California OAH special education order · October 26, 2022

Order Denying Motions to Quash Subpoenas as Moot Due to Complaint Amendment

OAH Case No. 2022090313 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl

OAH denied Monterey Peninsula's motions to quash six Student subpoenas as moot, because Student's amended complaint replaced the original complaint and reset the hearing date the subpoenas were tied to.

Denied as moot Subpoenas, motions to compel, and records

Summary

Student served subpoenas duces tecum on six Monterey Peninsula staff members, requiring them to produce records at the hearing set to begin November 1, 2022. Monterey Peninsula moved to quash the subpoenas on several grounds. Student's motion to amend the complaint was then granted, which replaced the original complaint and reset all timelines, so no hearing would go forward on November 1. OAH denied the motions to quash as moot, did not rule on the district's substantive arguments, and ordered Student's counsel to serve the order on each subpoenaed witness.

Why it matters

Amending a due process complaint resets the case timelines and can cancel subpoenas tied to the original hearing date. Parties should reissue subpoenas for the new hearing date, and objections to them can be raised again.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)
  • Ed. Code § 56505(e)
  • Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082(c)(2)
  • Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1
  • Code Civ. Proc. § 1985(b)
  • Ed. Code § 56502(e)

People named in the order

  • Luisa San Miguel, District special education teacher (subpoenaed witness)
  • Kevin O'Haire, District case coordinator (subpoenaed witness)
  • Katie Rivera, District special education director (subpoenaed witness)
  • Karen Zandakis, District general education teacher (subpoenaed witness)
  • Shannon Cavanaugh Pareno, District speech pathologist (subpoenaed witness)
  • Eugenie Adams, District school psychologist (subpoenaed witness)

Topics

subpoena duces tecum motion to quash mootness amended complaint 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.

MONTEREY PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2022090313

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AS

MOOT DUE TO COMPLAINT AMENDMENT

OCTOBER 26, 2022

On September 12, 2022, Student filed a request for due process naming Monterey Peninsula Unified School District as respondent. That same day, a scheduling order was issued scheduling the case for hearing on November 1, 2, and 3, 2022.

On October 10, 2022, Student issued subpoenas duces tecum on the following witnesses:

1. Luisa San Miguel -Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Special

Education Teacher;

2. Kevin O’Haire - Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Case Coordinator;

3. Katie Rivera - Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Special Education

Director;

4. Karen Zandakis – Monterey Peninsula Unified School District General

Education Teacher;

5. Shannon Cavanaugh Pareno - Monterey Peninsula Unified School District

Speech Pathologist; and

6. Eugenie Adams - Monterey Peninsula Unified School District School

Psychologist.

All witnesses were instructed by the Subpoena to produce records to the Office of Administrative Hearings on November 1, 2022 for a hearing beginning November 1, 2022.

Between October 11 and October 17, 2022, Monterey Peninsula filed motions to quash the subpoenas on a number of grounds. On October 20, 2022, Student’s motion to amend the complaint in this action was granted. All timelines in the case were reset as of October 20, 2022 and a new date for hearing was scheduled. The amended complaint superseded the originally filed complaint.

APPLICABLE LAW

A party to a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act has the right to present evidence and compel the attendance of witnesses in “a hearing conducted pursuant to subsection (f) or (k)” of section 1415 of title 20 of the United States Code. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(h); see also Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e).)

In special education proceedings in California, “[t]he hearing officer shall have the right to issue Subpoenas (order to appear and give testimony) and Subpoenas Duces Tecum (order to produce document(s) or paper(s) upon a showing of reasonable necessity by a party).” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (c)(2).) This requirement mirrors that required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1985, subdivision (b).

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.

In this case, the complaint on which the subpoenas were based has been superseded. This renders the subpoenas moot. Additionally, the amended complaint filing resulted in the applicable timelines for the prehearing conference and due process hearing in this matter to be reset. (20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B); Ed. Code 56502(e).) This also renders the original subpoenas moot, as no hearing is proceeding on November 1, 2022.

ORDER

1. Monterey Peninsula’s motions to quash Student’s subpoenas to the following

parties are denied as MOOT:

a. Luisa San Miguel -Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Special

Education Teacher;

b. Kevin O’Haire - Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Case

Coordinator;

c. Katie Rivera - Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Special

Education Director;

d. Karen Zandakis – Monterey Peninsula Unified School District General

Education Teacher;

e. Shannon Cavanaugh Pareno - Monterey Peninsula Unified School

District Speech Pathologist; and

f. Eugenie Adams - Monterey Peninsula Unified School District School

Psychologist.

2. Counsel for Student shall immediately serve a copy of this order on each of

the persons listed in item number 1 (a) through (f) of this order.

3. As the motion to quash is granted due to a procedural issue, no ruling is

made regarding Monterey Peninsula’s substantive arguments.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings