California OAH special education order · May 14, 2014
Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum as Moot
OAH Case No. 2014040525 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH denied Student's motion to quash Knightsen's subpoena for records as moot because Knightsen withdrew the subpoena after Student produced many of the requested records.
Summary
Student moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum that Knightsen Elementary School District served on Student's mother. Student argued it was overly broad, sought irrelevant records, and demanded production before the hearing date. Knightsen responded that Student had since produced many of the records, so it withdrew the subpoena, though it said it might issue an amended one if the parties could not agree on the remaining records. Because the subpoena was withdrawn, OAH denied the motion as moot.
Why it matters
Producing records voluntarily can resolve a subpoena fight without a ruling. Families should still expect the district may reissue a narrower subpoena for records that remain outstanding. A motion to quash should also attach a copy of the subpoena.
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. 2014040525
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL AS MOOT
DISTRICT AND KNIGHTSEN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On May 9, 2014, Student filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on his mother by the Knightsen Elementary School District. Student contended that the subpoena should be quash because it was overly broad, requested records not relevant to the purpose for which they were sought, and called for production of the records prior to the date presently scheduled for the due process hearing. 1 On May 14, 2014, Knightsen filed a response to Student’s motion to quash.
Knightsen indicated that Student had provided it with many of the records sought in the subpoena after Student filed his motion to quash. Knightsen stated that it was withdrawing its subpoena in light of Student’s production of the records. Knightsen indicated that it would re-issue an amended subpoena if it could not come to an agreement with Student regarding records that were still outstanding.
Since Knightsen has withdrawn its subpoena duces tecum, Student’s motion to quash is moot, and is therefore denied on that basis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 14, 2014
/S/
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings Student did not include a copy of the subpoena duces tecum as an exhibit to his motion to quash.