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 # 26-05261
RULING ON MULTIPLE MOTIONS
On April 1, 2026, Springfield Public Schools (Springfield or the District) filed a request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) to issue a Subpoena duces tecum to Sarah Bowler and Stephanie Guyette, both employees of the Department of Children and Families (DCF), to testify at the at the due process hearing in the instant matter on May 11, 2026, and to produce Student’s Service Plan and “[a]ny DCF dictation, notes, or summaries created within the time from of September 1, 2025 to April 30, 2026 that specifically relate to the Student’s educational placement, services, or performance in the South Hadley Public Schools and the Springfield Public Schools, including records of all communications received and sent to [Student’s Guardian Ad Litem/Education Surrogate (GAL)].”
On the same date, Springfield filed a Motion To Modify Time To Produce Documents To Springfield (Motion to Modify Time), asking the Hearing Officer to shorten the 30 day timeframe for DCF to respond to the Subpoena duces tecum on the grounds that the requested documents are directly relevant to the issues in dispute in this matter and that “the current hearing date is scheduled for May 11, 2026 and/or key deadlines are imminent.” In addition, Springfield asserted that “[a]bsent expedited production, Springfield will be prejudiced in its ability to adequately prepare for hearing and/or participate meaningfully in this proceeding.”
On April 22, 2026, GAL filed Guardian Ad Litem’s Opposition To District’s Discovery
Requests [1], Subpoena Duces Tecum, And Motion To Modify Time For Production, asserting that they should be denied because they are untimely, overly broad, and seek protected and unnecessary information. GAL contends that the District has not shown good cause for expedited response to subpoenas, as any urgency is self-created by its failure to act earlier. The requests are characterized as a “fishing expedition,” seeking sweeping categories of documents, including DCF records and all GAL communications, without sufficient relevance or limitation. GAL further asserts that the materials sought include protected work product, confidential DCF records, and highly sensitive clinical information, all of which require heightened protection under Massachusetts law. Additionally, GAL argues that the requests are unfair and not reciprocal, as the District has not produced comparable materials, and that the District already has sufficient educational records to address the issues in the case.
On the same day, GAL also filed Guardian Ad Litem’s Motion For Protective Order (Updated) (Motion for Protective Order), requesting a protective order to block the District from accessing certain materials, arguing they are confidential, privileged, and irrelevant to the case. GAL asserts that the District has not shown that the requested information is relevant or necessary to determining whether the student is receiving a free appropriate public education. The materials sought include GAL work product, DCF records, and sensitive personal information. GAL contends that disclosure would risk exposing confidential child welfare information and litigation strategy without justification. Accordingly, GAL asks the BSEA to limit discovery, exclude protected materials, require in camera review and redactions, restrict use of any disclosed information to the current proceeding, and mandate its return or destruction afterward.
On April 23, 2026, Springfield filed Motion For Protective Order tо Close Hearing For Student In the Custody Of the Department of Children and Families (Motion to Close Hearing), requesting to close the BSEA Hearing to the public to preserve Student's rights afforded to him as а child in the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF).[2] As grounds, Springfield asserted that an open, public hearing for Student conflicts with Student’s statutory and regulatory rights to confidentiality; that there are no educational interests in holding public hearing; and that Student is not able to complete a "knowing waiver" for a public hearing. Springfield requested that the Hearing Officer issue an order (i) denying a public hearing of this matter, (ii) in the alternative, requiring GAL, with notice to DCF and Springfield, to seek an order of the Juvenile Court authorizing a public hearing and disclosure of confidential DCF "to the public," and (iii) granting such other relief as the Hearing Officer deems just and proper.
On the same day, GAL filed Guardian Ad Litem’s Opposition To District’s Motion To Close Hearing, asserting that the District has failed to show any specific need for full closure or explain why less restrictive options would not suffice. GAL asserts that under the IDEA confidentiality concerns should be addressed through targeted safeguards, such as redactions, in camera review, or limiting specific testimony. Moreover, DCF confidentiality laws protect particular information, not whole hearings. GAL also noted that prior discussions with DCF counsel had already identified safeguards as the appropriate approach, making the District’s request for full closure unjustified.
On April 24, 2026, DCF filed the Department Of Children And Families’ Opposition To Motion To Modify Time To Produce Documents, opposing the Motion to Modify Time. DCF argued that the District has not shown good cause for expedited responses to the Subpoenas duces tecum, especially since DCF had only been joined as a party on April 6, 2026, and Springfield’s claim that the documents are relevant fails to justify the burden of accelerated production.DCF also stated that it could not meet the proposed timeline due to Counsel’s pre-scheduled unavailability from April 27 to May 1, especially as the requested documents must be reviewed for privilege and compliance with confidentiality laws.
At the same time, DCF filed a Request For Postponement Of Pending Hearing (Motion for Postponement), seeking to postpone the May 11, 2026, hearing to a date in June to allow adequate time for discovery, witness availability, and potential resolution. DCF explained that when the hearing date was initially selected, no discovery requests or subpoenas had been issued, and it anticipated being able to proceed; however, subsequent developments, including the Subpoena duces tecum, the need to review and redact confidential records, and counsel’s unavailability from April 27 to May 1, make compliance with current deadlines impracticable. DCF also noted that any production of its records will require a protective order to comply with confidentiality laws, and that ongoing negotiations over multiple proposed protective orders cannot realistically be completed before the current hearing date. Additionally, at least one subpoenaed witness has not yet confirmed availability. Finally, DCF stated that the parties are engaged in renewed settlement discussions that may resolve the matter, and that a continuance would allow those efforts to proceed. Accordingly, DCF argues that postponement is necessary to ensure proper preparation, compliance, and the potential for resolution without a hearing.[3]
Via email dated the same day, the District indicated it would agree to a postponement.
On April 27, 2026, GAL filed GAL’s Formal Objection To Postponement, Clarification
Of Issues, And Renewed Request For Interim Relief, objecting to the requested postponement and arguing that the case is ready to proceed and that further delay is unwarranted and harmful to Student. GAL contended that discovery requests cannot justify postponement while Student remains in a placement he fears. Accordingly, GAL urges denial of the postponement; alternatively, if a delay is granted, GAL renewed her request for interim relief, including Student’s immediate removal to a less restrictive placement with appropriate supports and transportation.
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). In addition, I note that Student is currently in the custody of DCF
DCF; that DCF is a party in the instant matter; and, that GAL has requested a public
hearing in this matter.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The BSEA’s Authority to Issue and Quash Subpoenas
Both the of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (BSEA Hearing Rules) and the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure allow Hearing Officers to issue, vacate or modify subpoenas.[4] Pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule VII B:
“Upon the written request of a party, the BSEA shall issue a subpoena to require a person to appear and testify and, if requested, to produce documents at the hearing. A party may also request that the subpoena duces tecum direct the documents subpoenaed from a non-party be delivered to the office of the party requesting the documents prior to the hearing date.”
According to BSEA Hearing Rule VII C:
“A person receiving a subpoena may request that a Hearing Officer vacate or modify the subpoena. A Hearing Officer may do so upon a finding that the testimony or documents sought are not relevant to any matter in question or that the time or place specified for compliance or the breadth of the material sought imposes an undue burden on the person subpoenaed.”[5]
Public Hearings
In accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), at the parent's choice, an impartial due process hearing may be open to the public.[6] The IDEA and its regulations also require that due process hearings maintain student confidentiality, as do the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Massachusetts student record laws and regulations.[7] Specifically, even if parents choose to open the hearing to the public, they do not waive their right to prevent disclosures of records submitted into evidence at the hearing.[8]
Postponements
BSEA Hearing Rulle III(A) addresses postponements and states as follows:
“1. All requests for postponement of a hearing must be submitted in writing to the Hearing Officer and the opposing party. Except in extraordinary circumstances, a postponement request must be received at least six (6) business days before the scheduled hearing date. The request must set out the specific length of the extension requested, the reasons for the request, proposed alternate dates for the hearing, and indicate that all parties have been notified.
2. A party may agree to or oppose a request to postpone a hearing in writing. Opposition to a request for postponement will be given serious consideration by the Hearing Officer.
3. A Hearing Officer may grant an extension of the 45-day timeline at the written request of a party and only for good cause. The Hearing Officer will issue a written ruling on the request, documenting the length of the extension or the new date by which the Hearing Officer will mail the decision to the parties and the basis for the ruling. 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c).”
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS
I note at the outset that although GAL opposes the and subpoena requests, she is not the subject of the subpoena. Only DCF, as the entity named in the subpoena may request that a Hearing Officer vacate or modify it.[9] I also note that although GAL has been appointed as an Education Surrogate, it is unclear that her duties allow her to seek to quash a subpoena of records to DCF on behalf of Student.[10] As such, GAL’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.
However, DCF’s objection to Springfield’s Motion to Modify Time has merit. Based on the record before me, I find that Springfield has not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a response by DCF to the Subpoena duce tecum by May 1, 2026. Although the Subpoena duces tecum may seek information relevant to the issues identified for hearing, DCF has been a party to the instant dispute since April 6, 2026, and, as such, the District has had sufficient time to pursue discovery earlier. Therefore, Springfield’s Motion to Modify is DENIED. The parties are encouraged to work together to develop a reasonable timeline for an exchange of documents.
Although DCF Counsel has argued confidentiality implications with respect to the District’s Subpoena duces tecum, DCF has yet to file a Motion to Quash or Modify the District’s Subpoena Duces Tecum and has yet to formally request a Protective Order from the BSEA. As such, the BSEA will issue the Subpoena duces tecum requested by the District with a response period of thirty (30) calendar days unless the parties can agree to a shorter timeline.
Regarding Springfield’s Motion to Close Hearing, I reiterate my prior finding in the April 20 Ruling that GAL, as Student’s Education Surrogate, has the right to request a public hearing. Nevertheless, as Hearing Officer Byrne reasoned in In Re: Ollie v. Springfield Public Schools, BSEA #21-02164 (2021),
“When a hearing is limited to participants who are actually involved in the day-to-day life of the student and have pertinent knowledge of the history and parameters of the dispute, the Hearing Officer, the Parties and their lawyers may exercise a degree of supervision and/or control over the disclosure of the confidential student and family information that is routinely and necessarily discussed during an IDEA Hearing. For example, unauthorized disclosure of confidential student information by school personnel may result in serious professional consequences. (See e.g., FERPA) [(citation omitted)]. That control evaporates when a hearing is open to the public. And that lack of control over student information and family privacy expands exponentially when sensitive information is available to unknown parties on electronic platforms. The BSEA has no authority to enforce restraints on the recording, duplication, exchange, publication, dissemination, disclosure, alteration, use or misuse of student or family information, images or voices. It is reasonably foreseeable that highly sensitive personal information about [the Student] and the Parent could be made public and could result in significant personal and professional harm. It is doubtful that the framers of the IDEA anticipated the sort of information world in which we currently find ourselves. Nevertheless, the plain language of the governing statute offers no alternative to granting the Parent’s open hearing request.”[11]
As such, a public hearing in this matter will take place in accordance with GAL’s request but only if certain procedural preconditions are first met. Specifically, at least seven (7) days prior to first day of Hearing, GAL will make a knowing and voluntary waiver of all confidentiality, privacy, and student record protections that she, on behalf of Student, is otherwise entitled to in a closed hearing.
Relative to DCF’s request for postponement, I find that my finding herein denying the District’s Motion to Modify Time negates any reason to postpone the hearing. Therefore, DCF’s Motion to Postpone is DENIED.
Because the request for postponement is denied, GAL’srequest for interim relief is also DENIED.
ORDER
Springfield’s Motion to Modify Time is DENIED.
GAL’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.
Springfield’s Motion tо Close Hearing is ALLOWED with prejudice unless and until GAL submits an affidavit making a knowing and voluntary waiver of all confidentiality, privacy, and student record protections that she, on behalf of Student, is otherwise entitled to in a closed hearing. If such an affidavit is not received seven days prior to the hearing, the hearing in this matter will be closed to the public.
DCF’s Motion for Postponement is DENIED. GAL’srequest for interim relief is also DENIED.
So ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: April 29, 2026
Footnotes
[1] It is unclear what discovery requests GAL refers to in her Opposition.
[2] On April 20, 2026, I issued Ruling on Multiple Motions filed on February 19, 2026 (the April 20 Ruling), in which I explained, in part, that “a Guardian Ad Litem Education Surrogate’s duties encompass the initiation of a due process hearing when she determines such action to be appropriate. Further, because the IDEA grants parents the right to open the hearing to the public, in the instant matter, where GAL has requested a ‘public hearing,’ GAL has the authority to make such request.”
[3] Counsel for DCF also noted via email dated April 24, 2026 that “any request for the Department's documents necessarily implicates confidential information protected by G.L. c. 119, §§51 E and 51F; G.L. c. 66A (“FIPA”); G.L. c. 4, §7 clause 26 and G.L. c. 30, §42 and G.L. c. 66 (Public Records Law); and G.L. c. 210, §5C and 5D. Where the release of the documents sought is governed by 110 CMR 12.00, and where a parent does not consent to the release of the sought information, such documents cannot be disclosed without a court order. Because the [] applicable records and confidentiality laws are something that I believe the parties can reach some level of accord on, I believe the Department's Request for Postponement provides the best avenue to ensure that everyone has everything they need in compliance with relevant laws and regulations. This includes [GAL’s] motions….”
[4] See 801 CMR 1.01(10)(g) and BSEA Hearing Rules VII B and C.
[5] See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3).
[6] See 34 CFR 300.512(c)(2); see also 20 USC 1415(f)(1).
[7] See 20 USC 1232(g); 34 CFR 300.99 M.G.L. c. 71 §34D; 603 CMR 23.00; see 20 USC 1415(b)(7)(a) and (h)(4)(a).
[8] See Oakstone Cmty. Sch. v. Williams, No. 2:11-CV-01109, 2012 WL 1185988, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 9, 2012) (“The fact that the redacted transcript of the administrative hearing is available for viewing by the public on the website of the Ohio Department of Education is not dispositive. The exhibits and transcript contain a detailed discussion of A.W.'s educational history. A.W. is a minor who has a privacy interest in the school records. This Court should not further the dissemination of those records. The public's interest in knowing how the Court adjudicates the claims before it is adequately protected by the parties filing documents containing information about which A.W. has a privacy interest under seal and simultaneously filing a public document that redacts the information about which A.W. has a privacy interest. The public then is well-informed about the litigation and A.W.'s privacy interest is protected”); see also Letter to Schad,105 LRP 4754 (FPCO 2004) (“there is no basis in FERPA or Part B concluding that education records maintained by a school district may be disclosed without prior written consent because a parent previously permitted them to be submitted into evidence at an open public hearing, or that transcripts of the district's open hearing that contain information directly related to a student are not entitled to protection as education records under FERPA”).
[9] See BSEA Hearing Rule VII(C).
[10] See 110 CMR 12.07 )” Whenever any Department records, documents or information are sought by compulsory legal process (subpoena, etc.) in any civil proceeding (for criminal proceedings, see 110 CMR 4.53) the Department shall not release such records until the Department has made reasonable efforts to notify each data subject identified in the records, so that he/she has reasonable time to seek to have the process quashed, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 66A, § 2(k)”).
[11] In Re: Ollie v. Springfield Public Schools, BSEA #21-02164 (Byrne, 2021); see also Student v. Medford Public Schools, BSEA #20-02451 (Figueroa, 2019) (“… the BSEA lacks authority to order anyone not directly connected with the Hearing to abstain from discussing or publishing on social media what they heard at the open hearing. The only way to maximize the likelihood that Student’s confidentiality will be preserved in the context of a BSEA hearing is by holding a closed hearing. Once the hearing is open, Parents must be prepared for the possibility that attendees who are neither employees of [the District] nor the BSEA, may discuss and divulge information related to the open hearing, and the Hearing Officer lacks authority to prevent or sanction said discussions in any context, including internet and/or social media”).