California OAH special education order · April 25, 2018
Order Granting Motion to Receive Redacted Records, and Order Closing Record on Expedited Claims and Directing Final Briefing
OAH Case No. 2018021017 · ALJ Chris Butchko
OAH granted Student's unopposed motion to admit Child Welfare Services records with sibling interviews redacted, closed the record on the expedited claims, and kept final briefs due April 27, 2018.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Dieguito Union High School District: San Dieguito Union High School District did not have to hold a manifestation determination before expelling a student who was not in special education. (2018)
Summary
Student asked OAH to admit Child Welfare Services records offered at the expedited hearing and to redact material about interviews of Student's siblings. District did not oppose the redaction and rested its case, subject to its standing objections to the records. Because the motion was unopposed and the parties agreed on what to redact, OAH granted it without in camera review. Student must file redacted copies to replace Exhibits 12 and 13, the record on the expedited claims is closed, and final briefs are due April 27, 2018.
Why it matters
Sensitive outside records, such as child welfare files, can come into evidence with third-party information like siblings' interviews redacted. When the parties agree on the redactions, the judge does not need to review the records privately first.
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:
OAH Case No. 2018021017
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. RECEIVE REDACTED RECORDS,
AND ORDER CLOSING RECORD ON
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL EXPEDITED CLAIMS AND
DISTRICT. DIRECTING FINAL BRIEFING
At hearing on April 17, 2018, San Dieguito Union High School District was directed to file a statement setting out how it wished to respond to the introduction of certain Child Welfare Services records proffered by Student. Student was directed to and did immediately provide unredacted copies of the records to District, and, on April 18, 2018, Student moved to be allowed to submit unredacted copies for in camera review and for redaction from those documents of material relating to interviews of Student’s siblings.
On April 24, 2018, District responded, stating that it did not oppose Student’s motion to redact the records and that, subject to its standing objections to the Child Welfare Services documents, it has decided to rest its case. Being unopposed, Student’s motion for admission of the documents and for redaction is granted. The parties, having possession of the complete records, may use those records in briefing, except for the interviews of Student’s siblings cited in Student’s motion. By April 27, 2018, Student will file new copies of those records with OAH which will have redaction of material concerning Student’s siblings.
Those copies will replace the Child Welfare Services documents received at hearing as Student’s exhibits 12 and 13. As the parties are not in disagreement over the material to be redacted, in camera review is not necessary.
Accordingly, regarding the claims given expedited hearing, the hearing is complete and the record closed as of today. As the parties were previously instructed, final briefing must be received by close of business on Friday, April 27, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 25, 2018
CHRIS BUTCHKO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings