California OAH special education order · March 8, 2023
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2023010234, 2022120477 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider an order denying a motion to compel and quashing subpoenas, because Student offered no new facts or law about the January and February 2023 subpoenas.
This case went to decision
Student v. Mt. Diablo Unified School District (consolidated): Mt. Diablo Unified owes nine hours of compensatory education and $100 for a heated lunchbox; may conduct feeding assessment without consent. (2023)
Summary
On March 6, 2023, OAH denied Student's motion to compel documents. It also granted Mt. Diablo's motions to quash subpoenas issued in January and February 2023. Student asked for reconsideration on March 8, 2023, and attached a new proposed subpoena. OAH denied the request because Student did not present new or different facts or law about the earlier subpoenas, and the new proposed subpoena had no bearing on the March 6 order.
Why it matters
A reconsideration request must show new facts, circumstances, or law about the ruling being challenged. Attaching a new or different subpoena does not count; it should be served or filed as its own request.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
and
MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023010234
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022120477
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
MARCH 8, 2023
On March 6, 2023, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order Denying Student’s motion to compel documents and granting Mount Diablo Unified School District’s motions to quash subpoenas issued in January and February of 2023.
On March 8, 2023, Student filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. As of the date of this order, the Office of Administrative Hearings had not received a response from Mount Diablo.
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
Student has not established the March 6, 2023 order should be reconsidered.
Student did not offer new law or facts related to the subpoenas issued in January and February 2023. Parent attached another proposed subpoena to the motion. However, this is not relevant to the order issued March 6, 2023. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings