California OAH special education order · April 8, 2025
Order Denying Student's Motion to Compel Compliance With Subpoenas
OAH Case No. 2025010546 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Student's motion to compel compliance with witness and records subpoenas because they were never served on the witnesses and the motion was premature, since IDEA provides no prehearing discovery right.
Summary
Student asked OAH to order Los Angeles to comply with subpoenas requiring district employees to testify at hearing and subpoenas duces tecum for records. Los Angeles opposed. OAH denied the motion. Student's counsel had delivered the subpoenas to two district due process unit employees instead of the witnesses themselves, and Student showed no authority or agreement making that valid service. OAH also found the motion premature: neither the IDEA nor California law gives a right to prehearing discovery, and Student is entitled only to the district's evidence and witness list five days before hearing.
Why it matters
Subpoenas must be served on the actual witnesses, unless someone has agreed to accept service for them. Handing them to a district's due process office is not enough without that agreement. Parents also cannot use subpoenas to get early discovery, but they can request educational records at any time.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(7)
- Ed. Code § 56504
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(a)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
People named in the order
- Patricia Tamez-Simplicio, Los Angeles due process unit employee (subpoenas delivered to her)
- Diana Massaria, Los Angeles due process unit employee (subpoenas delivered to her)
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.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025010546
ORDER DENYING STUDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS
APRIL 8, 2025
On, January 21, 2025, Student filed a request for due process hearing, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Los Angeles Unified School District as respondent. On January 30, 2025, OAH granted the parties’ joint request for mediation and continuance of the hearing, scheduling the prehearing conference for April 15, 2025 and hearing to begin on April 29, 2025.
On, March 28, 2025, Student filed a “Motion for an Order Directing Compliance with Subpoena for District-Employees at Hearing and Compliance with a Subpoena Duces Tecum to Produce Records and Things Under Oath At Hearing.” On April 2, 2025, Los Angeles opposed Student’s motion. On April 7, 2025 Student filed a reply to Los Angeles’ opposition.
Student seeks an order compelling Los Angeles to comply with subpoenas for Los Angeles Unified School District employees to testify at hearing. Student also asks that OAH order compliance with subpoenas duces tecum. For a variety of reasons, the requests will be denied.
SUBPOENAS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE WITNESSES
The exhibits attached to Student’s moving papers establish that Student has not served either the subpoenas for testimony, or the subpoenas duces tecum, on the desired witnesses. Instead, Student asserts his counsel personally delivered the subpoenas to Los Angeles’ due process unit employees, Patricia Tamez-Simplicio and Diana Massaria, at their business address. Student offers no legal authority supporting the conclusion that serving subpoenas that are directed to other people, on employees of Los Angeles’ due process unit, constitutes service on the witnesses. Student offers no evidence that either Patricia Tamez-Simplicio or Diana Massaria agreed to accept subpoena service on the witnesses’ behalf.
MOTION IS PREMATURE
The hearing in this case is scheduled to begin on April 30, 2025. A prehearing conference is scheduled for April 18, 2025. In general, there is no right to prehearing discovery in administrative proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, also called the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.)
Both the IDEA and California special education law provide 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); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e).) However, neither state nor federal law confer the right to prehearing discovery. Parents may request the opportunity to review educational records regardless of whether a request for due process is pending. (Ed.
Code § 56504; 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(a).)
Student is entitled to receive copies of any documents, and a list of witnesses Los Angeles intends to present at the due process hearing, at least five days prior to the hearing. (Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(7).) Student has failed to offer any legal authority mandating that Los Angeles make any disclosures of witnesses or documents, outside the normal educational record request process, prior to that date. Nor has Student offered legal authority mandating Los Angeles’ assistance in facilitating Student’s desire to subpoena witnesses.
As the overarching procedural flaws regarding the subpoenas are dispositive of Student’s motion, this order does not address any deficiencies in the individual subpoenas or supporting declarations of necessity.
ORDER
1. Student’s motion to compel compliance with subpoenas for testimony served
on Patricia Tamez-Simplicio and Diana Massaria on March 26, 2025, is denied.
2. Student’s motion to compel compliance with subpoenas duces tecum served
on Patricia Tamez-Simplicio and Diana Massaria on March 26, 2025, is denied.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings