California OAH special education order · January 24, 2017
Order Following Prehearing Conference
OAH Case No. 2016090101 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH excluded Student's father as a hearing witness because Mother has sole legal custody and a restraining order. It denied Mother's continuance request for lack of good cause.
This case went to decision
Newport-Mesa Unified School District v. Student: Newport-Mesa Unified must fund an independent evaluation because its assessment was flawed and it shut Mother out of the review meeting. (2017)
Summary
At the prehearing conference in District's case defending its assessments against independent educational evaluation requests, Mother asked to exclude Student's father as a witness. District opposed, but OAH granted the request for good cause because Mother has sole legal custody and a restraining order against him. Mother also asked for a continuance to prepare and because of another legal proceeding. OAH denied it without prejudice: two continuances had already been granted, she had months of notice, and she gave no details about the other proceeding. Because Student filed no prehearing conference statement, Student was limited to the exhibits and witnesses listed in District's statement.
Why it matters
A parent can keep a restrained parent out of the hearing by showing good cause, such as sole custody and a restraining order. Skipping the prehearing conference statement can sharply limit the evidence a parent may present, and a continuance request needs specific facts about any conflict.
Key authority cited
- Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), (c)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (f)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g)
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332
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:
NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016090101
DISTRICT,
ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING
v. CONFERENCE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On January 23, 2017, a telephonic prehearing conference was held before Administrative Law Judge Paul H. Kamoroff, Office of Administrative Hearings. Courtney Brady, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Newport-Mesa Unified School District.
Mother appeared on behalf of Student. The PHC was recorded.
Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:
1. Hearing Dates, Times, and Location. The hearing shall take place on
January 31, and February 1, 2017, and 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 220 23rd Street, Building D, Costa Mesa, California 92627. 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.
As ordered in the scheduling order, the named local educational agency 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. The named local educational agency failed to certify that it would provide a facility for this case that complied with the law. The local educational agency shall inform OAH within two days of the date of this order it is able to certify that it will provide a facility that complies with the law.
Prior to the beginning of the hearing, District shall assist the ALJ to ensure that the hearing room is configured into a courtroom setting, including (1) a table for Student and his representatives; (2) a table for District’s legal representative and special education representative; (3) a table for the witness; and (4) a table for the ALJ, near an electrical outlet. District shall also make reasonable effort to ensure that drinking water and tissue are available to all parties, witnesses and the ALJ.
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.
Whether District’s initial assessments and May 23, 2016 assessment report met legal requirements? District seeks an order that it is not required to fund independent educational evaluations for Student.
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 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.
Student failed to submit a prehearing conference statement as ordered by OAH and is therefore limited to the exhibits described in District’s prehearing conference statement.
Except for good cause shown, or unless used solely for rebuttal or impeachment, any exhibit not included in District’s exhibit list 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.
Student failed to submit a prehearing conference statement as ordered by OAH and is therefore limited to the witnesses identified in District’s prehearing conference statement.
Unless used solely for rebuttal or impeachment, neither party shall be permitted to call any witnesses not disclosed in District’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 close of business on January 25, 2017, regarding the scheduling of witnesses. 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. District shall have witnesses available in case agreement on a witness list is not reached. 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, 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. At present, neither side has requested for a witness to appear by telephone.
7. Electronic Recording of Hearing.
a. Audio Recording. Parties’ joint motion to make an audio recording of
the hearing is granted, 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, 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].) Here, District is the petitioning party.
Accordingly, District shall present its case-in-chief, followed by Student.
9. Motions. During the prehearing conference, Student moved to strike
Student’s father as a witness for the hearing. Although Father has not requested an independent educational evaluation from District, he was an identified witness in District’s prehearing conference statement and District opposed the motion. Mother has sole legal custody of Student and a restraining order against Father. Good cause being shown, Student’s request is granted. Father shall not attend the hearing and shall be excluded as a witness.
Also during the prehearing conference, Student requested a continuance based upon a desire for additional time to prepare and because she is preparing for another legal proceeding. District opposed Student’s request.
A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receipt of the due process notice unless an extension is granted for good cause. (34 C.F.R.
§ 300.515(a) & (c) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020.) As a result, continuances are disfavored. Good cause may include the unavailability of a party, counsel, or an essential witness due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; substitution of an attorney when the substitution is required in the interests of justice; a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or another significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) OAH considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including the proximity of the hearing date; previous continuances or delays; the length of continuance requested; the availability of other means to address the problem giving rise to the request; prejudice to a party or witness as a result of a continuance; the impact of granting a continuance on other pending hearings; whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance; whether the interests of justice are served by the continuance;
and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
This matter was filed on August 30, 2016, and OAH has granted two prior continuances, on September 19, 2016, and November 4, 2016. Student has had notice of the present hearing dates for several months, and ample time to prepare for the hearing.
Moreover, Student failed to provide any details regarding the other legal proceeding. She failed to describe when the other matter was filed, or whether there is a conflict with the hearing dates. Consequently, Student failed to show good cause to support a continuance and her request is denied without prejudice. Should good cause exist for a continuance, Student may resubmit her request.
Student anticipates filing a motion for continuance and a motion to reconsider this Prehearing Conference Order, to the extent that it limits Student’s evidence. No additional 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 January 23, 2017.
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 or set to vibrate during the hearing unless permission to the contrary is obtained from the
ALJ.
13. Special Needs and Accommodations. Mother requests that OAH comply with
her restraining order against Father. At present, no other special needs or accommodations have been requested by either party.
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 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 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.
16. Failure to comply with this order may result in the exclusion of evidence or
other sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 24, 2017
PAUL H. KAMOROFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings
