COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Leominster Public Schools BSEA # 2610128
RULING ON
PARENT’S OPPOSITION TO THE DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION AND CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY;
PARENT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER;
AND
LEOMINSTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO POSTPONE AUTOMATIC HEARING DATE
On March 29, 2026, Leominster Public Schools (Leominster or the District) filed a status update with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) indicating that on March 27, 2026, Parent agreed to participate in mediation through the BSEA in lieu of the resolution meeting. Leominster stated that it would contact the BSEA mediator for scheduling, include the Parent in the correspondence, and provide an additional status update once a mediation date is confirmed. Leominster also asserted that the Parent’s initial discovery request, dated March 13, 2026, was premature. Leominster noted that Parent re-served its discovery on March 27, 2026, and, in response, the District issued general objections under BSEA Hearing Rule V(C), arguing that the requests were unduly burdensome and overly broad, irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and seeking speculative, confidential, privileged, or protected information. Leominster stated that it would provide specific objections in its formal response, which it contended were due within 30 calendar days of March 27, 2026, citing BSEA Hearing Rules V(B) and V(C).
In response, on March 30, 2026, Parent filed Parent’s Opposition To The District’s Motion For Extension And Cross-Motion To Compel Discovery (Motion to Compel Discovery), seeking an order compelling immediate discovery on the grounds that the District had violated procedural rules and delayed producing critical safety information. Specifically, according to Parent, the District missed the mandatory deadline under BSEA Rule V(C) (i.e., failed to object to discovery within 10 days), thereby waiving that right. In addition, because Student has an 85% failure rate on safety goals, the District’s delay in producing safety records is a serious risk.Parent argued that the resolution period ended when the District waived the resolution meeting in favor of mediation, allowing discovery to proceed. Parent has also revoked consent to mediation due to alleged bad faith by the District, requesting to proceed directly to a hearing. Under Rule X(B)(4), Parent also requested all student records, including internal safety logs and behavioral data.
Also on March 30, 2026, Leominster requested that the BSEA issue a subpoena duces tecum to “1722 Behavior & Consulting, Little Smiles Learning Center” seeking the following documents from January 2026 to the present:[1]
1. Complete copies of any and all records, reports, intakes, evaluations, assessments, progress reports, whether formal or informal, tests, test data, test protocols, testing/observations notes, work sheets, data, and measurements pertaining to the Student during this period of time.
2. Complete copies of any and all correspondence, electronic mail messages including attachments referenced in the message, text messages, telephone logs/records, tape recordings, video recordings, photographs, notes, minutes, diaries, letters, and/or memoranda pertaining to the Student including but not limited to correspondence with Parent regarding the Student.
3. Complete copies of any agreements, contracts, bills, invoices relating to any services 1722 Behavior & Consulting, Little Smiles Learning Center has provided, is currently providing, or will provide to Student and/or Parents.
4. Complete copies of any and all documents related to financial aid, scholarships, grants, insurance coverage, and/or public or private funding of any kind pertaining to the Student.
5. Complete copies of any applications for admission and аnу documents maintained by the admissions office, including but not limited to correspondence with the parents.
6. Complete copies of resumes, certifications, and licenses for each teacher teaching the above-referenced student at 1722 Behavior & Consulting, Little Smiles Learning Center.
7. Copies of curriculum, instructional materials, and lesson plans, behavior plans employed bу each service provider at 1722 Behavior & Consulting, Little Smiles Learning Center, in each subject and/or service and/or class for the above-referenced Student.
On the same day, Parent filed Parent’s Emergency Motion To Quash Subpoena And For A Protective Order (Motion to Quash), seeking to quash the subpoena issued by Leominster to 1722 Behavior & Consulting and requested a protective order halting the District’s discovery efforts on the grounds that the subpoena was issued during the resolution period, when discovery was stayed under BSEA Rule V(B), making it premature. Moreover, while the District failed to respond to Parent’s own discovery requests within required timelines, Leominster was pursuing third-party records, which, according to Parent, was an abuse of process. In addition, Leominster’s subpoena requested financial, insurance, and personnel information that Parent argued was unrelated to determining whether the District provided FAPE.As such, Parent requested an order vacating the subpoena, staying all District discovery until Leominster complied with Parent’s outstanding discovery requests (e.g., safety logs), and barring the District from seeking private financial or personnel records from third-party providers.
On April 2, 2026, the District filed Leominster's Objection to [Parent’s] Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena and for а Protective Order, asserting that the hearing is currently scheduled for April 15, 2026, with exhibit books and witness lists due on April 8, 2026. Parent indicated she was available to participate in а resolution session on April 9, 2026, and the District has offered that day to meet. Given that the hearing is not able to move forward until the resolution session has occurred, having witness lists and exhibit books due the day prior to the tentatively scheduled resolution session is not practical and is contrary to the purpose of a resolution session.
Additionally, the District has offered to participate in mediation with Parent, but Parent has declined. During the recent conference call, the District requested а pre-hearing conference should the matter not be resolved at the resolution session. Parent refused. The District requested to schedule а conference call during the week of April 6, and again, Parent refused.
Leominster thus requested the opportunity to participate in the resolution session, schedule a conference call during the week of April 6, and briefly postpone the hearing date to allow for scheduling a pre-hearing conference if needed (Motion to Postpone).
On April 3, 2026, Parent filed Parent’s Response Regarding Discovery, Postponement, And Resolution, agreeing to postpone the April 15, 2026 hearing and to participate in a Resolution Meeting on April 9, 2026, as well as to comply with the District’s subpoena to 1722 Behavior & Consulting, on the condition that the District simultaneously provides the outstanding safety logs and data requested on March 13, 2026. Parent also requested a prompt pre-hearing conference to establish a new hearing schedule and set deadlines for completing discovery. Additionally, Parent agreed to hold the Annual IEP Team meeting either on April 9 (after the resolution session) or April 13, to ensure continuity of Student’s services before the current IEP expires.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The factual background and procedural history of this matter have been described in detail in my previous Rulings. I need not repeat them here, except to note that on March 11, 2026, Parent filed a Hearing Request alleging, in part, that Leominster denied Student, a four-year-old student with an Individualized Education Program (IEP), a free appropriate public education (FAPE), when the District refused to include certain accommodations and/or services relative to safety concerns in Student’s IEP despite private evaluator recommendations; failed to convene a Team meeting; and failed to respond to Parent’s request for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). For relief, Parent requested an order for “immediate dual enrollment”.
The District was responsible for convening the resolution meeting by March 26, 2026, and the end of 30-day resolution session is April 10, 2026. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for the initial hearing date of April 15, 2026.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
1. Discovery
Rule V of the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules) governs the discovery process before the BSEA. Rule V(A) advises that “the parties are encouraged to exchange information cooperatively and by agreement prior to the hearing.” According to Rule V(B), 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. Parties can request of other parties that they produce documents or answer up to 25 interrogatories within thirty (30) calendar days of being served such requests, unless a Hearing Officer orders otherwise.[2] Objections to any discovery requests can be made within ten (10) calendar days of service of the request, or parties can move for a protective order within that timeframe as well.[3]
Furthermore, 801 CMR 1.01(8)(i)[4] authorizes parties who do not receive some or all of the requested discovery responses or answers to file a Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery. 801 CMR 1.01(8)(i) further authorizes a Hearing Officer to issue orders regarding such failure,
“… as are just, including one or more of the following:
1. An order that designated facts shall be established adversely to the Party failing to comply with the order; or
2. An order refusing to allow the disobedient Party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him or her from introducing evidence on designated matters.”
2. The BSEA’s Authority to Issue and Quash Subpoenas
Both the Hearing Rules and the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure allow Hearing Officers to issue, vacate or modify subpoenas.[5] 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.”[6]
3. Postponement
Pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule III(A)(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. In addition, 34 CFR 300.510 (b)(5) dictates that if a district fails to hold the resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of a parent's due process complaint, the parent may seek the intervention of a hearing officer to begin the due process hearing timeline. On the other hand, a parent's failure to participate in the resolution meeting will delay the timelines for the resolution process and the due process hearing until the meeting is held.[7] If the district is unable to obtain the parent’s participation in the resolution meeting it may, at the conclusion of the 30-day period, request that the due process complaint be dismissed under 34 CFR 300.510 (b)(4).
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
1. Motion to Compel Discovery
Here, Parent made her initial discovery requests on March 13, 2026, before the conclusion of the resolution session and before the resolution meeting had been held or waived. Parent subsequently made her discovery request on March 27, 2026, after the parties agreed to proceed to mediation. As such, the District has not missed its deadline to object to Parent’s discovery requests and has not waived that right.
In addition, Parent is reminded that this matter has not been granted expedited status, making expedited discovery production unnecessary despite Parent’s claim that Student has an 85% failure rate on safety goals. While Parent is correct that pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule X(B)(4) and the Massachusetts Student Records Regulations, she has the right to inspect and to receive a copy of all student records pertaining to the student, including school records and papers related to the identification, evaluation, placement, or provision of a free appropriate public education to Student, such right is unrelated to the discovery process.
As such, Parent’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.
2. Motion to Quash
Whether the subpoena duces tecum at issue should be quashed depends on whether the information sought is relevant to the issues for hearing. Here, Parent has placed Student’s behavioral needs into question and the services provided by the District to address such needs into dispute. As such, the information sought from 1722 Behavior & Consulting is relevant to the issues for hearing as it may shed light on Student’s needs, the effectiveness of services, or appropriate educational and behavioral interventions.
Parent specifically disputed the disclosure of insurance and financial information. Parent is correct that such information is not relevant to the core IDEA issues (i.e., FAPE, appropriateness of services). However, interpreting Parent’s Hearing Request liberally, especially her request for “dual enrollment,” the financial information sought may be relevant if Parent is seeking reimbursement or “immediate” placement at Little Smiles Learning Center. Parent’s contention that the District’s request for a subpoena duces tecum was “stayed” under BSEA Rule V(B), and therefore premature, is unpersuasive. Leominster sought the subpoena on March 30, 2026, after the resolution period had concluded. Nor can compliance with the subpoena be conditioned on what Parent refers to as “ the District simultaneously cur[ing] its discovery default by producing the raw safety logs and data requested on March 13, 2026.” The District is entitled to 30 days to respond to Parent’s discovery requests, and its pursuit of its own discovery during that period is a routine and appropriate component of hearing preparation, not an abuse of process.
As such, Parent’s Motion to Quash must be DENIED.
3. The Motion to Postpone
Here, the District has attempted to convene a resolution meeting, but Parent has yet to participate , although I am pleased that since the filing of the District’s Motion to Postpone, Parent has agreed to participate in a resolution meeting and to postpone the hearing to allow resolution discussions to take place. As such, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.510 (b)(3), the hearing may be postponed until after such a meeting is held. The Motion to Postpone is ALLOWED for good cause, and a date certain for the Hearing will be established once the resolution session has occurred.
ORDER:
Parent’s Motion to Compel Discovery is hereby DENIED. Nevertheless, pursuant to 603 CMR 23.07(2), the eligible student or the parent, subject to the provisions of 603 CMR 23.07(5), shall have access to the student record. Access shall be provided as soon as practicable and within ten days after the initial request. Moreover, under the IDEA, districts must comply with a parent's inspection or review request: 1) without unnecessary delay; 2) before any IEP meeting, resolution session, or due process hearing; and 3) in no case more than 45 days after the request has been made.[8] As such, to the extent that it has not yet done so, Leominster must comply with Parent’s student records request immediately.
Parent’s Motion to Quash is also DENIED. However, the financial/insurance information produced in response to the subpoena duces tecum will be handled cautiously. Leominster may not share it with individuals not qualified to offer an opinion, may not make multiple copies of these records, and, after the Hearing, must destroy all copies (other than those maintained in the BSEA file). .
Leominster’s Motion to Postpone is ALLOWED, and a date certain for the Hearing will be established once parent participates in a resolution session.
The parties will participate in a conference call on April 6, 2026 at 3:10PM.The conference line # is 857-327-9245. When prompted, type in 498 093 73#.
The Parties are advised that there will be no reconsideration of any of the rulings contained herein.
So ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: April 6, 2026
Footnotes
[1] These are copied verbatim from the Subpoena Duces Tecum.
[2] See BSEA Hearing Rule V(B)(1) and (2).
[3] See BSEA Hearing Rule V(C).
[4] Pursuant to the Scope of the Rules section introductory to the BSEA Hearing Rules, “Unless modified explicitly by these Rules, hearings are conducted under the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01 et seq.”
[5] See 801 CMR 1.01(10)(g) and BSEA Hearing Rules VII B and C.
[6] See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3).
[7] See 34 CFR 300.510 (b)(3).
[8] See 34 CFR § 300.613(a).