## Facts

- California education officials planned to open a new facility for the California School for the Blind at a site in Fremont, associated with relocating the program from Berkeley.
- Students at the school sued state education officials, alleging the Fremont site was seismically unsafe and that the state had not done adequate seismic investigation before opening the school there.
- The students sought relief under federal special-education and disability-rights statutes, including the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, arguing that the state’s obligations included providing safe and comparable facilities.
- After receiving evidence, the district judge concluded the trial record did not permit a sound decision on the technical seismic questions.
- The district court reopened the evidentiary record on its own motion and appointed a neutral seismic witness to assist the court.
- Both sides were allowed to question the court-appointed witness and present their own evidence in response.
- Based on the expanded record, the district court entered a preliminary injunction that prevented opening/operating the Fremont school under then-existing conditions and required additional seismic testing (and related steps) pending further proceedings.
- The state appealed, contending that reopening the record and appointing a neutral witness were improper, that the witness lacked proper qualifications (and/or was biased), and that the requested relief was barred in federal court, including under Eleventh Amendment principles.

## Issues

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by reopening the record sua sponte, appointing a neutral seismic witness, and relying on that testimony in granting preliminary injunctive relief?
2. Did the district court err by appointing an unqualified or biased neutral witness in connection with complex seismic questions?
3. Did the Eleventh Amendment bar the students’ requested injunctive relief against state officials, or had the state waived immunity by participating in the federal special-education funding scheme?
4. Did the students show a sufficient basis under the EAHCA and/or § 504 to support a preliminary injunction requiring further seismic testing and delaying operation of the Fremont facility?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in reopening the record and appointing a neutral witness to address technical seismic issues, where the existing record was inadequate and the parties were given a fair chance to question the neutral witness and respond.
- The court rejected the state’s challenge to the neutral witness’s participation as grounds to set aside the preliminary injunction, concluding the district court did not commit reversible error in its selection or use of that testimony for preliminary-relief purposes.
- The court concluded the requested injunctive relief was not barred at the preliminary stage under the Eleventh Amendment as analyzed by the panel, including because the state’s participation in the EAHCA program was treated as permitting federal-court enforcement of the Act’s conditions.
- The court concluded the students had made a sufficient showing to justify preliminary relief given the asserted statutory rights and the risk of serious physical harm if the facility proved unsafe.
- (Subsequent history) Rehearing en banc was denied, and the Supreme Court later vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment as moot.

## Legal Principles

- A district court has substantial discretion to manage the evidentiary record in technically complex litigation, including reopening a record when needed to reach a reasoned decision.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 706, a court may appoint a neutral witness to assist on specialized subjects, so long as the parties are given an opportunity to question the witness and present opposing proof.
- Preliminary injunctive relief may be appropriate when the movant shows a strong showing (or serious questions) on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm; threats to student safety may constitute irreparable harm not adequately remedied by damages.
- The panel treated the EAHCA as permitting enforcement in federal court of conditions tied to a state’s receipt of federal special-education funds, and it read the statute to incorporate relevant state agency standards as part of the obligations owed to eligible students.
- The panel accepted that § 504’s nondiscrimination requirements can extend to the adequacy and comparability of facilities provided to students with disabilities when federal funds are involved.

## Conclusion

Students challenged California’s plan to open a school for blind students at a Fremont site they alleged was seismically unsafe. When the trial record was inadequate to resolve the technical dispute, the district court reopened the proceedings, appointed a neutral seismic witness, and—after both sides tested that testimony—issued a preliminary injunction requiring further seismic testing before the school could operate under existing conditions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court’s procedural steps were within its discretion and that the students had shown a sufficient basis for preliminary relief under the federal statutes relied upon (subject to the case’s later vacatur as moot).


Students of California School for the Blind v. Honig, 736 F.2d 538 (1984)