California OAH special education order · November 4, 2024
Order Granting Motion to Quash Subpoena
OAH Case No. 2024081149 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH quashed Student's subpoena for 30 categories of Compton records in full because the subpoena's declaration of reasonable necessity was left blank and Student never showed the records were material.
Summary
Student served a subpoena on Compton's custodian of records, Helen Rodriguez. It required her to testify and to produce 30 categories of documents, but the declaration of necessity section was left blank. Compton moved to quash. Student opposed, arguing that a motion to quash would let Compton decide on its own what evidence comes in at hearing, but Student did not address the missing declaration. OAH granted the motion and quashed the subpoena entirely, because special education rules and the Code of Civil Procedure require a factual showing of why the records are material to the issues, and without that showing the subpoena could not even be modified.
Why it matters
A records subpoena in an OAH case must include a completed declaration explaining why each requested item is material to the hearing issues, or it can be thrown out entirely. Parents and advocates should fill out the necessity declaration carefully rather than relying on general due process rights.
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
- Helen Rodriguez, Custodian of records (subpoenaed witness)
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024081149
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
NOVEMBER 4, 2024
On August 30, 2024, Student filed a request for due process hearing naming Compton Unified School District, called Compton. The due process hearing in this matter is scheduled to begin on November 19, 2024.
On October 29, 2024, Student issued a subpoena to appear and testify and to produce records on Helen Rodriguez, custodian of records, presumably of Compton.
The subpoena seeks production of 30 categories of documents. The declaration of necessity section of the subpoena was left blank.
On October 28, 2024, Compton filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on the grounds Student’s discovery is impermissible and Student failed to show reasonable necessity for the documents sought.
On October 30, 2024, Student filed an opposition arguing Student’s procedural rights would be compromised if Compton was allowed to unilaterally determine the evidence that can be presented at hearing by a motion to quash. Student did not address the lack of a declaration of reasonable necessity in the subpoena.
A party to a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities 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, the hearing officer has the right to issue subpoenas to appear and give testimony and subpoenas duces tecum for production of documents 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 a declaration must be served with a subpoena duces tecum showing good cause for the production of the matters and things described in the subpoena.
The declaration must specify 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, the Office of Administrative Hearings 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.
The issued subpoena failed to comply with the requirement that it be accompanied by a declaration establishing reasonable necessity for production of the records. Student made no factual showing of why the requested documents or things are material and relevant to the issues in the due process hearing request. While section 1987.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a court may make an order quashing a subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it, as no good cause for production of the records has been established, the subpoena cannot be modified.
Accordingly, Compton’s motion to quash is granted and the subpoena is quashed in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings