Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference Denying Challenge for Cause, Motion to Consolidate, and Request for Continuance

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

v.

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2023070944

ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE FOR HEARING BY

VIDEOCONFERENCE DENYING CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE, MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE, AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

AUGUST 11, 2023

On August 11, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Charles Marson, Office of Administrative Hearings, held a prehearing conference by videoconference. The Administrative Law Judge is called an ALJ. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH. The prehearing conference is called a PHC.

Joshua M. Walden and Mark W. Waterman, Attorneys at Law, appeared on behalf of the San Diego Unified School District. Jennifer Varga and Cecilia Rutherford, Attorneys at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. The PHC was recorded. Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:

HEARING DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATION

DUE PROCESS HEARING

The hearing will take place on August 22, 23 and 24, 2023, and continue day to day at the discretion of the ALJ. The hearing shall begin at 9:30 AM each day and generally end at 3:30 PM, unless otherwise ordered. The parties anticipate it will take three to six days to complete the hearing. Additional hearing dates will be discussed with the ALJ during the hearing if necessary.

HEARING LOCATION

OAH is authorized to conduct due process hearings by videoconference or telephone. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) OAH will conduct the due process hearing by videoconference using the Zoom application. Unless otherwise ordered, participants are required to appear by videoconference using computer or device with video capability and Zoom.

The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates and shall subpoena witnesses, if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will appear to testify. A party’s failure to notify or subpoena a witness to testify will not be considered good cause to continue the hearing. Instructions for issuing and responding to subpoenas and optional forms for subpoenas can be found on the website at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Case-Types/Special- Education/Forms/Subpoenas?search=special%20education%20subpoena.

ISSUES AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

In this Order a free appropriate public education is called a FAPE, and an individualized education program is called an IEP. The issue at the due process hearing, and proposed resolution, as alleged in the complaint and clarified by the parties and the ALJ during the PHC are:

ISSUE

Did San Diego’s June 12, 2023 IEP offer Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment, so that San Diego may implement that IEP without parental consent?

PROPOSED RESOLUTION

San Diego seeks an order answering the above question in the affirmative.

EXHIBITS

The parties shall serve their exhibits on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). The parties shall upload their exhibits electronically according to the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically.

Timely uploading electronic hearing exhibits five business days before the first day of hearing constitutes that party’s timely exchange of evidence in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). If further assistance is needed, please contact OAH at OAHSEOps@dgs.ca.gov.

Except for good cause shown, or unless used solely for rebuttal or impeachment, any exhibit not timely exchanged as required by Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7) shall not be admitted into evidence at the hearing unless the ALJ rules that it is admissible.

IDENTIFYING EXHIBITS AND PAGE NUMBERS

Each exhibit must be identified by a letter and number. Student must use the letter S before the number to identify Student’s exhibits. San Diego must use the letter D before the number to identify its exhibits. For example, S-1 means Student’s exhibit 1 and D-1 means San Diego’s exhibit 1. A cover sheet with this identifying letter and number should be the first page of each exhibit. The electronic evidence program will automatically number the exhibits and additional page numbering or bates stamping should not be added.

CONTENT

Each exhibit must consist of one document. Separate documents may not be combined into one exhibit. Emails or letters may be consolidated into one exhibit if they are part of a single chain of messages. Exhibits should be in chronological order.

Parties should include a resume or curriculum vita for each witness expected to testify as an expert.

San Diego’s exhibits must include a copy of the school calendar for each school year in question.

Electronic copies of exhibits filed with OAH shall be filed by 5:00 PM at least five business days before the first day of hearing. Please refer to the General Order OAH issued with the Scheduling Order that contains the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically. It includes instructions for how to file exhibits electronically.

Beginning three business days before the hearing, the electronic evidence system will not allow parties to upload exhibits unless permitted by the ALJ during the hearing at the ALJ’s discretion.

WITNESSES

The parties shall serve their list of witnesses on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505. No party shall be permitted to call any witnesses not timely disclosed except for good cause shown, supported by written declaration under penalty of perjury, and at the discretion of the ALJ.

Parties are responsible for ensuring that all participants are familiar with and follow the Instructions for Joining the Online Due Process Hearing provided with this Order. Participants who have not previously used the Zoom application, may find informative instructions on at by visiting, Getting Started with Zoom at https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/categories/200101697.

The parties are responsible for ensuring that witnesses join the virtual hearing room at the designated date and time to testify. Witnesses are required to join the due process hearing by computer and appear by videoconference unless they do not have the necessary computer equipment.

The parties are responsible for producing their own witnesses unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ. Parties shall make witnesses under their control reasonably available. The parties must schedule their witnesses to avoid delays in the hearing and to minimize or eliminate the need for calling witnesses out of order.

The ALJ has discretion to limit the number of witnesses and the time allowed for testimony. Education Code, section 56505.1, subdivision (h), empowers the ALJ to set a reasonable limit on the length of the hearing.

MEET AND CONFER

The parties are encouraged to review and shorten their witness and exhibit lists before the hearing. Evidence may be excluded if it is repetitive, cumulative, or insufficiently probative to justify the time it would take to hear.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer no later than August 17, 2023, to discuss scheduling witnesses and how much time each witness will take. The parties shall discuss any issues related to counsel and witnesses appearing by videoconference for hearing, electronically viewing exhibits during the hearing, and subpoenas, if any.

The parties should attempt to eliminate duplicate exhibits from their hearing exhibits.

The parties shall discuss whether they can produce a written stipulation as to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and the authenticity and admissibility of documents to shorten the length of time needed for the hearing.

As part of the meet and confer process, San Diego shall inform Student which proposed witnesses are District employees. San Diego shall also identify the witnesses on Student’s list that require a subpoena. San Diego may agree to accept service for a witness under its control or provide Student with the witness’s most recent contact information.

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM

Both parties have an ongoing obligation to ensure that OAH has current information on the Participant Information Form filed with OAH and shall file an updated Form as necessary. The Participant Information Form is not served upon the opposing party. The ongoing obligation to ensure that the Participant Information Form filed with OAH is current does not change the parties’ statutory obligation to timely disclose their witnesses to the other party(s) at least five business days prior to hearing.

The parties must file an updated Participant Information Form to inform OAH of any changes, additions, or deletions, including the required information no later than 5:00 PM at least two business days before the first day of hearing.

Any contact information provided shall be used for the limited purpose of issuing subpoenas or for contacting a witness to attend the hearing. Any contact information shall not be disclosed to any other person.

EVIDENCE PRESENTATION

In an administrative proceeding, the burden of proof is ordinarily on the party requesting the hearing. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 62.) In this case San Diego requested the hearing and bears the burden of proof. San Diego’s case-in-chief shall be presented first, followed by Student’s, unless otherwise ordered.

WITNESS LISTS

The parties must provide a joint proposed witness list to the ALJ on the first day of hearing. The list should include the first and last name of the witness, which party is calling the witness to testify, and include dates and time estimates of each witness’s expected testimony. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, each party shall prepare a separate written list. San Diego must have witnesses available in case there is no agreement.

At the beginning of the hearing, the ALJ and the parties will discuss the length of time anticipated for each witness and scheduling issues for individual witnesses. The ALJ will finalize the witness schedule. Parties must be prepared at the end of each day to discuss the witnesses to be presented the next day and the estimated time for the testimony of each witness.

SCOPE OF WITNESS EXAMINATION

Each witness will be called to testify only once, except for rebuttal purposes. All parties must examine a witness on all issues when the witness is first called to testify.

Requiring a witness to appear only once takes priority over the order in which parties present their case-in-chief.

AUDIO ONLY OR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY

Whether a witness may appear by audio only or telephone instead of videoconference is a matter within the discretion of the ALJ. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) Any party seeking to present a witness by audio only or telephone shall request permission to do so before the hearing. Any party seeking to present a witness who cannot access exhibits electronically must inform the ALJ at the beginning of the hearing. At present neither party anticipates presenting a witness by audio only or telephone.

ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS

AUDIO RECORDING

A party may request permission to make an audio recording of the hearing.

Permission to make an audio recording is subject to the ALJ’s discretion and based upon the following conditions:

1. the OAH recording is the only official recording;

2. the parties shall turn their recording devices on and off at the same time

that the ALJ is on and off the record to avoid recording conversations while off the record;

3. operation of a party’s recording mechanism will not be allowed to delay

the hearing;

4. a party’s recording may not be given, provided or played to a witness, or

potential witness;

5. the recording is subject to the same confidentiality as the due process

hearing; and

6. participants shall not take screenshots of the videoconference nor share or

publish any portion of the videoconference or audio recording.

Student’s and San Diego’s requests to make audio recordings of the hearing are granted subject to the conditions above.

VIDEO RECORDING

No party, witness or anyone else may videorecord any part of the proceedings or stream live through any means.

RECORDINGS AS EXHIBITS

Recordings may not be uploaded electronically without the ALJ’s permission. The ALJ has discretion to admit or exclude evidence in the form of a recording. Any request to submit a recording shall be considered at the time of hearing. At present neither party intends to offer an audio recording in evidence.

The ALJ may grant or deny the request or grant the request subject to certain conditions. The party offering the recording must establish that all or a part of the recording is relevant. The ALJ may request a transcript of the portion of the recording requested or have the party offering the recording to provide an exact identifiable portion of the recording the party seeks to admit. The identities of any person speaking on the portion of the tape being introduced must be established. An ALJ may allow the opposing party to offer additional portions of a recording to establish the context, or to rebut, the recording.

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION OR REIMBURSEMENT

Any party seeking reimbursement for expenditures shall present admissible evidence of these expenditures, or a stipulation to the amount of the expenditures. A party seeking compensatory education should provide evidence regarding the type, amount, duration, and need for any requested compensatory education. Documents offered as evidence to support a request for reimbursement must be separated by vendor.

MOTIONS

1.Request for Judge Reassignment: On August 11, 2023, Student filed a Request for Judge Reassignment on the ground that the undersigned was the mediator several months ago in a different case involving the same Student and parties and therefore had “pre-existing knowledge of the facts and circumstances” of this case. The ALJ treated the motion as a challenge for cause, and denied it. The undersigned assured the parties that he did not remember anything about that previous mediation and therefore could not be tainted by pre-existing knowledge.

2.Motion to Consolidate: On May 16, 2023, Student filed a request for due process hearing, naming San Diego. (Student v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., OAH Case No. 2023060138). The request alleged that San Diego denied Student a FAPE in the school year 2022-2023 by disregarding the advice of an independent evaluator and by failing to provide Student a legally compliant placement and adequate services and supports. San Diego filed the instant matter on July 28, 2023, seeking an order that its IEP proposal of June 12, 2023 offered Student a FAPE and that it should be allowed to implement the IEP without parental consent. On August 9, 2023, Student filed a motion to consolidate the two cases, and on August 10, 2023, San Diego filed an opposition.

The ALJ denied the motion to consolidate on the ground that it was untimely, having not been filed by August 8, 2023 as ordered or supported by a declaration under oath showing good cause for a later filing. The ALJ also denied the motion on the ground that there was insufficient showing that the two cases involve a common question of law or fact. Student’s case addresses events and IEP offers before May 16, 2023, when San Diego was proposing placing Student at the Riley School. Parents instead placed Student in a residential program called Embark Behavioral Health, which discharged her in June 2023. San Diego’s case addresses events after May 16, 2023, and focuses on its IEP offer of June 12, 2023, in which it offered placement at the New Dawn High School. San Diego’s evidence prominently involves documents generated in June 2023, after Student’s due process request was filed. The ALJ ruled that there was insufficient showing that combining the two cases would achieve significant economies or involve the same witnesses, documents and issues, and therefore the cases should not be consolidated.

3.Motion for Continuance: On the morning of the PHC, Student filed a motion to continue the due process hearing on the grounds that her attorneys had not had sufficient time to prepare for the scheduled August 22, 23 and 24 hearing, and on the ground that her attorney was involved in several other due process matters at or near the same date and would have difficulty in presenting an adequate case in this one.

The ALJ denied the motion to continue on the ground that it was untimely, and was not accompanied by a declaration under oath showing good cause for its late filing. The ALJ also denied the motion on the ground that there was an insufficient showing that the allegedly conflicting obligations of Student’s attorney, Ms. Rutherford, were actually conflicting or would prevent her from adequately representing Student in the hearing as now scheduled. The ALJ denied the motion without prejudice to its renewal in light of subsequent developments.

No other prehearing motion is pending or contemplated. Any motion that was not filed three business days before the PHC, shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause why the motion was not timely filed.

STIPULATIONS

Stipulations to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and authenticity and admissibility of documents are encouraged. Any proposed stipulation shall be submitted to the assigned ALJ in writing prior to the start of the hearing.

CONDUCT OF PARTICIPANTS AND HEARING ROOM DECORUM

All participants to the videoconference should observe the same decorum as in an in-person due process hearing. Participants must conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner at all times. Cellular phones, telephones and computer notifications must be shut off or set to silent during the hearing unless the ALJ grants permission otherwise. Participants should appear from a private location, unless otherwise ordered. Participants should take reasonable efforts to minimize background noise and maintain adequate room lighting. Use of virtual background images are at the discretion of the ALJ. Witnesses are prohibited from reading exhibits, documents, notes, text messages, telephones or computers while testifying, unless permitted to do so by the ALJ. The parties, their representative and witnesses are prohibited from passing notes to, exchanging electronic messages with, or signaling the witness in any way while the witness is testifying.

LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS

Neither party requested an interpreter or any other reasonable accommodation.

A party or participant in this case, such as a witness, requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in the hearing may contact OAH at (916) 263-0880, or send an email to OAHADA@dgs.ca.gov as soon as the need is known. The e-mail should have “Request for Accommodation” in the Subject Line. Additional information concerning requests for reasonable accommodation is available on OAH’s website at:

https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Services/Page-Content/Office-of-Administrative-Hearings- Services-List-Folder/Request-Reasonable-Accommodations-for-OAH-Legal- Proceedings.

HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

At Student’s request, the hearing is closed to the public. Special education hearings are closed to the public unless Student requests the hearing to be open to the public.

SETTLEMENT

The parties are encouraged to continue working together to reach an agreement before the due process hearing. The parties shall inform OAH in writing immediately if they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing.

In addition, if a settlement is reached within five days of the scheduled start of the due process hearing, the parties shall also inform OAH of the settlement by telephone at (916) 263-0880. At the same time, the parties should send the signature page of the signed agreement or a letter withdrawing the case to OAH by visiting or supported by a declaration under oath showing good cause for a later filing at https://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/oah/oahsftweb.

If a full and final written settlement agreement is reached after 4:00 PM the day prior to hearing, the parties shall leave a voicemail message regarding the settlement at (916) 274-6035. The parties should also leave contact information such as cellular phone numbers of each party or counsel for each party.

Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until the letter of withdrawal or signature page of the signed agreement has been received and processed by OAH. If an agreement in principle is reached, the parties should plan to attend the scheduled hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ. The assigned ALJ will check for messages before the hearing.

If the matter settles subject to board approval, in addition to a signed copy of the signature page of the settlement agreement, the parties shall provide the date of the next board meeting. The hearing dates will not be cancelled without this information.

FAILURE TO COMPLY

The failure to comply with this Order may result in the exclusion of evidence or other sanctions.

ORDER INCLUDES ALL RULINGS

This Order includes all rulings made at the prehearing conference. Any discussion and conversation not referenced in this Order is not binding on the ALJ conducting the hearing and may not be relied upon by the parties. The parties should be aware that, at hearing, the ALJ conducting the hearing has discretion to reconsider any part of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings