694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) – The court held that a school district may only offer testimony that explains or justifies what is already written in the IEP – it may not “rehabilitate” or amend an IEP after the fact through testimony regarding services that do not appear in the IEP. In other words, testimony about what the district “would have” offered a student is impermissible. The court also held that failure to implement an FBA/BIP is a significant procedural violation.