California OAH special education order · October 8, 2015
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Order Partially Granting Student's Motions to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum
OAH Case No. 2015080848, 2015060967 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH denied District's request to reconsider an order limiting its subpoenas, finding no new facts or law and that the subpoenaed documents did not relate to residency, the only hearing issue.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Diego Unified School District (consolidated): San Diego Unified is the responsible district for a student with autism who moved into its boundaries in June 2015. (2015)
Summary
OAH had partly granted Student's motions to quash District's subpoenas for records from The Institute for Effective Education, San Dieguito Union High School District, and Del Mar Union School District. The order allowed only assessments, testing protocols, progress reports, and settlement agreements to be produced, because the requests were overly broad and vague. District asked OAH to reconsider and allow production of documents about Student's residency. Student did not respond. OAH denied the motion because District offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, and the original subpoenas did not ask for residency documents anyway. District remained free to serve new subpoenas aimed at residency.
Why it matters
A party asking for reconsideration must show new facts, circumstances, or law. Broad subpoenas for every communication that "relates to" a student can be quashed, so requests should be narrowly tied to the issues set for hearing.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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 Consolidated Matters of:
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2015080848
DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT , OAH Case No. 2015060967 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL PARTIALLY GRANTING STUDENT’S
DISTRICT. MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPEONAS
DUCES TECUM
On October 6, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order, as part of the Order Following Prehearing Conference, granting in part Student’s motion to quash subpoena duces tecum served on The Institute for Effective Education (Institute), San Dieguito Union High School District, and Del Mar Union School District. The order quashed all document production except documents relating to assessments, testing protocols, progress reports, or settlement agreements.
On October 7, 2015, District filed a motion for reconsideration as to the order partially granting Student’s motions to quash. District is seeking to have OAH amend its order to permit the production of documents relating to the residency of Student.
The October 6, 2015 order found that the document request was overly broad and vague. The SDT’s request the production of correspondence, emails, analyses charts, graphs, progress reports, opinion, conference, voicemail, text messages or any other type of communication which “relate to” Student or his parents regarding placement and services.
Student has not filed a response to the reconsideration motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)
DISCUSSION AND ORDER
District alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request. In fact, the documents requested in the SDT’s do not pertain to the issue of residency, which is the sole issue to be heard in the bifurcated hearing. District is free to issue new SDT’s seeking information as to Student’s residency should it so desire.
Accordingly, District’s motion for reconsideration is Denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 8, 2015
/S/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings