California OAH special education order · April 12, 2019
Order Denying Motion in Limine to Exclude Without Prejudice
OAH Case No. 2018110993 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH denied Student's motion in limine without prejudice because it was too vague to identify the evidence to exclude and was premature before prehearing conference statements were filed.
Summary
Student filed a motion in limine asking OAH to exclude certain evidence, and Santa Ana opposed it. OAH found the motion vague and ambiguous. It cited "page five lines four through fourteen" without naming the document, and it referred to other evidence without identifying it. OAH also found the motion premature, because admissibility is decided at the prehearing conference or at hearing, and neither party had yet filed a PHC statement for the April 22, 2019 PHC.
Why it matters
A motion to exclude evidence must name the exact document, pages, and testimony at issue. Filing before PHC statements and exhibit disclosures are exchanged will likely be treated as premature, though it can be raised again later.
Key authority cited
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(7)
- Ed. Code § 56505.1, subd. (f)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
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. 2018110993 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION IN
LIMINE TO EXCLUDE WITHOUT
SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL PREDUJICE
DISTRICT.
On November 30, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Santa Ana Unified School District.
On April 8, 2019, Student filed a motion in limine to exclude. On April 11, 2019, Santa Ana filed opposition to Student’s motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
OAH requires a party to file a prehearing conference statement at least three business days prior to the PHC. Each party has a duty to disclose his/her witnesses and documentary exhibits in the mandatory PHC statement. Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7)
requires the parties to a due process hearing to provide documents and disclose witnesses to the other party at least five business days before the commencement of the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge hearing the case has the discretion to exclude from evidence any documents, or witness testimony not so disclosed. (Ed. Code § 56505.1, subd. (f).)
DISCUSSION
Student’s motion in limine is vague and ambiguous. Student seeks to exclude evidence stated as “page five lines four through fourteen” but does not point to the specific referencing document. Further, Student alludes to other evidence or facts for exclusion but does not specifically reference the evidence. Thus, it is unclear what evidence Student requests excluded from the hearing.
1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A).
Additionally, the determination of what evidence will be admitted during the due process hearing is a matter to be determined during the prehearing conference or at the time of the due process hearing. Presently, neither party has submitted a PHC statement for the PHC set for April 22, 2019. Therefore, Student’s request for OAH to exclude evidence is premature. Accordingly, Student’s motion in limine is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 12, 2019
CYNTHIA FRITZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings