plaintiff: (1) whether “the relief finally obtained by the parents is not more favorable to the parents than the offer of settlement”; and (2) if so, whether the parents were “substantially justified” in rejecting the offer. See §§ (D)(i), (E). The court answers the first question in the affirmative. None of the plaintiffs recovered relief that was more favorable than what was offered. As to the second question, the court determines that two plaintiffs, F.M. and A.B., were substantially justified in rejecting the settlement terms, which offered only a small percentage of their claimed expert costs. Though such costs were eventually disallowed by the United States Supreme Court, see Arlington Central Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2455, 165 L.Ed.2d 526 (2006) (<HOLDING>), at the time when plaintiffs rejected the
holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea recognizing that idea is simply not an antidiscrimination statute so that pure discrimination claim was not barred by parents failure to exhaust remedies under idea holding that the terms of the idea overwhelmingly support the conclusion that prevailing parents may not recover the costs of experts or consultants holding that by its terms the idea does not require exhaustion where the relief sought is unavailable in an administrative proceeding under the idea monetary damages are not available so exhaustion is not required recognizing that at common law a parents liability to support his child terminated at the parents death the terms of the support order could not be enforced against his estate unless provisions allowing for such enforcement were included in the order