California OAH special education order · September 18, 2025
Order Denying Natomas Unified School District's Motion for Videoconference Testimony
OAH Case No. 2025040959 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH denied Natomas's request to let a former employee testify by videoconference because the hearing is in person as an ADA reasonable accommodation for Parent, which outweighs the witness's travel burden.
Summary
Natomas asked OAH to let a former district employee testify by videoconference. The district said he lives outside its boundaries and has daily childcare duties that make travel unduly burdensome. Because the hearing was next week, OAH ruled without waiting for a response from Parent. OAH denied the motion because it had granted Parent's request for an in-person hearing as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That accommodation requires all parties and witnesses to appear in person, and the witness's burden was subordinate to it.
Why it matters
When OAH grants a parent an in-person hearing as an ADA accommodation, the accommodation can outweigh a district's convenience reasons for remote witness testimony. Parents who need in-person proceedings can request one through OAH's ADA coordinator.
Key authority cited
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g)
- 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
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:
NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025040959
ORDER DENYING NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S
MOTION FOR VIDEOCONFERENCE TESTIMONY
SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
On September 17, 2025, Natomas Unified School District filed a Motion to Permit Witness to Testify Via Videoconference, with the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Typically, OAH permits three days for the other party to respond to a motion. Given the nature of the request and that the hearing is next week, OAH elected to issue this ruling without a response.
Natomas requested one witness, a former district employee, to testify via videoconference. The witness resides outside of its boundaries and faces significant childcare responsibilities, including daily daycare obligations for his young child. These factors make it unduly burdensome for him to travel to attend the hearing in person.
Accordingly, Natomas requests he be permitted to testify via videoconference.
Natomas filed its request for due process on April 21, 2025. It seeks a determination that Student’s multidisciplinary triennial reevaluation is legally compliant such that Student is not entitled to an independent educational evaluation at public expense. Parent, the named respondent and Student’s sole representative, made a request for an in-person hearing. The request was made under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) OAH’s ADA coordinator conducted an interactive interview with Parent and granted the request as a reasonable accommodation. Based on the confidential nature of the request, the determination but not underlying basis for the request, was discussed with the parties during the prehearing conference on September 12, 2025.
OAH is authorized to conduct due process hearings by videoconference or telephone. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) As noted in the Motion, OAH routinely conducts hearings via videoconference. Further, Natomas pointed out that OAH permitted telephonic testimony in limited circumstance for in person hearings.
However, in this case the hearing is conducted in person as a reasonable accommodation requiring all parties and witnesses to appear in person. The burden this witness faces in appearing in person is subordinate to need for the reasonable accommodation. Accordingly, Natomas’ motion is DENIED. All parties and witnesses must appear in person for this hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joy Redmon Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings