California OAH special education order · July 11, 2022

Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Student's Motion to Amend and Denying Stanislaus' Motion to Quash as Moot

OAH Case No. 2022040954 · ALJ Ted Mann

OAH granted Student's unopposed motion to amend and denied Stanislaus County's motion to quash Student's document subpoena as moot, because the amended complaint resets all hearing timelines.

Ruling Subpoenas, motions to compel, and records

Summary

Student moved to file a First Amended Complaint against Modesto City Schools and Stanislaus County Department of Education, and no one opposed it. Separately, Stanislaus County moved to quash Student's subpoena for documents at hearing, and Student opposed that motion. After a prehearing conference, the ALJ granted the timely, unopposed amendment and reset all timelines. Because the amendment restarted the case, the ALJ denied the motion to quash as moot and without prejudice, so Stanislaus County may refile it if Student serves a similar subpoena later.

Why it matters

Filing an amended complaint restarts the hearing timelines and can wipe out pending subpoena disputes. A party that has served a subpoena should expect to reserve it later, and the other side can renew its objections at that point.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)

People named in the order

  • Ted Mann, Administrative Law Judge
  • Daniel Shaw, Attorney for Student
  • Marcy Gutierrez, Attorney for Modesto City Schools
  • Jennifer Fain, Attorney for Stanislaus County Department of Education

Topics

amended complaint motion to quash subpoena mootness prehearing conference timelines reset

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.

MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS AND STANISLAUS COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040954

ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE

GRANTING STUDENT’S MOTION TO AMEND AND

DENYING STANISLAUS’ MOTION TO QUASH AS MOOT

JULY 11, 2022

On April 28, 2022, Student filed a complaint naming Modesto City Schools and Stanislaus County Department of Education. On July 5, 2022, Student filed a Motion to Amend along with a First Amended Complaint against the same respondents. No written opposition was received to the Motion to Amend.

On July 8, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Ted Mann, Office of Administrative Hearings, held a prehearing conference by videoconference. The Administrative Law Judge is called an ALJ. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH. The prehearing conference is called a PHC.

Daniel Shaw, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. Marcy Gutierrez, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Modesto. Jennifer Fain, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Stanislaus County. The PHC was recorded. Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:

MOTION TO AMEND

An amended complaint may be filed when either (a) the other party consents in writing and is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint through a resolution session, or (b) the hearing officer grants permission, provided the hearing officer may grant such permission at any time more than five (5) days prior to the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(i).) The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)

Here, Student’s Motion to Amend is timely filed and is unopposed by either Stockton or Stanislaus County. As such, Student’s motion to Amend is granted. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this Order and OAH will issue a new Scheduling Order setting dates for the PHC and the due process hearing.

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

On June 30, 2022, Student served a subpoena on Stanislaus County to produce documents at hearing. On July 1, 2022, Stanislaus County filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena. On July 5, 2022, Student filed an Opposition to the Motion to Quash.

As Student’s Motion to Amend has been granted, Stanislaus County’s current Motion to Quash is mooted. Stanislaus County’s Motion to Quash is denied without prejudice. In the event that Student reserves a similar subpoena at a later date, Stanislaus County will be entitled to refile its Motion to Quash.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ted Mann Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings