Dl v. District of Columbia
109 F. Supp. 3d 12
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (preschool-age children with disabilities and their guardians) sued the District of Columbia for systemic failures under the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and D.C. law, alleging failures in Child Find (identify/locate), timely evaluations, timely eligibility determinations, and smooth Part C→Part B transitions.
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs (liability) based on discovery through 2007 and held a bench trial covering 2008–April 6, 2011; the court found extensive failures and entered structural relief; findings were later affected by appellate proceedings.
- The D.C. Circuit vacated class certification post Wal‑Mart v. Dukes and remanded for reconsideration; the district court recertified four subclasses (identify, timely evaluate, timely determine eligibility, smooth transition) and reopened proceedings limited to post‑2011 issues.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on defendants’ liability through 2007 and for judgment under Rule 52(c) for Jan. 1, 2008–Apr. 6, 2011; defendants moved to exclude plaintiffs’ experts (Drs. Dunst and Cupingood) and for summary judgment from Mar. 22, 2010 onward.
- The court (Lamberth, J.): (a) granted plaintiffs summary judgment on IDEA and D.C. law liability through 2007 for each subclass but denied summary judgment on Rehabilitation Act claims for that period; (b) entered Rule 52(c) findings for Jan. 1, 2008–Apr. 6, 2011 for IDEA and D.C. law (but denied on Rehab Act); (c) denied defendants’ Daubert motions to exclude the two experts; and (d) denied most of defendants’ post‑2010 summary judgment, but granted defendants judgment on subclass‑2 IDEA/D.C. law after Apr. 6, 2011 and granted defendants summary judgment on all Rehabilitation Act claims after Mar. 22, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability through 2007 (IDEA & D.C. law) | Existing discovery and prior rulings establish undisputed systemic failures on Child Find, evaluations, eligibility, and transitions | Vacatur of prior class orders undermines prior findings and plaintiffs must re‑establish liability | Granted for IDEA and D.C. law for period through 2007; plaintiffs met Rule 56 burden; Rehab Act claims denied for that period (genuine issues on bad faith/gross misjudgment) |
| Jan 1, 2008–Apr 6, 2011 (Rule 52(c)) | Court already tried this period and made factual findings of systemic noncompliance—judgment on liability appropriate | District argues it was not fully heard on subclass‑specific issues and post‑trial evidence could show effective policies | Judgment under Rule 52(c) entered for IDEA and D.C. law for that period; denied as to Rehabilitation Act (court had not made subclass‑specific bad faith findings) |
| Exclusion of experts (Drs. Dunst & Cupingood) | Experts provide relevant, reliable analysis (policy evaluation, sampling, statistics) helpful to judge in bench trial | Expert opinions rest on plaintiffs’ counsel’s sample work, hearsay, dubious methodology, and analytical leaps | Motions to exclude denied without prejudice; court finds challenges go to weight not admissibility and will assess at bench trial |
| Defendants’ summary judgment (post Mar. 22, 2010 / post Apr. 6, 2011) | District: new policies (2010 onward) are comprehensive and functioning, so no ongoing IDEA or Rehab Act liability | Plaintiffs: improvements insufficient; data and expert analyses show ongoing failures for certain subclasses | Mixed: defendants’ motion denied for subclasses 1, 3, and 4 (IDEA & D.C. law) after Apr. 6, 2011; defendants granted summary judgment on subclass 2 (timely evaluations/eligibility) after Apr. 6, 2011 and granted summary judgment for all Rehabilitation Act claims after Mar. 22, 2010 (dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir.) (IDEA requires affirmative Child Find duties)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requirement after Wal‑Mart limits class definitions)
- DL v. District of Columbia, 845 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.) (bench‑trial findings on District's systemic IDEA failures)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment — genuine dispute and inference rules)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping standard for expert admissibility)
- Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir.) (Rehabilitation Act: no liability absent bad faith/gross misjudgment)
- Walker v. District of Columbia, 157 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C.) (Rehab Act requires something beyond IDEA violation; bad faith/gross misjudgment standard)