California OAH special education order · August 24, 2018
Order Denying Motion to Compel Discovery
OAH Case No. 2018070654 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH denied Student's motion to compel discovery because special education due process has no formal prehearing discovery and Anaheim showed it repeatedly offered Parent access to and copies of Student's records.
Summary
Student moved to compel Anaheim to produce documents and allow Parent to review Student's file, saying Anaheim had refused repeated requests. Anaheim opposed and attached emails and letters showing it had offered Parent chances to review the records at a school site and to receive copies. OAH denied the motion. It explained that parties have no right to formal prehearing discovery in these hearings, that Student cited no authority applying the Code of Civil Procedure to special education cases, and that Student offered no evidence that Anaheim refused access.
Why it matters
Parents have strong rights to inspect and copy school records under the IDEA and Education Code section 56504, but OAH will not compel 'discovery' under civil litigation rules. A motion claiming the district refused records should attach the written requests and the district's responses as proof.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56504
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)(7)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.010
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. 2018070654 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY
ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On August 23, 2018, Student filed a Motion to Compel Discovery with the Office of Administrative Hearings. On August 23, 2018, Anaheim Elementary School District filed an Opposition to Student’s Motion to Compel Discovery.
Student contends Anaheim has refused Parent’s repeated requests for production of documents pertaining to the Request for Due Process Hearing, and the opportunity to review Student’s file. Anaheim contends it has provided numerous opportunities for Parent to review Student’s educational records and to receive copies of such records, but Parent has not accepted the opportunities.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
In special education due process hearings, parties have no right to formal prehearing discovery. However, the procedural safeguards of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, allow parents of a child with a disability the opportunity to examine all records relating to the child with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(a).) Additionally, the California Education Code allows parents the right to examine and receive copies of all school records related to the child within five business days after a request for records is made. (Ed. Code, § 56504.)
Parties to a special education due process hearing also have the right to receive, at least five business days prior to the hearing, a copy of all documents the other party intends to use as evidence at the hearing. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)(7).)
Student’s motion cites section 2019.010 of the California Code of Civil Procedure in support of its argument that a party has a right to discovery. However, Student’s motion does not include any legal authority supporting the application of the Code of Civil Procedure to special education due process cases. Moreover, Student’s motion does not attach any evidence to support its contention that Anaheim has refused its requests to examine Student’s records. To the contrary, in its opposition, Anaheim attaches multiple email and letter correspondence indicating its efforts to make Student’s records available for Parent to review at a school site; as well as to provide a copy of the records to Parent if so desired.
Accordingly, Student’s Motion to Compel Discovery is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 24, 2018
TARA DOSS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings