California OAH special education order · March 18, 2016
Order Granting Motion to Strike Supplemental Evidence
OAH Case No. 2015100365 · ALJ Cole Dalton
OAH struck an IEP meeting notice District attached to its closing brief because the notice was irrelevant and created after the hearing, but denied Student's sanctions request because Student did not show bad faith.
This case went to decision
Student v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Los Angeles Unified must fund 590 hours of compensatory behavior services and train staff; comparable-services claims denied. (2016)
Summary
After the hearing ended, District attached to its closing brief a notice for an IEP team meeting set for March 3, 2016. Student moved to strike the exhibit and asked for sanctions, and District opposed. OAH struck the exhibit. It found that an IEP meeting noticed this late had no relevance to the hearing issues, and District cited no authority for reopening the record to admit evidence that did not exist during the hearing. OAH denied sanctions because trying to introduce the new evidence was not a bad-faith action or tactic under Government Code section 11455.30.
Why it matters
Parties generally cannot add new evidence created after the hearing closes by attaching it to a closing brief. A motion to strike can keep that evidence out, but sanctions require proof of bad faith, not just an improper filing.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11455.30
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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015100365 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing on October 8, 2015. The due process hearing was held on January 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27 and 28, 2016, and on February 2, and 3, 2016. The parties filed written closing briefs on February 24, 2016.
District’s closing brief included, as an exhibit, a notice of an individualized education program team meeting scheduled for March 3, 2016. On February 26, 2016, Student filed a motion to strike the exhibit and requested sanctions against District. District filed an opposition on March 2, 2016.
DISCUSSION AND ORDER
The IEP team meeting notice was sent to Parent on February 9, 2016, after the hearing ended. District contends the notice is relevant to the issues at hearing as it shows District intends to hold an IEP meeting to review, revise, and develop an IEP, based upon its recent assessments. Student makes many arguments against admission of the notice, including relevance.
Evidence of an IEP meeting noticed by District at this late date has no relevance to the hearing issues. Finally, District has not provided any authority that would allow the ALJ to reopen the hearing to allow evidence that did not exist while the hearing was in progress.
Therefore, the motion to strike the supplemental evidence is granted.
Student has not shown District submitted the supplemental evidence in bad faith.
District’s attempt to introduce the new evidence does not amount to bad faith actions or tactics. (Gov. Code, § 11455.30.) Therefore, Student’s request for sanctions is denied.
DATE: March 18, 2016
COLE DALTON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings