California OAH special education order · June 7, 2019
Order Denying Motion for an Order to Show Cause
OAH Case No. 2019041020 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH denied District's request to make Student justify calling the superintendent as a witness. District cited no authority, and Student's witness listing met the scheduling order's requirements.
Summary
Student's prehearing conference statement listed Etiwanda's Superintendent, Shawn Judson, as a possible witness on District programs, procedures, communications, and records. District asked OAH to issue an order to show cause requiring Student to give an offer of proof on why his testimony was necessary and relevant. OAH denied the motion because District cited no authority for requiring a party to justify calling a listed witness. Student had also complied with the scheduling order, which only requires each witness's name, a brief summary of the expected testimony, and the issue it relates to.
Why it matters
Parents may list high-level district officials, like a superintendent, as witnesses without first proving they are necessary. Following OAH's prehearing statement requirements is enough to defeat this kind of challenge.
People named in the order
- Shawn Judson, Superintendent, Etiwanda School District (listed witness)
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. 2019041020 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AN
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On May 29, 2019, Student filed a Prehearing Conference Statement. One of the potential witnesses listed was Shawn Judson, Etiwanda’s Superintendent. The potential areas of his testimony included District programs, procedures, direct communications, and records.
On June 3, 2019, District filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause, requesting that OAH issue an order to show cause, requiring Student to provide an offer of proof as to the necessity of calling Mr. Judson at hearing and the relevancy of his anticipated testimony to the issues for hearing.
The Motion is denied. District cites no authority for requiring any party to show cause, or make an offer of proof, as to the necessity of calling a witness on the witness lists.
Student complied with OAH’s April 24, 2019 Scheduling Order and its attachments, concerning the contents of the PHC statements, which require “the name of each witness the party may call at the due process hearing, a brief summary of the subject of the expected testimony of the witness, and a description of the issue to which the testimony of the witness relates.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 7, 2019
JUNE LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings