Are Individual Educational Placement (IEP) meetings Official Proceedings?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This is a matter of first impression in the Federal and California Court systems. 1. Are Individual Educational Placement (“IEP”) meetings Official Proceedings? 2. Do parents have the right to record IEP meetings, and use the content of those recorded IEP meetings in subsequent court actions? 3. Is an IEP meeting an “issue of public interest.” 4. Whether a parent, guardian, or local educational agency has a right under federal law to audio record IEP meetings and use the content of those recordings, without fear of retribution? Petitioner Diane B. Weissburg (“Petitioner”) requests review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeal For The Ninth Circuit, App., infra, la-4a, which affirmed the trial court’s denying of their Anti-SLAPP motion against the Counter-Claim filed by Los Angeles Unified School District. “LAUSD”), App., infra, 5a-16a. In 2018, Mother Christine Truong (“Mother” or “Truong”) and her counsel Diane B. Weissburg (“Weissburg”) attended a series of IEP assessment and placement meetings with Los Angeles Unified School District (““LAUSD” or “Respondent”) regarding an IEP program for Truong’s son D.N. Truong recorded the meetings as allowed by California Education Code § 56341.1. Following one of the meetings, Truong was told by u Counsel for LAUSD that Truong had left the tape recorder on during lunchtime while the father was in the room. While the 2018 IEP meetings were taking place, Truong, as the Guardian ad Litem of DN, filed a complaint in the District Court seeking reversal of Due Process hearing decisions made by an Administrative Law Judge in 2017. LAUSD’s answer to Truong’s complaint included a counterclaim against DN, Truong, and Weissburg for violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Penal Code § 632 alleging the recordings were privileged, even though DN’s Father, Vincent Nguyen (“Nguyen”) was in the room, and that the recording itself was a violation of Penal Code § 632. Counter-Defendants filed Anti-SLAPP Motions in the District Court, Code of Civil Procedure $425.16, seeking to strike LAUSD’s counterclaim, and Motion to Dismiss. The District Court denied Counter-Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motions and Motions to Dismiss. Counter-Defendants appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit, who denied the appeal. The 9 Circuit Court ruled the “Appellants have failed to make a threshold showing that the recording relates to a public issue”. App. la-4a at pg. 4. This lower-court decision will chill the rights of parents and the right to have counsel throughout the United States.