N.F. v. Antioch Unified School District

Background

N.F., a minor represented by his guardian ad litem, and Antioch Unified School District participated in a special-education administrative hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings in December 2018. The administrative law judge ruled for the District on all issues. N.F. later moved to supplement the administrative record—the materials from that administrative proceeding.

The court explained that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act allows a federal court reviewing an administrative decision to receive additional evidence. Such evidence must be non-duplicative, relevant, and otherwise admissible. It may include evidence about events occurring after the administrative hearing or evidence that helps evaluate the reasonableness of the school district’s actions when it made its decision.

Requests for additional materials

N.F. sought four categories of materials:

Rulings

For the May 2016 assessment materials, the court found that the District had not clearly established that it possessed no documents beyond the final assessment report. The District was ordered to conduct another search, including for testing protocols. If no additional documents were found, the District had to file a declaration stating that no other documents existed. If documents were found, the District had to produce them immediately and include them in the administrative record.

For records of injuries, the court rejected the District’s argument that existing references to N.F. causing an injury made the requested records cumulative. The court distinguished a general reference to an injury from evidence of a serious injury such as a broken bone. It ordered the District to search for records concerning serious injuries, including broken bones, caused by N.F.’s behavior. Any such records were to be included in the administrative record, and the District had to provide a declaration if no such documents existed.

The court granted N.F.’s request to add the January 11, 2018 due process complaint to the administrative record. The court noted that the administrative law judge had not admitted the complaint and that it was unclear why, given that the complaint had been discussed during the hearing.

The court denied N.F.’s request to add claims by other people alleging harm at Sierra School. The District argued that those records were irrelevant because N.F. never attended Sierra School. The court found N.F.’s response unpersuasive and denied that portion of the request.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part N.F.’s motion to supplement the administrative record. The record was to be supplemented, to the extent the materials existed, with records concerning the May 2016 assessment, records of broken bones suffered by District staff because of N.F.’s behavior, and the District’s January 11, 2018 due process complaint. The District was ordered to conduct a thorough search and file a supporting declaration, if necessary, by March 17, 2020. The opinion identifies the signer only as a United States Magistrate Judge and does not provide the judge’s name.