California OAH special education order · December 27, 2021
Order Denying Student's Motion to Compel Further Response
OAH Case No. 2021120164 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH denied Student's motion to compel Ventura to give a more detailed response to the complaint. No law lets a party challenge the sufficiency of a district's response, as opposed to a missing response.
Summary
Ventura filed a timely response to Student's due process complaint. Student moved to compel a further response, arguing it lacked the prior written notice content required by 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)(aa)-(dd) and did not address many factual allegations, so Ventura might raise new defenses at hearing. Ventura did not oppose. OAH denied the motion because no authority allows a pre-hearing challenge to the sufficiency of a district's response, and the IDEA provides no insufficiency procedure for responses like the one for complaints; any effort to limit Ventura's evidence at hearing was premature.
Why it matters
The M.C. v. Antelope Valley remedy applies when a district files no response at all, not when a response is thin or generic. Families worried about surprise defenses should raise evidentiary objections at or near hearing rather than through a pre-hearing motion to compel.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(e)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(2)
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021120164
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSE
DECEMBER 27, 2021
On December 3, 2021, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Ventura Unified School District.
On December 13, 2021, Ventura filed and served its response to the complaint. It asserts, among other things, that it timely and appropriately assessed Student in all areas of suspected disability, offered Student appropriate measurable annual goals, placement, services, supports, and accommodations, made clear and coherent offers of individualized educational programs for Student, called IEPs, afforded Parents a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of Student’s educational program, and properly implemented Student’s IEPs. Ventura further asserts that if it did in any way fail to comply with the procedures of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, called the IDEA, such errors did not result in any loss of educational opportunity or a deprivation of educational benefits to Student, or seriously infringe on Parents’ right to participate in the IEP process.
On December 21, 2021, Student filed a Motion to Compel Responsive Pleading.
Student contends Ventura’s response is inadequate because it fails to provide information required by a “prior written notice” and title 20 United States Code section 1415(B)(i)(I)(aa)-(dd). Student contends Ventura failed to specifically address many of the factual allegations in Student’s complaint and Student fears that Ventura will attempt to raise new defenses at hearing, denying Student’s ability to prepare for hearing. Student posits that the motion is based on “M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist., 852 F.3d 840, 851 (9th Cir. 2017).”
Ventura did not file a response to Student’s motion.
APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
The IDEA requires a school district to provide prior written notice to parents whenever it proposes to initiate or change, or refuses to initiate or change, the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3).)
State and federal law require school districts to respond to a due process complaint within 10 days of receiving the complaint, if the school district has not previously sent a prior written notice to the parent regarding the subject matter contained in the complaint. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(e);
Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(2).) Title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)(aa)
through (dd) itemizes what should be contained in the response.
Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that when a school district fails to file a timely answer, the Administrative Law Judge, known as an ALJ, must not go forward with the hearing. Rather, the ALJ must order a response and shift the cost of any delay to the school district. (M.C. by and through his guardian ad litem M.N. v.
Antelope Valley Union High School District (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200.)
Here, Student has challenged the sufficiency of Ventura’s response to the complaint. Student cites no persuasive authority which permits her to contest the sufficiency of a school district’s response, as opposed to the lack of any response, as a pre-hearing motion and condition of proceeding to hearing. Although title 20 United States Code section 1415(c) permits a responding party to file a notice of insufficiency to challenge the sufficiency of a complaint, there is no similar provision in the law pertaining to a district’s response to the complaint. To the extent Student is attempting to limit the evidence presented at hearing, that request is premature. Accordingly, Student’s motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Kara Hatfield Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings