California OAH special education order · April 15, 2024
Order Granting Motion to Quash Subpoena
OAH Case No. 2024020452 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH quashed San Carlos's subpoena for records from another district's special education director because the hearing had been continued, making the April production date improper prehearing discovery.
Summary
San Carlos served a subpoena duces tecum on Jarrett Dooley, Director of Student Services at Sequoia Union High School District, with documents due April 16, 2024. Student moved to quash, arguing the subpoena sought irrelevant material, was overbroad and vague, and did not show reasonable necessity. San Carlos opposed. After the hearing was continued to May 29, 2024, OAH granted the motion without reaching Student's objections, because there is no right to prehearing discovery in special education due process cases. San Carlos may reissue the subpoena, and Student may object again.
Why it matters
Subpoenas for documents in OAH special education cases are tied to the hearing itself, not to discovery before the hearing. If a hearing date moves, a subpoena calling for production before that date can be quashed, so parties should time their subpoenas to the actual hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (c)(2)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1985, subd. (b)
- Johnson v. Superior Court (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 829
People named in the order
- Jarrett Dooley, Director of Student Services, Sequoia Union High School District (subpoena recipient)
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.
SAN CARLOS SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024020452
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
APRIL 15, 2024
On February 13, 2024, Parents on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming San Carlos School District. On February 22, 2024, OAH granted the parties request for mediation and continued the matter to April 2024.
On March 15, 2024, San Carlos served a subpoena duces tecum on Jarrett Dooley, Director of Student Services at Sequoia Union High School District, requesting document production on April 16, 2024. San Carlos also sent a notice to consumer to Student advising of the subpoena duces tecum.
On April 9, 2024, Student filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum on the grounds of relevancy, over broad and vague, and failure to establish reasonable necessity. On April 10, 2024, OAH granted for good cause a due process hearing continuance to May 29, 2024. On April 12, 2024, San Carlos filed opposition to the motion.
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), which requires:
A copy of an affidavit shall be served with a subpoena duces tecum . . ., showing good cause for the production of the matters and things described in the subpoena, specifying the exact matters or things desired to be produced, setting forth in full detail the materiality thereof to the issues involved in the case, and stating that the witness has the desired matters or things in his or her possession or under his or her control.
The good cause requirement is met by a factual showing of why the requested documents or things are material and relevant to the litigated issues. (Johnson v.
Superior Court (1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 829, 835-836; see also Seven Up Bottling Company v. Superior Court (1951) Cal. App.2d 71, 77.)
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 general, there is no right to prehearing discovery in due process proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.) Rather, the IDEA provides parties with the right to present evidence and compel the attendance of witnesses at “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).) California provides a similar right to present evidence and compel the attendance of witnesses in due process proceedings (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)), but does not confer the right to prehearing discovery.
Education Code, section 56505, subdivision (a), provides that “[t]he state hearing shall be conducted in accordance with regulations adopted by the board,” and under that authority the Department of Education promulgated section 3082, subdivision (c)(2), of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, which authorizes the issuance of subpoenas and subpoenas **duces tecum**. These regulations specifically disallow the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act that provide broader authority for the use of subpoenas in other administrative hearings. (5 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3089, [inapplicability of Govt. Code, §§ 11450.05-11450.30 to due process hearing procedures].)
While subpoenas duces tecum are authorized in special education hearings, their use must be consistent with the legislative and regulatory framework of these proceedings. Pre-hearing discovery in special education cases at the administrative hearing stage is limited. Parents or adult students are entitled to request copies of the educational records, relating to the student in question, that are maintained by the school district. (Ed. Code, § 56504; Burnett v. San Mateo Foster City School District, (9th Cir. 2018) 739 Fed. Appx. 870, 873.) The parties are also entitled to disclosures of any evidence an opposing party plans to introduce at hearing 5 business days prior to the date of the first day of hearing. (Ed. Code, 56505(e)(7).)
While Student raises several objections to the subpoena duces tecum, they need not be addressed at this time. Due to the continuance of the due process hearing in this matter to May 29, 2024, the subpoena duces tecum directed at Jarrett Dooley is now inappropriate because a party does not have a right to pre-hearing discovery.
Accordingly, Student’s request to quash the subpoena is granted.
This order neither precludes San Carlos from reissuing the subpoena nor precludes Student from raising any objections to that subpoena.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cynthia Fritz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings