California OAH special education order · March 9, 2022
Order Granting Request for In Camera Review of Subpoena Response
OAH Case No. 2021120714 · ALJ Cararea Lucier
OAH granted Kaiser Permanente's request for in camera review of its subpoenaed medical records because Kaiser could not tell which records fit the narrowed subpoena; only responsive records will be released, redacted as needed.
This case went to decision
Student v. Rocklin Unified School District: Rocklin Unified denied FAPE by not following a student's seizure health plan; ALJ orders 60 compensatory hours and staff training. (2022)
Summary
Rocklin subpoenaed Student's Kaiser Permanente medical records. OAH earlier granted in part Student's motion to quash and narrowed the subpoena to records about a December 2, 2021 medical incident and later medical issues it directly caused that may have affected Student's education through February 14, 2022. Kaiser asked OAH to review its response privately (in camera) because it was hard to tell which records fit the narrowed order. OAH found the request reasonable and granted it. The ALJ will release only responsive documents, redacted as needed to protect Student's privacy.
Why it matters
When a district subpoenas a student's medical records, families can get the request narrowed, and OAH can screen the records itself so the district sees only what the order allows. This protects private health information during the hearing.
Key authority cited
- 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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021120714
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF
SUBPOENA RESPONSE
MARCH 09, 2022
On December 21, 2022, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for a due process hearing naming Rocklin Unified School District and Elk Grove Unified School District. On January 31, 2022, an order granting a continuance in this matter was granted scheduling the case for hearing on February 15, 16, and 17, 2022. On February 8, 2022, Elk Grove was dismissed from this matter as Student and Elk Grove reached a settlement agreement. The hearing was convened on February 15, 16, and 17, 2022, and March 8 and 9, 2022.
On February 9 and 10, 2022, Rocklin issued a subpoena duces tecum on Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center. The subpoena to Kaiser Permanente sought:
1. Any and all notes taken during or after patient intake of Student from
December 2, 2021 to present.
2. Any and all labs, test results, blood work pertaining to Student’s seizure
medication from December 2, 2021 to present.
3. Any and all service logs, notes, and/or summaries regarding Student from
December 2, 2021 to present.
4. Any and all medical records, doctor’s orders, and/or notes regarding Student
from December 2, 2021 to present.
5. Any and all communications, notes, and/or summaries regarding impressions
of Parent or Student’s physical well-being in her custody. 6. Any and all child abuse and neglect reports (CANRA mandated report) and/or Child Protective Services report filed from December 2, 2021 to present.
On February 10, 2022, Student filed a motion to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the subpoena was over-broad, intrusive, and procedurally defective. On February 14, 2022, Rocklin opposed the motion arguing that Student’s motion did not prove the subpoenas were not reasonably necessary for Rocklin to defend itself in the due process hearing. On February 14, 2022, Student filed a response to Rocklin’s opposition.
Special education law does not specifically address motions to quash subpoenas or subpoenas duces tecum. In ruling on such motions, Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH relies by analogy on the relevant portions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 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.
On February 15, 2022, the undersigned Administrative law Judge issued an order Denying Granting in Part and Denying in Part Student’s Motion to Quash, modifying the subpoena to:
Any and all medical records, doctor’s orders, and/or notes specifically relating to a medical incident Student may have suffered on December 2, 2021, and any subsequent medical issues directly caused by the December 2, 2021, medical incident that may have impacted his education from December 2, 2021, through February 14, 2022.
On March 8, 2022, Kaiser Permanented filed a written request for in camera review of the subpoena response, on that basis that it was difficult for it to determine which medical records were responsive to the modified order. Kaiser’s request is reasonable and is granted. Kaiser Permanente’s subpoena response will be reviewed in camera, and only documents responsive to the limitations of the modified order will be released. Records may be redacted, as necessary, to protect Student’s privacy.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cararea Lucier Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings