California OAH special education order · February 24, 2026
Order Denying Protective Order Prohibiting Cross-Examination of Student
OAH Case No. 2026010414 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Student's request to bar Castro Valley from cross-examining Student after a math-skill demonstration, because the right to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental part of due process.
This case went to decision
Student v. Castro Valley Unified School District: Castro Valley Unified prevails on all four claims about math assessment, present levels, math instruction, and parent participation. (2026)
Summary
Student asked for a protective order letting Student briefly demonstrate a math skill at hearing in a non-adversarial way, with no cross-examination by Castro Valley afterward. Castro Valley opposed. It argued the demonstration would not be testimony, but that if it happened, the district must be allowed to cross-examine. OAH denied the blanket ban because federal and state law give each party the right to cross-examine witnesses called by the other side. Student may still object to individual questions at hearing, and OAH said it was too early to decide whether the demonstration counts as testimony.
Why it matters
Families cannot get an advance, blanket ban on cross-examining a student who testifies or demonstrates skills at hearing. Their protection comes from objecting to specific questions as the hearing goes on, so plan for any student testimony with that in mind.
Key authority cited
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(a)(2)
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(3)
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.
CASTRO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026010414
ORDER DENYING PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF STUDENT
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
On January 14, 2026, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a request for due process hearing, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Castro Valley as respondent. On February 12. 2026, Student filed a motion for a protective order prohibiting cross-examination of Student when called as a witness during the hearing. On February 18, 2026, Castro Valley filed its opposition to Student’s requested protective order.
The rights of participants in due process hearings involving special education disputes are protected by both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and California special education law. Those rights include the right to cross-examine all witnesses called by an opposing party. (34 C.F.R. § 300.512 (a)(2); Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(3).)
In his motion, Student requests the opportunity to “briefly demonstrate a specific math skill in a controlled, non-adversarial manner, solely to provide the tribunal with an accurate understanding of his abilities.” Student requests that cross-examination be prohibited following this demonstration. Castro Valley asserts such a demonstration would not be testimony; but also contends the district must have the opportunity to cross-examine if Student presents such a demonstration.
Student’s request for a blanket prohibition of cross-examination of Student is denied. The opportunity to cross-examine a witness regarding any testimony is a fundamental element of due process in all special education hearings. Nothing in this order prohibits Student from raising objections he deems meritorious to any individual examination questions posed during hearing. The Administrative Law Judge also called an ALJ, presiding over the hearing will rule on objections when they are stated.
Castro Valley’s assertion that the demonstration described would not be testimony is premature and is not addressed in this order. Nothing prohibits Castro Valley from raising any objection to testimony it deems meritorious during the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings