R.T. v. San Diego Unified School District

1
25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Doc. No. 20)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
R.T. by and through his guardian ad litem,
DAVID TSUKIYAMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Counter Claimant,
v.
R.T. by and through his guardian ad litem,
DAVID TSUKIYAMA,
Counter Defendant.
Before the Court is a motion to supplement the administrative record, filed by
Defendant and Counter Claimant San Diego Unified School District (the “District”). (Doc.
Case 3:25-cv-01624-AJB-BJW Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. 20.) Minor Plaintiff R.T. (“Plaintiff”), by and through his guardian ad litem, David
Tsukiyama, opposed the motion (Doc. No. 22), and the District replied (Doc. No. 24).
On January 9, 2025, the Court issued an order requiring the District to file a
supplemental brief addressing the foundation and authenticity of the additional evidence.
(Doc. No. 27.) The Order permitted Plaintiff to file a response. (Id.) Pursuant to the Order,
the District filed its supplemental brief on January 23, 2026. (Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff
declined to file a response by the January 30, 2026, deadline. (See Doc. No. 27.) The Court
has read and considered the papers on the Motion and deems the matter appropriate for
decision without oral argument. See CivLR 7.1.d.1. For the reasons discussed below, the
motion is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 25, 2025, seeking reversal of a decision from
the State of California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), pursuant to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). (Doc. No. 1.) On September 18,
2025, the District answered the complaint and filed a counter claim. (Doc. No. 4.)
On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for Due Process with the OAH.
(Doc. No. 1 ¶ 22.) The due process hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) on January 28, 29, 30, and February 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2025. (Id. ¶ 24.) At the time of
the due process hearing, Plaintiff was 15-years-old and in the 10th grade at The Winston
School (“Winston”), a certified nonpublic school. (Id. ¶11; see Administrative Record
(“AR”) 878.) The principal dispute at the OAH hearing was placement. (AR 879.) Parents
preferred Plaintiff to remain at Winston. (Id.) The District argued it could serve Plaintiff at
a comprehensive public high school within the district. (Id.)
On March 28, 2025, OAH rendered its decision. (AR 882.) OAH found that the
District should have offered direct mental health services rather than consultation
beginning November 28, 2023 through the end of the 2023–24 school year. (AR 928–30.)
OAH also found that the District did not offer an appropriate transition plan from March
26, 2024, through the end of the 2023–24 school year. (Id.) OAH ordered the District to
Case 3:25-cv-01624-AJB-BJW Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reimburse Parents in the amount of $5,025 for Plaintiff’s unilateral placement at Winston
and to provide ten hours of individual counseling services. (AR 931.) OAH denied the
remainder of Plaintiff’s claims. (Id.) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed the instant action seeking
reversal of the March 28, 2025 OAH decision. (Doc. No. 1.)
On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed another request for a due process hearing (OAH Case
No. 2025060347) seeking reimbursement for Winston for the 2024–25 school year. (Doc.
No. 20 at 7.) Related to this new request, the District issued a subpoena duces tecum on
Winston requesting records relevant to Student’s attendance, enrollment, and education
while privately placed during the 2023–24, 2024–25, and 2025–26 school years. (Id.)
Winston responded and provided the District with responsive documents. By way of the
instant motion, the District seeks to supplement the Administrative Record with evidence
it obtained from the Winston subpoena. (Id.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
When 	reviewing 	an 	administrative 	hearing 	decision 	under 	IDEA, 	statutory
guidelines provide that the court:
(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings;
(ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and
(iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall
grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.
20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C). This form or standard of “judicial review in IDEA cases differs
substantially from judicial review of other agency actions, in which courts generally are
confined to the administrative record and are held to a highly deferential standard of
review.” Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1471 (9th Cir. 1993). Pursuant to
IDEA, federal courts have “a continuing obligation to ensure that the state standards
themselves and as applied are not below the federal minimums . . . [which] persists despite
any state administrative rulings on federal law or state recodifications of federal law.” E.M.
ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Off. of Admin. Hearings, 652 F.3d 999,
1005 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 736 F.2d 773, 792
(1st Cir. 1984)). “The requirement that federal courts consider additional evidence when
Case 3:25-cv-01624-AJB-BJW Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evaluating state administrative rulings implements the intent that federal courts enforce the
minimum federal standards IDEA sets out.” Pajaro Valley, 652 F.3d at 1005.
In Ojai, the Ninth Circuit addressed the standard for the admission of additional
evidence by adopting the approach developed by the First Circuit in Town of Burlington v.
Dep’t of Education. See Ojai, 4 F.3d at 1472–73 (citing Town of Burlington, 736 F.2d at
790–91). That standard construes “additional” to mean “supplemental.” Ojai, 4 F.3d at
1472–73 (citing Town of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 790–91). Although the reasons for
supplementing the record may vary, “they might include gaps in the administrative
transcript owing to mechanical failure, unavailability of a witness, an improper exclusion
of evidence by the administrative agency, and evidence concerning relevant events
occurring subsequent to the administrative hearing.” Ojai, 4 F.3d at 1473 (quoting Town
of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 790–91). The determination of what is proper additional
evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court, which must be careful not to allow such
evidence to change the character of the hearing from one of review to a trial de novo. Ojai,
4 F.3d at 1473 (quoting Town of Burlington, 736 F.2d at 790–91). In considering the
admission of after-acquired evidence, the Ninth Circuit has instructed that “[t]he proper
inquiry was whether the report was relevant, non-cumulative, and otherwise admissible.”
Pajaro Valley, 652 F.3d at 1006.
III. 	DISCUSSION
The District seeks to supplement the Administrative Record with three categories
of evidence: (1) email correspondence between Parent and Winston, (2) Plaintiff’s
attendance at Winston during the 2022–23 and 2023–24 school year, and (3) Plaintiff’s
Enrollment Agreement for his placement at Winston for the 2024–25 school year. (Doc.
No. 20 at 3.) This District contends that all the evidence is relevant, non-cumulative, and
otherwise admissible. (Id.) Plaintiff opposes the motion to supplement arguing the evidence
is irrelevant, lacks foundation, and is impermissible hearsay. (Plaintiff Doc. No. 22-1.)
The Court 	first addresses Plaintiff’s 	concerns regarding 	the authenticity 	and
foundation for the supplemental evidence. The District filed a supplemental brief providing
Case 3:25-cv-01624-AJB-BJW Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
additional documentation regarding the authenticity and foundation for the supplemental
evidence. Plaintiff did not file a supplemental brief addressing the District’s additional
documentation. 	Through 	its 	supplemental 	briefing, 	the 	District 	has 	reconciled 	the
authentication issue.
Evidence is self-authenticating when it is a certified domestic record of a regularly
conducted activity and meets the hearsay exception requirements of Federal Rule of
Evidence (“FRE”) 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian. Fed. R.
Evid. 902(11). The certification of the custodian must indicate that the record was made at
or near the time by someone with knowledge, the record was kept in the course of a
regularly conducted business activity, and making the record was a regular practice of that
activity. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(A)-(C).
Here, the District provides a declaration from the custodian of records for Winston,
Kim Kanetis. (Doc. No. 28-1, Ex. A.) The declaration states that Ms. Kanetis is a “duly
authorized custodian of records for The Winston School of San Diego” with “authority to
certify records.” (Id.) The declaration certifies the evidence as “true copies of all records
in [her] custody or control described in the subpoena or authorization.” (Id.) Because the
District has provided a declaration from Winton’s custodian of records demonstrating that
the record was made at or near the time by someone with knowledge, the record was kept
in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and making the record was a
regular practice of that activity, the Court finds the evidence self-authenticating. See Fed.
R. Evid. 902; 803(6)(A)-(C).
The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s remaining arguments—that the evidence is
irrelevant and impermissible hearsay. The District argues that the email correspondence
between Parent and Winston (Doc. No. 20-2, Exs. A–E), as well as the attendance records
(Doc. No. 20-2, Ex. F), demonstrate that Plaintiff was already experiencing significant
mental-health distress, infrequent attendance, and school-avoidance behaviors while still
enrolled at Winston. (See Doc. No. 20-1 at 9.) The Court agrees this information could be
relevant to address the question of whether the District adequately addressed Plaintiff’s
Case 3:25-cv-01624-AJB-BJW Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
25-cv-1624-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
needs. Moreover, the emails are non-hearsay as an admission of a party opponent under
FRE 801(d). See In re Homestore.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., 347 F. Supp. 2d 769, 781 (C.D. Cal.
2004) (“[E]mails written by a party are admissions of a party opponent and admissible as
non-hearsay.”). The attendance records 	are 	admissible 	as 	a 	business 	record 	under
FRE 803(6). See Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 650 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1981) (explaining
the business record exception to hearsay).
As to the Enrollment Agreement, the District argues it provides relevant context
regarding Parents’ stated intentions and cooperation during the transition process, which
lends to the feasibility and reasonableness of the District’s attempts to facilitate Plaintiff’s
transition back to a comprehensive campus. The Court agrees. And as with the attendance
records, the agreement is admissible as a business record under FRE 803(6).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the proposed evidence is relevant, non-cumulative, and
otherwise admissible. The Court notes, though, that while it finds the evidence relevant,
the merits of this litigation are not currently briefed before the Court. As such, the Court
makes no finding as to the weight of Plaintiff’s evidence. Instead, the Court holds only that
it is relevant, non-cumulative, and otherwise admissible. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record with Exhibits A through G.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01624-AJB-BJW Document 29 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6