ALAN KAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Minor student M.K-N. and her parents, Kristy Kennedy and Virginia Noce (“Parents”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), appealed the Hearing Officer Determination under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Plaintiffs alleged that the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”) denied M.K-N. a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and sought funding for M.K-N.’s private placement at the Lab School of Washington (“Lab School”). The Hearing Officer found that DCPS committed a procedural violation that constituted a denial of FAPE and awarded the Plaintiffs partial tuition reimbursement.
The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint  appealing the Hearing Officer’s decision. U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson referred this case to the undersigned for full case management. Referral to Magistrate Judge . The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment  and the District of Columbia (“Defendant”) filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment . Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence (“Pls.’ Mot.”) . Also pending before the undersigned is the Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence (“Def.’s Opp.”) , and the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence (“Pls.’ Reply”) . The Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion in part and denies it in part.
M.K-N. is a ten-year-old female student who is eligible for special education and related services based on a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and disabilities in math, written language, and reading. HOD, AR [12-1] at 6. M.K-N. resides in the District of Columbia and her Parents brought this suit on her behalf and in their own right. Complaint  at ¶ 4. She received special education services at Key Elementary School (“Key”) until she transferred to the Lab School in early February 2012, following ongoing disagreement about her special education services and after what Hearing Officer Melanie Byrd Chisholm referred to as a “non-educational incident”. HOD, AR [12-1] at 8. In the Plaintiffs’ Motion, they asked the Court to admit evidence that they allege was wrongly excluded by the Hearing Officer and also evidence of an event that occurred subsequent to the due process hearing. Pls.’ Mot.  at 4, 6.
The Plaintiffs seek to introduce Exhibits A and B regarding an incident at Key, which the Hearing Officer referred to as a “non-educational incident.” HOD, AR [12-1] at 16. This incident occurred on January 11, 2012, when M.K-N. arrived at Key with a black eye and a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigation ensued. Pls.’ Mot.  at 4-5. The evidence of the incident includes a letter from Kristy Kennedy to Principal David Landeryou, dated January 12, 2012, and an email from Kristy Kennedy to David Landeryou, dated January 19, 2012. Ex. A of Pls.’ Mot. [22-1]. It also includes an email from Ms. Kennedy to the legal team, educational advocate, and Ms. Noce, dated January 12, 2012. Ex. B of Pls.’ Mot. [22-2].
The Plaintiffs also seek to introduce Exihibit C, consisting of notes from a May 31, 2012, IEP Team meeting held pursuant to the HOD. Ex. C of Pls.’ Mot. [22-3]. The notes include DCPS’ statement that they could not modify M.K-N.’s IEP because she was not enrolled in a DCPS school. Id. at 2. The notes also state that “DCPS will convene an MDT meeting to review/revise the IEP should [M.K-N.] be enrolled, but at this time is not able to do so.” Id.
Under the IDEA, “the court … shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party” in any action appealing the results of a due process hearing. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(ii). A trial court bases its decision on a preponderance of the evidence,
but the Act contemplates that the source of the evidence generally will be the administrative hearing record, with some supplementation at trial. The reasons for supplementation … 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.
Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 736 F.2d 773, 790 (1st Cir. 1984). The trial court has the discretion to determine what constitutes “additional” evidence under the IDEA and “must be careful not to allow such evidence to change the character of the hearing from one of review to a trial de novo.” Id. at 791. See also Springer v. Fairfax Cnty Sch. Bd., 134 F.3d 659, 667 (4th Cir. 1998) (“A lax interpretation of ‘additional evidence’ would ‘reduce the proceedings before the state agency to a mere dress rehearsal by allowing appellants to transform the Act's judicial review mechanism into an unrestricted trial de novo’” (internal citation omitted). Furthermore, additional evidence should not be introduced in the trial court “to patch up holes in [a party’s] administrative case, ” Springer, 134 F.3d at 667, since that would result in administrative proceedings “no longer receiv[ing] the weight that they are due.” Schaffer v. Weast, 554 F.3d 470, 476 (4th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiffs seek to introduce additional evidence pursuant to the IDEA. The Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion as to Exhibits A and B and denies ...