California OAH special education order · November 13, 2015
Order Denying Motion in Limine Without Prejudice
OAH Case No. 2015100570 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH denied without prejudice Student's motion in limine to admit an IEP meeting transcript. Admissibility of evidence is decided at the prehearing conference, and no PHC statements had been filed yet.
This case went to decision
Student v. Torrance Unified School District: Torrance Unified must fund 23 hours of compensatory education and train staff; Student loses placement, transportation and IEE claims. (2016)
Summary
Student asked OAH to rule in advance that a transcript of the November 6, 2014 IEP team meeting would be admitted into evidence at the due process hearing. District did not oppose. OAH found the request premature because evidence questions are decided at the prehearing conference, set for November 30, 2015, and neither party had filed a PHC statement. The motion was denied without prejudice, and Student may renew it at the PHC.
Why it matters
Motions asking OAH to admit evidence before the hearing should be raised through the prehearing conference process, along with proper exhibit disclosure. Stand-alone motions in limine filed early are likely to be denied as premature.
Key authority cited
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(7)
- Ed. Code § 56505.1, subd. (f)
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. 2015100570 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION IN
LIMINE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On October 14, 2015, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for due process with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming the Torrance Unified School District.
On November 3, 2015, Student filed a motion in limine for OAH to admit into evidence at the due process hearing a transcript of his individualized education program team meeting. No opposition was received from District.
APPLICABLE LAW
OAH requires a party to file a prehearing conference statement at least three business days prior to the PHC. Each party has a duty to disclose his/her witnesses and documentary exhibits in the mandatory PHC statement. Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7)
requires the parties to a due process hearing to provide documents and disclose witnesses to the other party at least five business days before the commencement of the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge hearing the case has the discretion to exclude from evidence any documents, or witness testimony not so disclosed. (Ed. Code § 56505.1, subd. (f).)
DISCUSSION AND ORDER
Student’s complaint alleges, amongst other issues, that District denied Student a free appropriate public education by failing to offer Student appropriate placement and services during an IEP team meeting held on November 6, 2014. Student’s motion in limine seeks to include a transcript of that IEP team meeting as evidence for the due process hearing.
The determination of what evidence will be admitted during the due process hearing is a matter to be determined during the PHC. Presently, neither party has submitted a PHC statement for the PHC, set for November 30, 2015. Therefore, Student’s request for OAH to permit the admission of evidence is premature. 1 Accordingly, Student’s motion in limine is denied without prejudice. Student may renew his motion at the PHC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 13, 2015
/S/
PAUL H. KAMOROFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings Student’s legal counsel has filed similar motions in limine in other cases, and is reminded that these motions should also be filed as part of the PHC process so that the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case can make determinations of relevant evidence.