District Wins IEE Dispute After Quickly Filing and Later Withdrawing Its Defense

A parent of a 5-year-old with autism requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) after disagreeing with the district's speech and language assessment. Los Angeles Unified filed to defend its assessment the very next day, then withdrew its defense after the hearing concluded but before a decision was issued, simultaneously offering to fund an IEE. The ALJ found the district did not cause unnecessary delay and denied all relief sought by the parent.

What Happened

Student is a 5-year-old child eligible for special education under the category of autistic-like behaviors. His initial IEP included speech and language therapy, resource specialist services, and a behavior support plan. In early 2015, the district completed a new speech and language assessment, which found that Student had made excellent progress and no longer qualified for speech and language services. Parent disagreed with that conclusion, refused to consent to the updated IEP, and on April 8, 2015, sent a letter formally requesting an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense. Parent objected that the assessment failed to accurately reflect Student's abilities in articulation, pragmatics, and intelligibility; was invalidated by Student's behavior during testing; was internally contradictory; and did not address Parent's concerns.

The district responded the very next day — April 9, 2015 — by filing a due process complaint to defend its assessment (a separate case, OAH No. 2015040570). That case went to hearing on June 2, 2015. However, before any closing briefs were filed, the district withdrew its hearing request on June 10, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the district sent Parent a letter agreeing to fund an IEE and listing three assessors "from which you may choose." Parent did not respond to that letter except by filing this new due process case on June 12, 2015, arguing that the district had failed to respond to the IEE request without unnecessary delay.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all issues. The central question was whether the district responded to Parent's IEE request without "unnecessary delay." The ALJ found that filing a due process complaint the day after Parent's request was, by definition, not a delay. The subsequent withdrawal of that complaint after the hearing — rather than waiting for a decision — was also found to be within the district's rights and did not constitute bad faith. The ALJ noted that the withdrawal actually sped up Student's access to an IEE, since Parent did not need to wait for a ruling that would have arrived in mid-July.

The ALJ acknowledged that the district committed a minor procedural violation by not providing Parent with the specific criteria it would use to evaluate her choice of IEE assessor. However, the ALJ found this violation harmless. The reason: Parent never actually proposed a specific assessor to the district. Student's counsel knew the family had a preferred evaluator in mind but never formally submitted that person's name to the district. Because no assessor was ever nominated, there was no way to show that the missing criteria information caused any actual harm or prevented Parent from moving forward. The ALJ noted that Parent's experienced legal team certainly knew how to ask the district whether a specific evaluator would be acceptable. No relief was warranted because the procedural gap did not deprive Student of educational opportunity or meaningfully limit Parent's participation.

On the question of whether the district's defense of the assessment was pursued in bad faith, the ALJ found it was not. The assessment was conducted by a credentialed speech-language pathologist using multiple standardized tests. While the district ultimately withdrew, that did not make the original defense frivolous at the time it was filed.

What Was Ordered

All relief sought by Student and Parent was denied.
The district was found to be the prevailing party on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Act quickly when you want an IEE — but also follow through. This case turned significantly on the fact that Parent never actually proposed a specific evaluator to the district after the IEE was offered. If you request an IEE, be prepared to name your preferred evaluator promptly. Waiting too long — or only pursuing the matter through litigation — can undermine your claim.
A district can withdraw its due process defense and still "win" the IEE dispute. Even though the district backed away from defending its assessment, it did so in a way that left Parent no better off legally. The moment the district offered to fund the IEE, the legal clock largely stopped in the district's favor. Do not assume a district's withdrawal means you will automatically get broader relief.
Procedural violations only matter if they actually hurt you. The district did fail to provide IEE criteria to Parent — that was a real violation. But because Parent never tried to use those criteria to nominate an evaluator, the ALJ found it made no difference in practice. When arguing procedural violations, be prepared to show a direct connection between what the district did wrong and the harm it caused.
"Unnecessary delay" is measured from the moment you request an IEE. The law requires a district to either file to defend its assessment or agree to fund an IEE — without unnecessary delay. Here, the district filed the very next day, which the ALJ found was clearly sufficient. Understanding this standard can help parents recognize when a district is genuinely dragging its feet versus acting within legal bounds.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All relief sought by Student and Parent was denied.
The district was found to be the prevailing party on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Act quickly when you want an IEE — but also follow through. This case turned significantly on the fact that Parent never actually proposed a specific evaluator to the district after the IEE was offered. If you request an IEE, be prepared to name your preferred evaluator promptly. Waiting too long — or only pursuing the matter through litigation — can undermine your claim.
A district can withdraw its due process defense and still "win" the IEE dispute. Even though the district backed away from defending its assessment, it did so in a way that left Parent no better off legally. The moment the district offered to fund the IEE, the legal clock largely stopped in the district's favor. Do not assume a district's withdrawal means you will automatically get broader relief.
Procedural violations only matter if they actually hurt you. The district did fail to provide IEE criteria to Parent — that was a real violation. But because Parent never tried to use those criteria to nominate an evaluator, the ALJ found it made no difference in practice. When arguing procedural violations, be prepared to show a direct connection between what the district did wrong and the harm it caused.
"Unnecessary delay" is measured from the moment you request an IEE. The law requires a district to either file to defend its assessment or agree to fund an IEE — without unnecessary delay. Here, the district filed the very next day, which the ALJ found was clearly sufficient. Understanding this standard can help parents recognize when a district is genuinely dragging its feet versus acting within legal bounds.