California OAH special education order · November 21, 2016

Order Following Prehearing Conference

OAH Case No. 2016070938, 2016070115 · ALJ Rebecca Freie

OAH held the prehearing conference on Soledad's case only after Mother could not be reached, and set a December 1, 2016 hearing on whether Soledad may implement its September 26, 2016 IEP without consent.

Issues set for hearing Prehearing conference orders

This case went to decision

Student v. Soledad Unified School District (consolidated): Soledad Unified may not implement its September 2016 IEP without consent and must fund 25 hours of math tutoring. (2017)

Summary

The ALJ called Mother twice for the telephonic prehearing conference, with a Spanish interpreter on the line, but could not reach her. The conference went forward on Soledad's case only. The ALJ set the hearing to begin December 1, 2016, on one issue: whether Soledad may implement its September 26, 2016 IEP offer without Parent's consent. Because Mother did not appear, Soledad will present its case first, and a separate order to show cause will address whether Student's complaint should be dismissed.

Why it matters

A parent who misses the prehearing conference risks having the case go forward without their input and facing possible dismissal of their own complaint. In a district case seeking to implement an IEP without consent, the parent's participation is critical.

Key authority cited

  • Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49
  • Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)(7)
  • Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g)
  • 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

People named in the order

  • Anthony Miranda, Special Education Director, Soledad Unified School District
  • Rita Defillippis, Administrative Law Judge (observed the PHC)

Topics

prehearing conference failure to appear implement iep without consent consolidated cases spanish interpreter order to show cause

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:

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016070938 v.

SOLEDAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

SOLEDAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2016070115 v.

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING

CONFERENCE

On November 18, 2016, a telephonic prehearing conference was held before Administrative Law Judge Rebecca Freie, Office of Administrative Hearings.1 At 3:00 p.m., the ALJ telephoned Mother. A Spanish interpreter was also on the telephone. Someone other than Mother answered the telephone and said that Mother was unavailable. It was explained that this was the time for the PHC, and the ALJ would call back in 15 minutes to convene the PHC. When the ALJ placed the second telephone call, there was no answer.

The ALJ left a voicemail via the interpreter explaining that the PHC would proceed, and an order to show cause hearing would be set to determine whether Student’s complaint should be dismissed due to Mother’s failure to appear. A separate order is being issued concerning this.

Anthony Miranda, Special Education Director for Soledad, appeared on behalf of Soledad. The PHC was conducted for Soledad’s case only. The PHC was recorded.

Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:

1. Hearing Dates, Times, and Location. The hearing on Soledad’s case only

shall begin on December 1, 2016. It shall begin at 9:30 a.m., and shall continue day to day, Monday through Thursday, at the discretion of the ALJ. The hearing shall take place at the District’s offices located at 1261 Metz Road, Soledad, California 93960.

ALJ Rita Defillippis observed the PHC.

As ordered in the scheduling order, Soledad was to provide a facility for the hearing that fully complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.), and all laws governing accessibility of government facilities to persons with disabilities. Soledad has failed to certify that it would provide a facility for this case that complies with the law. Soledad shall inform OAH within two days of the date of this order that it is able to certify that it will provide a facility that complies with the law.

Prior to the beginning of the hearing, Soledad shall ensure that the hearing room is configured into a courtroom setting and shall have at a minimum (1) a table for Student and her representatives; (2) a table for Soledad’s legal representative and special education representative; (3) a table for the witness; and (4) a table for the ALJ, near an electrical outlet. Soledad shall provide drinking water and tissue 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. Soledad shall ensure that the hearing room and access to it are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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. Issue and Proposed Resolution. The issue at the due process hearing, and the

proposed resolution, are listed below.

Soledad’s Issue Can Soledad implement its IEP offer of September 26, 2016, without Parental consent? Proposed Resolution Soledad’s Issue Soledad may implement its IEP offer of September 26, 2016, 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 consecutively paginated or Bates-stamped. Each exhibit binder shall contain a detailed table of contents. The parties shall serve 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 timely exchanged shall not be admitted into evidence unless 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 timely disclosed by a party except for good cause shown, and at the discretion of the ALJ.

Prior to the commencement of the due process hearing, the ALJ and the parties will discuss the length of time anticipated for direct and cross-examination of each witness and scheduling issues for individual witnesses, and the ALJ will finalize the witness schedule.

Additionally, 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. Each witness shall be called to testify only

once, except for rebuttal purposes, and all parties shall examine the witness on all issues when the witness is first called. 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. The order in which the parties present their cases in chief shall be subordinate to the need for each witness to appear only once.

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.

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.

7. Electronic Recording of Hearing.

a. Audio Recording. Neither party has asked to make an audio recording

of the hearing. If such a request is made and granted, it will be subject to the following conditions: 1) that OAH’s recording is the only official recording; 2) that the recording will be turned on and off at the same time as the ALJ’s recording, in order to avoid recording conversations while off the record; and 3) that operation of the party’s recording mechanism will not be allowed to delay the hearing.

b. Video Recording. No party, witness or anyone else present may

make any video recording of any part of the proceedings. Any person doing so shall be subject to sanctions.

8. 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 is a consolidated matter, and both parties have requested hearing. However, since Mother did not appear at the PHC, Soledad shall present its case-in-chief, followed by Student, unless Student’s complaint has been dismissed.

9. Motions. No pretrial motions are pending or contemplated. 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 November 18, 2016.

10. 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.

11. Stipulations. Stipulations to pertinent facts, contentions or resolutions are

encouraged. Any proposed stipulation shall be submitted to the assigned ALJ in written form.

12. 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 during the hearing unless permission to the contrary is obtained from the ALJ.

13. Special Needs and Accommodations. A Spanish language interpreter is

required. OAH shall provide such an interpreter for the hearing.

A party or participant to this case, such as a witness, requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in the mediation or hearing may contact the assigned calendar staff, identified in the scheduling order, at (916) 263-0880, as soon as the need is known.

Additional information concerning requests for reasonable accommodation is available on OAH’s website at: http://www.dgs.ca.gov/oah/Home/Accessibility.aspx.

14. Hearing Closed To the Public. The hearing will be closed to the public unless

Student requests that it be open.

15. 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 NOON ON NOVEMBER 30, 2016, 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.

16. Failure to comply with this order may result in the exclusion of evidence or

other sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: November 21, 2016

REBECCA FREIE

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings