California OAH special education order · August 19, 2022
Order Denying Dr. Sunny Kim's Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2022040545 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH denied a private provider's request to reconsider the order refusing to quash Newman-Crows Landing's subpoena for assessment records, because the provider offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
Dr. Sunny Kim, a provider who received a subpoena duces tecum from Newman-Crows Landing for Student's assessment results, asked OAH to reconsider its August 15, 2022 order denying the motion to quash. Dr. Kim had argued the subpoena violated HIPAA and FERPA, and on reconsideration relied on a California Supreme Court case setting out factors for quashing subpoenas. Dr. Kim also offered to share the results under 'the correct circumstances.' Newman-Crows Landing opposed, and the ALJ denied reconsideration because Dr. Kim showed no new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and confirmed all hearing dates.
Why it matters
A reconsideration request must offer something new. Repeating earlier arguments or citing law that was available before will not undo an order, and a provider who receives a valid subpoena for a student's assessment records generally must produce them.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
People named in the order
- Dr. Sunny Kim, Provider/assessor; subpoena recipient who moved to quash
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.
NEWMAN-CROWS LANDING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040545
ORDER DENYING DR. SUNNY KIM’S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION
AUGUST 19, 2022
On August 15, 2022, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Dr. Sunny Kim’s motion to quash. Dr. Kim moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum they received from Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District. Dr. Kim believed that compliance with the subpoena duces tecum would violate Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) laws. Dr. Kim’s motion to quash was denied, among other reasons, because the records requested by Newman-Crows Landing did not violate HIPPA or FERPA laws.
On August 17, 2022, Dr. Kim filed a Request to Reconsider the Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena. On August 17, 2022, Newman-Crows Landing filed an opposition. On August 18, 2022, Dr. Kim filed a response to the opposition.
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, generally within ten days. (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
Dr. Kim offers no new facts, circumstances or law that warrant reconsideration.
Dr Kim’s motion for reconsideration referenced an August 20, 2020, California Supreme Court case that analyzed seven factors to determine whether to quash a subpoena duces tecum. Dr. Kim argued that each of the factors supported their contention that the motion to quash in the instant matter should have been granted. Dr. Kim asserted they would be happy to share with Newman-Crows Landing the assessment results that is the subject of the subpoena duces tecum under “the correct circumstances”. Dr. Kim’s response to Newman-Crows Landing’s opposition reflected Dr. Kim’s mistaken belief that the undersigned did not consider the relevant pleadings before the Order was issued.
Dr. Kim’s arguments and agreement to share the subpoenaed documents with Newman-Crows Landing does not meet the threshold for reconsideration. As a result, Dr. Kim’s request to reconsider the Order Denying Motion to Quash is not reconsidered.
ORDER
Dr. Sunny Kim has not established the August 15, 2022, Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings