The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Wake County Board of Education,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 5:19-cv-00497-BO
S.K. by and through her parent R.K.,
Defendant.
Rhonda K., individually and on behalf of
her minor child, S.K.
Plaintiff,
No. 5:19-cv-00497-BO
v.
Wake County Board of Education,
Defendant.
Order on Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence
Defendant Rhonda K. believes that the Wake County Board of Education has not provided
her son, S.K., with all the rights he is entitled to under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education
Improvement Act (IDEA). Both parties disagreed with some aspects of the decision by state
officials, so they have sought review in this court. Depending on how the district court chooses to
proceed with the appeal, the parties may need to present evidence to the court about the claims
dismissed early in the state administrative proceeding. But there is no guarantee that the district
court will choose to address those dismissed claims. While the court could wait until later in this
proceeding to resolve this issue, in the interest of efficiency the court will outline the process for
obtaining and presenting additional evidence if it becomes necessary.
I. Background
This case originated at the state level, where R.K. alleged that the Board failed to meet her
child’s educational and social needs. Mem. in Resp. at 2, D.E. 31. In response to a motion from
the Board, a state Administrative Law Judge dismissed several of R.K.’s claims after a motion
from the Board. 3 Official R. at 179, D.E. 18–12. As a result of their dismissal, neither party
presented evidence on those claims. Id.
Eventually, R.K. appealed the ALJ’s decision to a State Review Officer. The SRO decided
that the ALJ incorrectly dismissed R.K.’s claims and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
7 Official R. at 95–189, 8 Official R. at 1–141, D.E. 18–18. But due to subject matter jurisdiction
concerns, the ALJ declined the remand. 8 Official R. at 154. After completing the state
administrative process, both parties sought review in federal court.
The issue of whether the ALJ properly dismissed S.K.’s claims is one of the issues on
appeal. It is possible, but by no means certain, that the district court may resurrect these dismissed
claims and consider them directly. The parties agree that they would need to present evidence on
these claims if the court revives them. But they disagree over whether the court should address this
issue now or wait until the court decides what it will do with the dismissed claims.
II. Discussion
The Board has requested that the court allow both parties to present additional evidence to
support its position if the district court revives the dismissed claims. It claims that under 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(ii), parties can, under the right circumstances, present evidence to a federal court
that they did not present in the state administrative proceeding. One of those circumstances is when
the evidence “was not available during the administrative review process,”. Springer v. Fairfax
Cty. Sch. Bd., 134 F.3d 659, 667 (4th Cir. 1998).
The ALJ’s decision to dismiss the claims precluded the parties from presenting evidence
on them. So if this court decides to consider the dismissed claims, there would be nothing in the
administrative record to inform its decision. Thus, this case presents one of the occasions when it
is appropriate to consider more evidence.
R.K. correctly notes that it is unclear at this point whether any other evidence will be
necessary. The court may find that the ALJ made the correct decision or that it is appropriate to
have the state administrative process consider the claims before this court weighs in. But if the
court waits until after it addresses the propriety of the dismissal to address this question, it will
lead to more delays as the parties re-brief a matter that is before the court now. The interests of
efficiency and judicial economy support deciding the issue now. Thus the court will grant the
motion while keeping in mind that the ultimate need for the presentation of evidence on the
dismissed claims is unclear.
Ii. Conclusion
The Board’s motion is granted. If the court decides that it will address the dismissed claims
directly, the parties must meet and confer to develop a proposed case management order that
provides for the duration and scope of any discovery. The proposed case management order should
also address how the parties anticipate presenting additional evidence and argument to the court.
They must submit the proposal no later than 14 days after the court’s order reviving the dismissed
claims and declining to remand them. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of the proposed case
management order, they should submit competing plans in one joint document and the court will
resolve any disagreements.
Dated: July 1, 2020 xz
Robert T. Numbers, II
United States Magistrate Judge