California OAH special education order · May 24, 2024
Order Granting Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum to Ian Squibb
OAH Case No. 2024040358 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH quashed Parents' subpoena for fifth-grade general education schedules from a teacher who never taught Student, because the stated reason was not an issue pled in the complaint.
Summary
Parents subpoenaed Ian Squibb of Fremont Unified for fifth-grade general education class schedules and weekly minutes per subject. Fremont moved to quash for lack of reasonable necessity, and Student opposed, arguing the records were relevant. Both sides agreed Squibb had never taught Student. OAH granted the motion because Student's declaration tied the records to Fremont's failure to invite a general education teacher to an IEP meeting, which was not an issue in the complaint, so the records were not shown to be material, relevant, or reasonably necessary.
Why it matters
A subpoena for records must be tied to an issue actually raised in the due process complaint. If a parent wants to pursue a new claim, such as a missing IEP team member, the complaint generally needs to be amended first.
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., § 1985, subd. (b)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1
- Johnson v. Superior Court (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 829
People named in the order
- Ian Squibb, Fremont Unified School District staff member; 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.
FREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024040358
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM TO IAN SQUIBB
MAY 24, 2024
On April 9, 2024, Parents on behalf of Student, hereinafter Parents, filed a request for due process naming Fremont Unified School District. On April 16, 2024, an order granting a continuance in this matter was granted scheduling the case for hearing on May 29, 2024, through May 30, 2024.
On April 23, 2024, Parents issued a subpoena duces tecum to, Ian Squibb, seeking:
On April 23, 2024, PARTY issued a subpoena duces tecum to Ian Squibb of Fremont Unified School District. The subpoena sought:
1) Weekly class schedule of 5th-grade general ed with duration, subject, and teacher’s names of each period.
2) Number of minutes per week of each subject (ELA, Math, Science, History- Social Science, Science lab, computer/ technology, help/tutoring unfinished work/project) for 5th grade general ed.
On May 16, 2024, Fremont Unified School District filed a motion to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the request failed to establish a reasonable necessity for the documents. On May 20, 2024, Student opposed the motion arguing that the documents were relevant and necessary. At the time of the prehearing conference, both sides stipulated that Squibb had never taught Student.
APPLICABLE LAW
A party to a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, or IDEA, 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.
NO REASONABLE NECESSITY FOR THE RECORDS
Fremont argues that the subpoena duces tecum should be quashed because it fails to make the requisite showing of reasonable necessity for the requested documents. Specifically, Parents and Fremont agreed, during the prehearing conference, that Squibb had never taught Student.
Student’s declaration in support of the subpoena the documents are necessary because Fremont failed to invite a 5th grade general education teacher to an IEP meeting for Student. However, this is not an issue that was pled in Student’s complaint.
Student’s declaration fails to establish that the subpoenaed documents are material and relevant, or reasonably necessary to establish a claim.
ORDER
1. Fremont’s motion to quash Student’s subpoena duces tecum to Ian Squibb is
granted.
2. Counsel for Fremont shall immediately serve a copy of this order on Ian
Squibb.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ted Mann Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings