California OAH special education order · October 1, 2025
Order Granting YMCA of Silicon Valley's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Jennifer Virrueta
OAH Case No. 2025090479 · ALJ Jennifer Kelly
OAH quashed Student's subpoena to a YMCA assistant site director because she was not personally served and neither she nor YMCA agreed to electronic service.
Summary
Student subpoenaed YMCA of Silicon Valley assistant site director Jennifer Virrueta to testify by videoconference at an expedited hearing against Cupertino. YMCA, a nonparty, moved to quash the subpoena for improper service. It supported the motion with declarations stating the witness was not personally served and that neither she nor YMCA agreed to electronic service. OAH granted the motion because nonparty witnesses must be personally served under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1985 and 1987, unless they agree to another method.
Why it matters
Families who subpoena nonparty witnesses, such as after-school or community program staff, must personally serve them or get their written agreement to email or other service. Otherwise the subpoena can be quashed right before 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., § 1985
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1987
- In re Adams (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 685
People named in the order
- Jennifer Virrueta, Assistant Site Director, YMCA of Silicon Valley (subpoenaed witness)
- Karla Jessup, Chief Administrative and Strategy Officer, YMCA of Silicon Valley (declarant)
- Erin Frazor, Attorney for YMCA of Silicon Valley
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.
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025090479
ORDER GRANTING YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY’S MOTION
TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO JENNIFER VIRRUETA
OCTOBER 1, 2025
On September 12, 2025, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Cupertino Union School District, called Cupertino. On September 15, 2025, OAH issued a scheduling order setting dual hearing dates, including an expedited hearing. The expedited hearing is scheduled for October 7, through 9, 2025.
On September 25, 2025, Student issued a subpoena to give videoconference testimony under oath to Jennifer Virrueta.
On September 29, 2025, YMCA of Silicon Valley, called YMCA, filed a motion to quash subpoena on the grounds it was improperly served. YMCA’s motion to quash was supported by declarations under penalty of perjury by Chief Administrative and Strategy Officer for YMCA Karla Jessup, Assistant Site Director Jennifer Virrueta, and YMCA’s attorney Erin Frazor. Virrueta and Jessup declared they did not receive the subpoena by personal service and did not consent to electronic service. Attorney Frazor verified that YMCA did not confirm or agree to electronic service of subpoenas in this matter.
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).)
California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 3082, subdivision (c)(2), states, "[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)."
OAH requires parties to comply with procedures described in the California Code of Civil Procedure. California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1985 and 1987 govern the issuance of subpoenas. In accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure, OAH allows parties to issue subpoenas to witnesses to require their attendance at hearing. To secure the attendance of a nonparty witness to a hearing, a party must serve that witness with a subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985, subd. (a).)
Nonparty witnesses must be personally served with a subpoena. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 1985, subd. (a), 1987, subd. (a); In Re Adams (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 685, 687- 695 (service of subpoena on witness is only way to exercise jurisdiction over a witness).)
Service on the nonparty’s attorney does not confer jurisdiction over the nonparty.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987, subd. (a).) In some cases, the person receiving the subpoena may agree to accept service by an overnight delivery service such as FED-X or UPS, electronic mail, or authorize their attorney to accept service on their behalf. The party issuing and serving the subpoena is responsible for determining a service method that complies with California law. OAH’s website contains information about how to serve a subpoena. The link for OAH’s Self-Help page for serving subpoenas is: OAH/Case- Types/Special-Education/Self-Help/Subpoenas.
YMCA demonstrated that the subpoena issued to Jennifer Virrueta was not properly served. Therefore, the subpoena is quashed.
ORDER
1. YMCA’s motion to quash Student’s subpoena to Jennifer Virrueta is granted.
2. Student shall immediately serve a copy of this order on Jennifer Virrueta .
Jennifer Kelly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings