California OAH special education order · March 28, 2024
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2024020456, 2024010744 · ALJ Laurie Gorsline
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider an order limiting District's subpoenas to feeding-related records, because Student only reargued the motion to quash and offered no new facts or law.
Summary
An earlier order had partly quashed District's subpoenas to Student's medical and service providers, limiting them to records about Student's feeding disorder and feeding-related needs. Student asked OAH to reconsider that order. OAH denied the request because Student raised no new facts, circumstances, or law and simply disagreed with the earlier ruling. Student pointed to a larger complaint filed March 20, 2024. OAH said that complaint is a separate case (OAH Case No. 2024030791) and does not change the allegations the subpoena order was based on.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts or law, and rearguing a lost motion will not succeed. Filing a new, broader complaint in a separate case does not change the scope of discovery in the existing case.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) Cal.App.4th 1494
People named in the order
- Cole Dalton, Administrative Law Judge who issued the underlying order
- Anthony Verzi, Student's medical/service provider (subpoena recipient)
- Dr. Olga Kelly, Student's medical/service provider (subpoena recipient)
- Jennifer Jourdain, Student's medical/service provider (subpoena recipient)
- Nan Arkwright, Student's medical/service provider (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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
AND
MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024020456
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024010744
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
MARCH 28, 2024
On March 25, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Cole Dalton issued an Order Granting Motion to Quash in Part and Modifying Subpoenas Duces Tecum, dated March 22, 2024. An Administrative Law Judge is known as an ALJ.
By the March 22, 2024, Order, ALJ Dalton limited the scope of the subpoenas issued by Mount Diablo Unified School to Student’s medical and/or service providers, Anthony Verzi, Dr. Olga Kelly, Jennifer Jourdain, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital, and Nan Arkwright. Specifically, the Order limited the production required by the subpoenas to the documents pertaining to Student’s feeding disorder, feeding issues, and feeding related needs.
On March 28, 2024, Student filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 22, 2024, Order. ALJ Dalton is unavailable to rule on Student’s motion for reconsideration.
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 offers no new facts, circumstances, or law, to justify reconsideration of the March 22, 2024, Order. It appears that Student’s motion essentially reargues the motion to quash, which arguments ALJ Dalton has already rejected. Mere disagreement with a judge’s analysis is not proper basis for bringing a motion for reconsideration.
(See e.g., Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500 [respondent’s argument without merit and contrary to the legislative intent behind California Code of Procedure section 1008 when it argued that because the court misinterpreted California law in its initial decision, respondent was relying on “different” law when it reiterated its prior reasoning and authorities].)
While Student argues that on March 20, 2024, he filed a much larger complaint amending the feeding issue, that other complaint is the basis for a separate action, specifically OAH Case No. 2024030791. The filing in the other case does not change the allegations in this case, OAH Case Nos. 2024020456/2024010744, upon which the March 22, 2024, Order was based. The complaint filed in the other action is not a new fact or circumstance justifying reconsideration in this case.
ORDER
Student has not established the March 22, 2024, Order should be reconsidered.
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Laurie Gorsline Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings