California OAH special education order · February 23, 2023
Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoenas, as Moot
OAH Case No. 2022120182 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH denied Student's motion to quash Newark's subpoenas as moot because Student's second amended complaint reset the hearing timelines, and the subpoenas sought records for the old hearing date.
Summary
Newark issued subpoenas for testimony and records from three providers, to be produced on February 22, 2023, the first day of the original hearing. Student then filed a second amended complaint, which reset the timelines and moved the hearing to March 2023. Student later moved to quash the subpoenas as overly broad and as violating Student's privacy in medical records. OAH agreed with Newark that the motion was moot because the subpoenas were tied to the earlier hearing date and the amended complaint reset the timelines.
Why it matters
Filing an amended complaint resets due process timelines, so subpoenas tied to the old hearing date can become moot. Parents worried about privacy in medical records should watch for new subpoenas and be ready to challenge them on the merits.
People named in the order
- Dr. Vrittamani, Subpoenaed provider
- Ms. Panoringan, Subpoenaed provider
- Dr. Nazaneen, Subpoenaed provider
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.
NEWARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022120182
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS, AS
MOOT
FEBRUARY 23, 2023
On December 6, 2022, Student filed a request for due process naming Newark Unified School District. On December 19, 2022, OAH issued an order determining Student’s complaint insufficient, granting Student permission to file an amended complaint no later than 14 days from the date of the order. On January 4, 2023, Student timely filed an amended complaint. On January 4, 2023, OAH issued a scheduling order scheduling the case for hearing on February 22 and 23, 2023.
On January 27, 2022, Newark issued subpoenas duces tecum on Dr. Vrittamani, Ms. Panoringan, and Dr. Nazaneen. A notice to consumer was sent to Student advising Student of the subpoenas directed to Dr. Vrittamani, Ms. Panoringan, and Dr. Nazaneen.
Copies of the subpoenas were sent to Student with the notice to consumer. The subpoenas to Dr. Vrittamani, Ms. Panoringan, and Dr. Nazaneen, sought testimony and records, to be produced on February 22, 2023, the first day of the scheduled due process hearing.
On February 3, 2023, Student filed a second amended complaint. On February 6, 2023, OAH issued a scheduling order scheduling hearing on March 28, 29, and 30. On February 17, 2023, Student filed a motion to quash the subpoenas issued by Newark on January 27, 2023, as overly broad and violative of Student’s right to privacy regarding medical records. On February 21, 2023, Newark filed an opposition asserting that Student’s motion to quash is moot based on Student’s filing of a second amended complaint.
Newark’s subpoenas at issue here, pertained to records ordered to be produced on February 22, 2023. Student’s filing of a second amended complaint subsequent to the issuance of the subpoenas, reset timelines. Accordingly, Student’s motion to quash Newark’s January 27, 2023 subpoenas is denied, as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings