California OAH special education order · March 20, 2015
Order Denying Request to Issue Subpoenas Duces Tecum
OAH Case No. 2015010860 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH denied Student's request for five document subpoenas because the forms were incomplete, lacked a sworn showing of reasonable necessity, had vague or missing record descriptions, and showed no consumer notice compliance.
Summary
Student asked OAH to issue five subpoenas duces tecum ordering five individuals to produce documents before the April 7, 2015 hearing. OAH denied the request. Student submitted only the first page of OAH's two-page subpoena form, so the required sworn statement of reasonable necessity and the proof-of-service section were missing. Three subpoenas did not describe any records at all, the other two used possibly overbroad descriptions, and none showed compliance with the consumer notice requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3.
Why it matters
Families seeking subpoenas must submit the complete OAH form with a signed declaration explaining why each document is reasonably necessary. They must also describe the records specifically and follow the consumer notice rules, or OAH will refuse to issue the subpoenas.
Key authority cited
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (c)(2)
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.3
People named in the order
- Tiffany Blackwood, Proposed subpoena recipient
- Sara Keeper, Proposed subpoena recipient
- Jennifer Mays, Proposed subpoena recipient
- Debbie Rodriguez, Proposed subpoena recipient
- Rose Tagnese, Proposed subpoena recipient
- Charles Marson, Acting Presiding 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. 2015010860 v.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL ISSUE SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM
DISTRICT.
This matter is set for hearing on April 7, 2015. On March 19, 2015, Student filed with OAH a request to issue five subpoenas duces tecum (SDT’s) commanding Tiffany Blackwood, Sara Keeper, Jennifer Mays, Debbie Rodriguez, and Rose Tagnese to produce documents. The request is denied for the following reasons:
All five SDT forms are incomplete, as they consist only of the first page of OAH’s subpoena form, which is a two-page, two-sided document. Several items critical to the validity of a subpoena appear on the absent second page. The most important of these is the statement of reasons for issuance of the SDT which the declarant is required to sign under penalty of perjury and which must contain a satisfactory explanation of why there is “reasonable necessity” for issuing the subpoena (5 Cal. Code Regs. § 3082, subd. (c)(2)) by explaining what the documents are, how they bear on the case, and why a subpoena is necessary to obtain them. The second page of the form also contains spaces for the information essential to showing valid service of the subpoena.
In addition, the descriptions of the records sought are inadequate in at least three of the SDT’s, and possibly all five. The Blackwood, Mays, and Rodriguez SDT’s lack any description of the records sought. The Keeper SDT defines the record sought only as “logs pertaining to [Student],” and the Tagnese SDT seeks “any and all records/assessments in file related to [Student],” without limitation as to time or relevance. In context these may be insufficient descriptions of the records to be compelled.
Finally, none of the subpoenas demonstrates compliance with the consumer notice provisions of Section 1985.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1 As a result of the incompleteness in inadequacies of the forms submitted by Student, the proposed subpoenas lack the legally required showing for issuance. The request to issue them is DENIED.
DATE: March 20, 2015
/ S/
CHARLES MARSON
Acting Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings This description of defects in the proposed subpoenas is not intended to be exhaustive, and is made without prejudice to any argument that any of the proposed recipients may make in the future concerning similar subpoenas that may be sought and served.