California OAH special education order · November 20, 2024
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2024070468 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the denial of a motion to compel, finding no new facts or law; an earlier non-precedential prehearing ruling was not on point.
This case went to decision
Student v. Palo Alto Unified School District: Palo Alto Unified must make up three hours of missed speech therapy; Korean-language assessment and all other claims denied. (2025)
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider its November 15, 2024 order denying Student's motion to compel Palo Alto to produce documents, produce district witnesses for hearing, and provide contact information for former employees and contractors. Palo Alto opposed. OAH denied reconsideration because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or persuasive law. A different judge being assigned to the prehearing conference is not grounds for reconsideration. The June 2020 prehearing conference ruling Student offered is not precedential, does not address the reasons the motion was denied, and says nothing about former employee contact information.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts or law. Other OAH orders are not binding precedent and will not support reconsideration unless they directly address the issue decided, so parties should present their strongest authority in the original motion.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3085
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.
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024070468
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
NOVEMBER 20, 2024
On July 12, 2024, Student filed a request for due process hearing, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Palo Alto School District as respondent. On October 9, 2024, OAH granted Student’s request to amend the complaint.
On November 5, 2024, Student filed a motion to compel Palo Alto to “produce documents, produce district witnesses for hearing, and to produce contact information for all witnesses no longer employed or contracted with through [sic] the district.” On November 8, 2024, Palo Alto filed an opposition to Student’s motion. On November 15, 2024, the undersigned issued an order denying Student’s motion. On November 18, 2024, Student moved for reconsideration of the order. Later on November 18, 2024, Palo Alto opposed Student’s motion for reconsideration.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time, generally within ten days. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)
Student offers no new facts, circumstances or persuasive legal authority to warrant reconsideration. Student argues, in defense of submitting a 2020 PHC order ruling as “new law,” that she had difficulty finding legal authority supporting her motion to compel. It is unnecessary to determine whether this is an adequate basis for submitting legal authority available when the original motion was made, as Student has offered neither new facts nor law justifying reconsideration.
The only new fact Student identified related to her motion is that the judge subsequently assigned for the Prehearing Conference was not the undersigned. This does not constitute grounds for reconsideration of a previously issued order.
As to the June 2020 prehearing conference ruling, special education orders and Decisions are not precedential. (Cal. Code Regs, tit, 5, §3085). The PHC ruling in question is neither on point nor persuasive as to the educational records issue, as it does not address the original reasons for denial of Student’s motion. The offered PHC ruling does not address the question of providing former employee or contractor personal contact information at all.
ORDER
Student has not established justification to reconsider the November 15, 2024, Order Denying Student’s Motion to Compel should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings