California OAH special education order · January 25, 2016

Order Denying Student's Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Exhibits

OAH Case No. 2015110380, 2015100934 · ALJ Robert Helfand

OAH denied Student's motion to exclude seven prior IEP and assessment exhibits, finding they may be relevant to what Ramona knew about Student's suspected areas of disability.

Denied without prejudice Evidence and witnesses

Summary

Parents asked OAH to exclude seven of Ramona's exhibits, including earlier IEPs and assessments from Ramona and Julian, arguing that older records were irrelevant. Ramona did not oppose. The ALJ noted that both parties' issues concern whether Ramona's September 2015 initial assessment covered all areas of suspected disability. Because prior IEPs and assessments may show what Ramona knew about Student's suspected disabilities, the ALJ found the exhibits appeared relevant and denied the motion without prejudice.

Why it matters

In failure-to-assess and IEE cases, older IEPs and assessments, including those from a prior district, are usually admissible because they can show what the district knew or should have suspected. Even an unopposed motion in limine can be denied if the evidence is relevant.

Key authority cited

Evid. Code § 350
Evid. Code § 210
Evid. Code § 140

Topics

motion in limine exhibits relevance prior ieps assessment independent educational evaluation suspected disability

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:

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015110380 v.

RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2015100934 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. CERTAIN EXHIBITS

On January 15, 2016, Parents on behalf of Student filed a motion in limine to exclude the admissibility of seven exhibits listed on Ramona Unified School District’s exhibit list.

The exhibits in issue are as follows (numbers relate to the number for the exhibit on Ramona’s exhibit list):

1. Ramona 2012 individualized education plan.

2. Ramona 2013 IEP

3. Julian 2014 IEP

4. Julian Amendment to 2014 IEP

6. Ramona Speech & Language 2012 Evaluation

7. Julian psycho-ed assessment dated March 14, 2014, and Speech &

Language assessment (undated)

37. Julian SEIS dated March 27, 2014

Student contends that the exhibits are irrelevant because the exhibits relate to prior IEP’s and assessments. No opposition was received from Ramona.

Evidence Coode Section 350 states, “No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” Relevant evidence is defined as evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evidence Code, § 210.)

On January 8, 2016, the parties attended a Prehearing Conference before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge. The PHC Order states that the issues are as follows:

Student’s Issue (A) Whether District denied Student a free appropriate public education by failing to assess and provide services in in all areas of suspected disability, specifically in the areas of learning disability, attention deficits, autistic tendencies, visual processing, behavior, and social/emotion? District’s Issue (B) Whether District’s initial assessment, dated September 18, 2015, was appropriate such as Student is not entitled to an Independent Education Evaluation at District expense? Here both the Student and District issues refer to the appropriateness of Ramona’s September 18, 2015 initial special education assessment in that Ramona failed to assess in all areas of suspected disabilities, Student’s issue also encompasses the appropriateness of Ramona’s IEP in that it fails to provide services to meet all areas of suspected disabilities.

Prior IEP’s and assessments may be relevant to the issue of Ramona’s knowledge of what areas Student had suspected disabilities. Therefore, the exhibits listed above appear to be relevant as defined by Evidence Code Section 140.

Accordingly, Student’s motion to exclude exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 37 is denied without prejudice.