California OAH special education order · May 7, 2014
Order Denying District's Motions to Quash Subpoenas
OAH Case No. 2014030356 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH denied District's four motions to quash Student's subpoenas as moot, because the hearing dates were vacated when Student's amended complaint was accepted and new subpoenas will be needed.
Summary
District filed four motions to quash subpoenas issued by Student's counsel. Two sought service logs, records of reimbursements to Parent, and provider agreements. The other two required two former Directors of Special Education to appear at the May 6, 2014 hearing. Student did not respond, but OAH had already granted Student's unopposed motion to amend the complaint, which vacated the hearing dates, so OAH denied all four motions as moot.
Why it matters
When a complaint is amended and the hearing dates are vacated, earlier subpoenas tied to those dates no longer work, and parties must issue new ones for the new hearing. OAH also warned counsel to attach the challenged subpoena to any motion to quash.
People named in the order
- Karen Mates, Former Director of Special Education, Oakland Unified School District (subpoenaed witness)
- Sharon Casanares, Former Director of Special Education, Oakland Unified School District (subpoenaed witness)
- Rebecca Freie, Administrative Law Judge
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2014030356
v. ORDER DENYING DISTRICT’S
MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On April 29, 2014, the Oakland Unified School District (“District”) filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by Student’s counsel, requesting various service logs and records of reimbursements to Parent issued by District. District was to comply with the subpoena duces tecum by sending the subpoenaed documents to the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than May 6, 2014, the day a due process hearing concerning Student was to begin. Several legal grounds were cited by District to support the motion to quash.
On April 29, 2014, District filed a separate motion to quash a different subpoena duces tecum issued by Student’s counsel but served on a different District employee than the previously mentioned subpoena duces tecum. In addition to the documents requested in the previously mentioned subpoena duces tecum, Student also requested copies of agreements District had with various providers of services to Student. Again, the date for delivery of the documents to OAH was May 6, 2014. Several legal grounds were cited by District supporting that motion to quash.
On April 29, 2014, District filed yet another motion to quash, this one concerning a subpoena requesting the personal presence of the District’s former Director of Special Education, Karen Mates, asking that Ms. Mates personally appear at the due process hearing that was set to begin on May 6, 2014. District cited the unavailability of the witness on that date as grounds for quashing this subpoena.
Finally, on May 1, 2014, District filed a fourth motion to quash, this one concerning a subpoena issued by Student’s counsel requesting the personal appearance at hearing on May 6, 2014, of Sharon Casanares, another former Director of Special Education for the District.
District asked that this subpoena be quashed because Ms. Casanares had terminated her position with District before the time periods Student alleged were at issue at the hearing, and because Student had not disclosed Ms. Casnanares as a potential witness on the witness list parties are to provide to each other five business days before the start of the due process hearing.
Student did not respond to any of the motions to quash. However, on April 29, 2014, after business hours, Student did submit a motion to amend the complaint in this matter to OAH, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. District submitted a non-opposition to the motion to amend shortly afterwards on the same date.
OAH granted the motion to amend on May 1, 2014, and both parties were then served with the order, which vacated the dates for the hearing scheduled to begin on May 6, 2014.
Because new hearing dates will be set by OAH, the motions to quash are all moot, since Student’s counsel, if they choose, will need to issue new subpoenas for the new hearing dates. Accordingly, District’s motions to quash are all denied. 1 DATE: May 7, 2014
/S/
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings None of District’s motions to quash were accompanied by copies of the challenged subpoenas. It is sometimes difficult for OAH to rule upon a motion to quash if copy of the questioned subpoena is not sent with the motion. Counsel are all cautioned that in the future, motions to quash a subpoenas should be accompanied by the challenged subpoena.