California OAH special education order · August 12, 2022
Further Order on Motion to Quash Subpoenas
OAH Case No. 2022040887 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH ordered the parties to tell all subpoena recipients immediately that OAH will not send document-upload invites until the subpoenas meet OAH filing requirements.
Summary
An earlier prehearing conference order noted that subpoenas challenged in motions to quash may not have met OAH requirements. Problems included not being filed with OAH, lacking a completed proof of service, and missing recipients' email addresses. After a subpoena recipient called OAH waiting for an email invite to upload records, OAH on its own motion ordered the parties to immediately tell every subpoena recipient that no invites will be sent until all OAH filing requirements are met. The order made no ruling on whether the subpoenas were timely or enforceable.
Why it matters
A subpoena for records in an OAH case does no good until it is properly filed with OAH, with a completed proof of service and the recipient's email address. Until then, OAH will not send recipients the link to produce documents.
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.
WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040887
FURTHER ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
AUGUST 12, 2022
The Prehearing Conference Order dated August 8, 2022 stated as follows:
“The subpoenas that were subject to the Motions to Quash may not have complied with OAH requirements, including (1) not having been filed with OAH; (2) not containing a completed proof of service; (3) not containing the subpoenaed parties’ email addresses. No ruling is made as to any of the subpoena’s timeliness, enforceability or procedural compliance. No email invites to upload documents will be send to any subpoenaed parties until all OAH requirements for issuance of subpoenas have been met."
The PHC Order also stated that “Hart is ordered to inform the subpoenaed parties that that [certain] language is deleted from the subpoena’s Attachment A’s.”
OAH has received calls from an SDT recipient who is awaiting an email evites to comply with an SDT that has apparently been served on them. However, OAH will not send email evites regarding SDT’s until all OAH requirements for proper filing of the SDT’s with OAH have been met. The parties are hereby ordered to immediately inform all SDT recipients that email evites will not be sent to them until the parties have first complied with all OAH requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings