United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
W. FLANAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on a plethora of motions by
pro se plaintiff, proceeding on behalf of her minor
child, N.C., including: to amend Rule 26(a) disclosures (DE
57); for leave to amend (DE 58); to admit into evidence and
file under seal deposition transcripts (DE 69); to file
objections and corrections to the administrative record (DE
70); and to file under seal or in the alternative to file
exhibits with redactions and index (DE 71). Also before the
court is defendants' notice of corrections and objections
to the administrative record (DE 67). Issues raised are ripe
receiving leave to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff filed
complaint July 10, 2017. Plaintiff's allegations finally
were framed in second amended complaint filed March 30, 2018.
Plaintiff alleges defendants violated the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C.
§ 1400 et seq., by failing to give N.C. a free
appropriate public education (“FAPE”).
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed
reasonably to calculate and implement plaintiff's
individualized education program (“IEP”). She
complains that procedures used in the state administrative
hearing on N.C. 's claims were inadequate. Plaintiff
seeks damages together with an order requiring defendants to
provide compensatory education. Defendants deny any
receipt of the parties' proposed case management plans, a
case schedule was put into place July 2, 2018, providing for,
among other things, filing of the administrative record by
the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
(“NCDPI”). This aspect of the case has not gone
smoothly. Record later deemed incomplete by the parties was
filed September 19, 2018. More parts of the record followed
on the docket November 6, 2018, raising issue as to necessity
for sealing, addressed in this court's December 18, 2018,
order. Issues remain concerning sufficiency of the
November 21, 2018, plaintiff filed the instant motion for
amendment of damages in her Rule 26(a) disclosures, to which
no response has been made. Plaintiff also filed that same day
her “motion to amend and supplemental pleadings to
include IDEA claim, ” to which defendants responded in
opposition December 12, 2018. Plaintiff's remaining three
motions were filed around two months later, on January 18,
2019, responded to as a whole in defendants' February 8,
2019, brief. Plaintiff has not lost opportunity to reply to
defendants' responsive arguments.
address of issues raised by defendants concerning sufficiency
of the record, the court takes up below plaintiff's
Defendants' Notice of Objections and Corrections to the
Record (DE 67)
noted above, the parties agree that certain exhibits
submitted by defendants should be received in evidence. (See
Notice (DE 67); Motion (DE 70)). Defendants' exhibits
attached to their notice of objections and corrections to the
administrative record (DE 67-1) are received by the court as
additional evidence. Petitioners' Exhibits 417, 418, 420,
and 423 are also received by the court as additional evidence
based on the court's discussion of Petitioners'
Exhibit 418 above and no objection as to Petitioners'
Exhibits 417, 420, and 423. (See DE 68).
defendants notice veils motion to exclude Petitioners'
Exhibit 247. (Administrative Record (DE 49-3) at 606-609).
The exhibit contains minutes from the individualized
education program team meeting on December 5, 2013.
(Administrative Record (DE 49-3) at 606-609). Defendants
argue that plaintiff did not offer Petitioners' Exhibit
247 as evidence at the hearing, and therefore it should be
excluded. The verification of plaintiff's counsel at
administrative hearing shows that Petitioners' Exhibit
247 was not filed as evidence. (See Administrative Record (DE
49-3) at 610-16). Plaintiff has offered no explanation as to
why this record was not offered as evidence at the hearing.
Therefore, the court excludes Petitioners' Exhibit 247
from the administrative record. Defendants' objections
and corrections to the administrative record are sustained.
Plaintiff's Supplementation of Rule 26(a) Disclosures (DE
party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) . . . must
supplement or correct its disclosure or response: . . . in a
timely manner if the party learns that in some material
respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or
incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information
has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during
the discovery process or in writing.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
plaintiff has made the corrective information in the motion
known to defendants by filing and serving an amended
calculation of damages. Defendants did not file a response, and
the court has no reason to deem disclosure untimely.
Accordingly, plaintiff has fulfilled obligation to supplement
disclosures under the ...