California OAH special education order · September 18, 2017
Order Denying Student's Motion to Quash District's Subpoena Duces Tecum
OAH Case No. 2017060459 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH denied without prejudice Student's motion to quash District's subpoena for San Leandro Juvenile Justice Center records because the subpoena itself was never filed with OAH.
This case went to decision
Student v. Berkeley Unified School District: Berkeley Unified owed no FAPE because Parent lived in Richmond, outside the district; all of Student's claims denied. (2018)
Summary
Student asked OAH to quash a District subpoena duces tecum requiring San Leandro Juvenile Justice Center to produce records at hearing. District opposed, and Student filed a reply. OAH looked to the Code of Civil Procedure for guidance but found it could not rule on the merits because no copy of the subpoena was filed. The motion was denied without prejudice, so Student may refile it.
Why it matters
A party moving to quash or limit a subpoena must attach the subpoena itself, or OAH will not reach the merits. This matters especially when sensitive records, such as juvenile justice records, are being sought.
Key authority cited
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1985, subd. (c)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1
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. 2017060459 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
MOTION TO QUASH DISTRICT’S
BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
DISTRICT.
On June 9, 2017, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing naming Berkeley Unified School District. On September 8, 2017, Student filed a Motion to Quash a subpoena from District seeking the production of records at hearing by San Leandro Juvenile Justice Center. A copy of the subpoena at issue was not filed with OAH. On September 8, 2017, District filed and Opposition to Student’s Motion to Quash. On September 11, 2017, Student filed a Reply to District’s Opposition.
APPLICABLE LAW
Special education law does not specifically address whether a subpoena may be issued by an attorney, or whether or how a subpoena duces tecum may be quashed; however, relevant provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure provide guidance. Code of Civil Procedure, section 1985, subdivision (c) provides that an attorney of record in an action may sign and issue a subpoena to require production of the matters or things described in the subpoena. California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1987.1 provides that a court may make an order quashing a subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.
Here, the subpoena duces tecum subject to the motion to quash has not been filed with OAH. In the absence of the document at issue, OAH cannot rule on the merits of Student’s Motion. On this basis Student’s Motion to Quash District’s subpoena seeking the production of records at hearing by San Leandro Juvenile Justice Center is denied without prejudice.
DATE: September 18, 2017
TED MANN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings