P.G. v. Alameda Unified School District

Background

P.G., an elementary-school-aged child with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism, challenged an administrative decision affirming Alameda Unified School District’s refusal to allow P.G.’s parents to use Dr. Carina Grandison, their preferred psychologist, for an independent educational evaluation. The plaintiff sought additional discovery to support the challenge to that administrative decision.

The discovery dispute involved three categories of information: the district’s settlements or other agreements with state-licensed clinical psychologists; proposed testimony from Dr. Ann Simun, who is both a school psychologist and a state-licensed clinical psychologist; and policy changes adopted by other Special Education Local Plan Areas after the administrative decision. The plaintiff also contemplated asking the court to recognize investigation reports and decisions from the California Office of Administrative Hearings as official judicial materials.

Legal Standard

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a district court reviewing an administrative decision to hear additional evidence requested by a party. The court explained that additional evidence must be relevant, non-cumulative, and otherwise admissible. Evidence that merely repeats or expands on hearing evidence is not required, and discovery should not turn the review into an entirely new trial.

Rulings

The court granted the plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery into the district’s settlements with other state-licensed clinical psychologists from December 14, 2017, through the present. Those agreements could be relevant if they showed that the district allowed similarly credentialed psychologists to conduct independent educational evaluations under similar circumstances.

The court also granted discovery into Dr. Simun’s testimony. The testimony was relevant to whether Dr. Grandison was qualified under the applicable policies, and it was not cumulative because Dr. Simun had a school-psychologist credential that the other psychologists who testified at the administrative hearing did not have.

The court denied the plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery into policy changes in other Special Education Local Plan Areas. The court held that post-hearing policy changes in other areas would not show whether the administrative decision in P.G.’s case was correct.

The court took no position on whether investigation reports and decisions from the California Office of Administrative Hearings, or related supplemental declarations, could be judicially noticed or admitted as additional evidence. The order addressed only discoverability, not the ultimate admissibility or merits of the evidence.