943 F. Supp. 2d 443
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- This IDEA case concerns M.L. and B.L. on behalf of K.L. seeking permission to conduct two brief additional-evidence depositions for the September-June portion of the 2011-12 school year.
- Plaintiffs argue the depositions would fill an important gap in the record and improve the record on FAPE and IEP adequacy.
- Defendant argues for a restrictive approach to additional evidence, arguing the discovery is speculative and largely inadmissible and that the IHO record already showed offered services.
- The IDEA permits district courts to receive administrative records and hear additional evidence, with discretion to admit such evidence that is relevant and not a de novo re-trial.
- The Second Circuit has not adopted a uniform standard for admitting additional evidence in IDEA proceedings, and district courts have varied approaches.
- The court ultimately granted the requested limited depositions on specified terms, to be completed by May 31, 2013, while preserving objections to admissibility for later motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant leave for additional evidence depositions in IDEA case | Plaintiffs seek depositions to fill gaps in the record | Defendant urges a restrictive approach; testimony is speculative and not required | Leave granted for limited depositions under specified terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (set standard for educational benefit and review of IEPs)
- R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (limits to testimony beyond IEP face; allows explaining services in IEP)
- Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2003) (IDEA requires consideration of evidence beyond administrative record)
- Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 736 F.2d 773 (1st Cir. 1984) (discretion to admit additional evidence; not a rigid rule)