyan, Roddy, and Kotomori be allowed to testify by telephone. ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff denied the request without prejudice because Student gave no facts establishing good cause for telephonic testimony. Student may file a new request if facts or circumstances change. The order also set the hearing for June 12 and 13, 2013. It framed the issues as Student's home/hospital services claim and the District's request to implement the February 20, 2013 IEP without parental consent. It also set rules for exhibits, witnesses, and the order of presentation.
Why it matters
A request for telephonic witness testimony must give specific facts showing good cause, such as why the witness cannot attend in person. A bare list of names will be denied. The party offering a phone witness must also send that witness full exhibit binders and make sure the hearing room has working sound equipment.
Key authority cited
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g)
- Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(7)
People named in the order
- Paul H. Kamoroff, Administrative Law Judge
- Deborah J. Pepaj, Student's attorney
- Jack B. Clarke, Jr., District's attorney
- Dr. Pumphrey, Proposed Student witness
- Dr. Leaf, Proposed Student witness
- Dr. Shabani, Proposed Student witness
- Dr. Baron, Proposed Student witness
- Dr. Khachoyan, Proposed Student witness
- Dr. Roddy, Proposed Student witness
- Dr. Kotomori, Proposed Student witness
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:
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OAH CASE NO. 2013050627
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT OAH CASE NO. 2013040291
v.
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. ORDER FOLLOWING PRE-HEARING
CONFERENCE
On June 5, 2013, a telephonic prehearing conference (PHC) was held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul H. Kamoroff, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Deborah J. Pepaj, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Parent on behalf of Student (Student). Jack B. Clarke, Jr., Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Riverside Unified School District (District). The PHC was recorded.
Based on discussion of the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:
1. Hearing Dates, Times, and Location. The hearing shall take place on June 12
and 13, 2013, at the District’s offices located at 5700 Arlington Ave., Riverside, CA 92504.
The hearing shall begin at 9:30 a.m. the first day of the hearing and at 9:00 a.m. all other days unless otherwise ordered.
The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates, and shall subpoena witnesses if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will be available to testify.
A witness will not be regarded as unavailable for purposes of showing “good cause” to continue the hearing if the witness is not properly notified of the hearing date or properly subpoenaed, as applicable.
2. Issues and Proposed Resolutions. The issues at the due process hearing are
listed below.
Student’s issue:
a) Whether, beginning on February 18, 2013, the District denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to provide him home/hospital services? District’s issue:
b) Whether a February 20, 2013 Individualized Education Program (IEP), including services and referral, constitute a FAPE and may the District implement this IEP without parental consent?
3. Exhibits. Exhibits shall be pre-marked and placed in three-ring exhibit
binders prior to the hearing. The parties shall use numbers to identify exhibits, but shall place the letter “S” or “D” in front of the exhibit to designate if it is a Student or District exhibit (for example, “S-5, S-6,” or “D-1, D-2”). Each exhibit shall be internally paginated by exhibit, or all of a party’s exhibits shall be Bates-stamped. Each exhibit binder shall contain a detailed table of contents. The parties represent that they have served their evidence binders on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). At the hearing, each party shall supply an exhibit binder containing its exhibits for use by the ALJ, and a second exhibit binder for use by witnesses. The parties may not serve exhibits on OAH prior to the hearing. In the event of duplicate exhibits, the most legible version will be used.
Except for good cause shown, or unless used solely for rebuttal or impeachment, any exhibit not included in the exhibit lists and not previously exchanged shall not be admitted into evidence at the hearing unless it is supported by written declaration under penalty of perjury, and the ALJ rules that it is admissible.
4. Witnesses. Each party is responsible for procuring the attendance at hearing
of its own witnesses. Each party shall make witnesses under its control reasonably available.
The parties shall schedule their witnesses to avoid delays in the hearing and to minimize or eliminate the need for calling witnesses out of order. Neither party shall be permitted to call any witnesses not disclosed in the party’s prehearing conference statement except for good cause shown, supported by written declaration under penalty of perjury, and at the discretion of the ALJ.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer by 5:00 p.m. on June 7, 2013, as to the schedule of witnesses and to attempt to shorten their respective witness lists. The parties shall coordinate the availability and order of testimony of witnesses to ensure that there is a witness available to testify at all times during the hearing, and to ensure that the hearing is completed as scheduled.
The parties are encouraged to review and shorten their witness lists prior to the hearing, bearing in mind that evidence will be excluded if it is repetitive, cumulative, or insufficiently probative to justify the time it would take to hear.
The parties shall attempt to reach agreement on a witness list for the first day of hearing. The District shall have witnesses available in case agreement on a witness list is not reached. The parties shall be prepared at the end of each day of hearing to discuss the witnesses to be presented the next day and the time the testimony of each such witness is expected to take.
5. Scope of Witness Examination. After the first direct and cross-examinations,
each party shall be limited in examining the witness to only those matters raised in the immediately preceding examination.
6. Telephonic Testimony. Whether a witness may appear by telephone is a
matter within the discretion of the ALJ. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) Any party seeking to present a witness by telephone shall move in advance for leave to do so, unless the opposing party has stipulated that the witness may appear by telephone. The proponent of the witness shall provide the proposed witness with a complete set of exhibit binders from all parties, containing all of each party’s exhibits, prior to the hearing; and shall ensure that the hearing room has sound equipment that allows everyone in the room to hear the witness, and the witness to hear objections and rulings. No witness will be heard by telephone unless all these requirements have been fulfilled.
Student’s motion to allow Drs. Pumphrey, Leaf, Shabani, Baron, Khachoyan, Roddy, and Kotomori to testify telephonically is denied without prejudice. Student failed to present any facts which would establish good cause to permit telephonic testimony for any of these witnesses. Student may resubmit a motion for telephonic testimony if there is a change in facts or circumstances which establishes good cause for telephonic testimony.
7. Order of Presentation of Evidence. In an administrative proceeding, the
burden of proof is ordinarily on the party requesting the hearing. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005)
546 U.S. 49, 56-62 [126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387].) This matter is consolidated, and involves two parties. Each party shall have the burden of proof regarding their respective issue. The order of presentation of evidence shall be as follows: Student shall present his case-in-chief followed by the District. If a witness is to be called by more than one party, each party shall ask their questions of the witness so that the witness does not need to return for testimony.
8. Motions. No pretrial motions are pending. Any motion filed after this date
shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause as to why the motion was not made prior to or during the prehearing conference of June 5, 2013.
9. Stipulations. Stipulations to pertinent facts, contentions or resolutions are
encouraged. Any proposed stipulation shall be submitted to the assigned ALJ in written form.
10. Conduct of Counsel and Hearing Room Decorum. Counsel, all parties, and all
witnesses shall conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner at all times.
Cellular phones, pagers, recorders, and other noisemaking electronic devices shall be shut off or set to vibrate during the hearing unless permission to the contrary is obtained from the
ALJ.
District shall ensure that the hearing room is configured into a courtroom setting and shall have at a minimum 1) a table for Parent and Student’s representative; 2) a table for District and District’s representative; 3) a table for the witness; and 4) a table for the ALJ, near an electrical outlet. District shall provide drinking water to all parties, witnesses and the ALJ. The same hearing room shall be used for each day of hearing and shall be available at least one hour prior to the commencement of the hearing each day. The hearing room shall be locked following the hearing each night.
11. Compensatory Education/Reimbursement. Any party seeking reimbursement
of expenditures shall present admissible evidence of these expenditures, or a stipulation to the amount of expenditures, as part of its case in chief. A party seeking compensatory education should provide evidence regarding the type, amount, duration, and need for any requested compensatory education.
12. Special Needs and Accommodations. At present neither party anticipates the
need for special accommodation for any witness or party, or for translation services.
13. Hearing Closed To the Public. At the request of the parent, the hearing will be
closed to the public.
14. Settlement. The parties are encouraged to continue working together
to reach an agreement before the due process hearing. The parties shall inform OAH in writing immediately should they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing. In addition, if a settlement is reached within five days of the scheduled start of the due process hearing, the parties shall also inform OAH of the settlement by telephone at (916) 263-0880.
IF A FULL AND FINAL WRITTEN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS REACHED
AFTER 5:00 P.M. THE DAY PRIOR TO HEARING, THE PARTIES SHALL LEAVE A
VOICEMAIL MESSAGE REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT AT (916) 274-6035. THE
PARTIES SHOULD ALSO LEAVE CONTACT INFORMATION SUCH AS CELLULAR
PHONE NUMBERS OF EACH PARTY OR COUNSEL FOR EACH PARTY. THE
PARTIES SHOULD SIMULTANEOUSLY FAX THE SIGNATURE PAGE OF THE
SIGNED AGREEMENT OR A LETTER WITHDRAWING THE CASE TO THE
OAH AT THE FAXINATION LINE at 916-376-6319.
Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until the letter of withdrawal or signature page of the signed agreement has been received by OAH. If an agreement in principle is reached, the parties should plan to attend the scheduled hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ. The assigned ALJ will check for messages the evening prior to the hearing or the morning of the hearing.
15. Failure to comply with this order may result in the exclusion of evidence or
other sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 05, 2013 /s/
PAUL H. KAMOROFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings
