California OAH special education order · September 23, 2016
Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum
OAH Case No. 2016031019 · ALJ Dena Coggins
OAH denied Student's motion to quash Vacaville's subpoena duces tecum without prejudice because Student never filed the referenced exhibits, including the subpoena itself, so OAH could not review it.
This case went to decision
Student v. Vacaville Unified School District et al.: Vacaville and Sacramento City Unified must fund 188 therapy hours for inadequate mental health support, plus make-up speech services and assessments. (2017)
Summary
Student moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum dated August 23, 2016, issued by Vacaville's counsel. The motion referred to two attached exhibits, one of them the subpoena, but Student filed no exhibits. Vacaville attached a different subpoena dated August 19, 2016, not the one Student challenged. Because OAH cannot rule on a motion to quash without seeing the subpoena at issue, it denied the motion without prejudice and allowed Student to re-file with the exhibits attached.
Why it matters
A motion to quash a subpoena must include a copy of the subpoena being challenged, or OAH will not reach the merits. Check that every exhibit a motion mentions is actually filed.
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. 2016031019 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND VACAVILLE UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On March 17, 2016, Student filed a due process hearing request, naming Vacaville Unified School District and Sacramento City Unified School District. On August 11, 2016, Student’s motion to amend his due process hearing request was granted by the Office of Administrative Hearings, and Student’s amended complaint was deemed filed on that date.
The due process hearing is currently set to begin on October 5, 2016.
On September 15, 2016, Student filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum, dated August 23, 2016, issued by Vacaville, through its legal counsel. Student’s motion references two exhibits purportedly attached to its motion; however, Student did not file any exhibits with his motion. One of the referenced exhibits was to be a copy of the subpoena duces tecum at issue in Student’s motion. The Office of Administrative Hearings cannot rule on the motion without reviewing the subpoena duces tecum at issue.1 Accordingly, Student’s motion is denied without prejudice. Student may re-file his motion with the referenced exhibits attached to the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 23, 2016
DENA COGGINS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings Vacaville attached a copy of a subpoena duces tecum, executed by Vacaville’s counsel on August 19, 2016. However, Student’s motion references a subpoena duces tecum dated August 23, 2016, which was not provided.