COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Springfield Public Schools & Department of Children and Families
BSEA # 2605261
RULING ON MULTIPLE MOTIONS BY GUARDIAN AD LITEM
On April 24, 2026, Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) filed Guardian Ad Litem’s Motion For Limited Production Of Empowerment Zone Communications (Discovery Motion). In it she seeks limited production of non-privileged communications between the Springfield Public Schools (Springfield or the District) and the Empowerment Zone, arguing that such information is necessary to evaluate the District’s proposed extended evaluation location and ensure delivery of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to Student. According to GAL, although the District claims the Empowerment Zone is a separate entity, it also relies on a program within it (i.e., SEBS), making their relationship directly relevant. GAL requested communications showing program coordination for the proposed Commerce High School SEBS evaluation, authority and oversight of special education services, and student-specific coordination.
On the same date, GAL filed Guardian Ad Litem’s Motion For Reconsideration (Motion for Reconsideration), stating that the District’s formal proposal to conduct an extended evaluation in a SEBS therapeutic program at Commerce significantly alters the case by making an Empowerment Zone program central to the dispute. As a result, evidence about the Commerce program’s structure, services, and oversight is now directly relevant. GAL also highlighted an inconsistency in the District’s position, noting it previously claimed the Empowerment Zone was separate and irrelevant but now relies on it for placement. GAL requested reconsideration and permission to introduce related testimony and evidence.
On April 24, 2026, GAL requested an immediate ruling on her April 24, 2026, motion regarding the Empowerment Zone (Motion for Default Judgment), noting that neither Springfield Public Schools nor the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has filed any opposition, leaving the motion unrebutted. She further stated that the District was not considering in-district placements and planned to delay placement for Student until fall 2026 to pursue Commerce High School, while keeping Student in an acknowledged inappropriate placement.
On the same date, Springfield filed Response To Education Gal’s Motion For Limited Production Of Empowerment Zone Documents And “Default” Ruling, opposing GAL’s motions. The District characterized GAL’s Discovery Motion as an improper request for reconsideration tied to the District’s proposal for an extended evaluation in the SEBS program at Commerce High School. According to Springfield, GAL’s request was vague, overbroad, irrelevant, and unnecessary, particularly because testimony from Dr. Marisa McCarthy could explain the SEBS program and its oversight. The District also clarified that Commerce High School will no longer be part of the Empowerment Zone as of July 1, 2026. Springfield maintained that Student’s current placement at Springfield High School remains appropriate and has resulted in improved functioning. The District further argued that the BSEA’s role was to assess the appropriateness of programming, not to mandate a specific school building.
Also on April 24, 2026, DCF indicated it took no position on GAL’s Motions.
Because none of the parties requested a hearing on any of the Motions, and neither testimony nor oral argument would advance the Hearing Officer's understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Rule VI(D) of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The factual background and procedural history of this matter are extensive and have been described in detail in my previous Rulings. I need not repeat them here, except to note that the issues in this hearing include whether Springfield failed to consult with GAL when providing a comparable setting for Student, whether Student’s program at Springfield High School is comparable to Student’s last accepted placement, and whether Student’s current placement offers him a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (including whether Student requires door-to-door transportation). The hearing is scheduled to begin on May 11, 2026.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
1. Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration of a ruling may be allowed where a party alleges any manifest errors of law or fact, new information, or an intervening change in law that warrants reconsideration.[1]
2. Discovery
BSEA Hearing Rule V addresses discovery. In relevant part, it states:
“B. Discovery
The term "discovery" refers to formal requests for, and exchanges of, information. Unless the case has been granted expedited status, formal requests for information may be made at any time after a request for hearing is filed and the resolution meeting, when required, has been held or waived. Discovery may occur in the form of written questions (interrogatories), written requests for records (production of documents), or testimony under oath taken outside of a hearing (deposition).
The party upon whom the request is served shall respond within a period of thirty (30) calendar days unless a shorter or longer period of time is established by the Hearing Officer….
C. Objections/Protective Orders
The party upon whom a request for discovery is served may, within ten (10) calendar days of service of the request, file with the Hearing Officer objections to the request or move for a protective order. Disputes regarding discovery shall be resolved whenever possible by conference call. Protective orders may be issued to protect a party from undue burden, expense, delay, or as otherwise deemed appropriate by the Hearing Officer. Orders of the Hearing Officer may include limitations on the scope, method, time and place for discovery or provisions protecting confidential information.”
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
I note at the outset that the record to date does not reflect that the District has proposed placement of Student in the Commerce High School SEBS program. Nor has either party filed an amendment to the Hearing Request seeking my review of the SEBS program’s appropriateness for Student. As such, its appropriateness is not an issue before me for the hearing scheduled to begin on May 11, 2026.
1. Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
GAL asserts that the District’s proposal to conduct an extended evaluation in the SEBS program at Commerce constitutes new and material information warranting reconsideration. This proposal is neither an issue before me nor does it rise to the level of newly discovered evidence or a material change that undermines the basis of any prior ruling. The proposed evaluation is prospective in nature and does not alter the core issues before the BSEA, which concern the appropriateness of Student’s current and proposed programming. Accordingly, GAL’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
2. GAL’s Motion for Discovery is DENIED.
GAL seeks production of communications between the District and the Empowerment Zone regarding program coordination, oversight, and Student-specific matters. Discovery under BSEA Hearing Rule V must be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and must not impose an undue burden. Here, GAL’s request seeks “communications” without adequate limitations on time, scope, or specificity. Moreover, GAL has not demonstrated that such communications are necessary, particularly where the appropriateness of the SEBS program is not an issue before me. As such, GAL’s Motion for Discovery is DENIED.
3. GAL’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED.
GAL’s request for a “default” ruling based on the absence of an immediate opposition is without merit. The BSEA does not enter default judgments in the manner contemplated by civil court practice, particularly in the context of ongoing administrative proceedings concerning a student’s educational program. Even without a response from the District and/or DCF, the Hearing Officer retains an independent obligation to assess the merits of any motion, and relief cannot be granted solely on the basis that a motion is unopposed. GAL’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED.
ORDER:
GAL’s Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Discovery, and Motion for Default Judgment are hereby DENIED.
So ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: May 6, 2026
Footnotes
[1] See In Re: Student & Braintree Public Schools (Ruling on Parent’s Requests), BSEA# 25-11326 (Mitchell, 2025) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 and to Villanueva-Mendez v. Nieves Vazquez, 360 F.Supp.2d 320, 323 (D. Mass. 2005) (internal citations omitted) (“… a motion for reconsideration cannot be used as a vehicle to relitigate and/or rehash matters already litigated and decided by the Court. These motions are entertained by Courts if they seek to correct manifest errors of law or fact, present newly discovered evidence, or when there is an intervening change in law”)).