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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION
AND ON
PARENT’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO STAY DISCOVERY
On April 27[1], 2026, Parent filed a Motion for Summary Decision[2], asserting that the Leominster Public Schools’ (Leominster or the District) “own admissions and documented procedural failures constitute a denial of [a free appropriate public education (FAPE)] as a matter of law.” On the same day, she also filed a Motion for a Protective Order and to Stay Discovery, requesting that “all discovery be stayed pending a ruling on the Motion for Summary Decision.”
On May 4, 2026, Leominster filed its Objection to Parent[‘s] Motion for Summary Judgment and Objection to Motion for а Protective Order and Stay to Discovery, asserting that the parties remain in disagreement regarding what constitutes a FАРЕ for the Student, and whether the Parent is entitled to funding for an unapproved applied behavior analysis (АВА) clinic/daycare. Moreover, a dispute exists as to whether the District violated the Team process and predetermined the Student's program, denied the Parent’s meaningful participation, made admissions regarding an alleged "success rate" and "failure rate", and failed to consider a less restrictive environment before proposing а more restrictive placement. As such, this matter is not ripe for summary judgment. In addition, according to Leominster, it timely served its first discovery requests on April 14, 2026, with responses due by May 16, 2026 under applicable rules. Parent’s argument that discovery is premature due to the Individualized Education Program (IEP) review period is irrelevant, particularly given the imminent hearing dates of June 16 and 17, 2026. Parent’s failure to respond to Leominster’s discovery requests is prejudicial to the District’s ability to prepare its defense. Additionally, Parent’s claim that the requests are unduly burdensome is unsupported by specific objections, and her blanket challenge to all discovery should be denied.
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 IEP, a 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”.
RELEVANT FACTS:[3]
1. On April 9, 2026, a Resolution Meeting took place between the parties. The meeting ended after 40 minutes, and Parent felt that no substantive matters had been discussed. During the meeting, Student’s progress was discussed. District progress reports documented a success rate of 15% on primary goals.
2. On Friday, April 10, 2026, at 2:12 PM, the District sent a Meeting Invitation to Student’s private ABA providers for a meeting to take place the following Monday morning. The District labeled the April 13 meeting an "IEP Review."
3. On Sunday, April 12, 2026, at 7:44 PM, the District emailed a drat IEP proposal to Parent.
4. On April 13, 2026, the Team convened. Parent still had outstanding questions relative to programming and placement when the meeting terminated.
5. On April 15, 2026, the District proposed an IEP that included a transition to a "substantially separate" Kindergarten placement for the 2026-2027 school year. According to Parent, this placement was never discussed or proposed by the Team during the April 13 meeting.
6. The April 15, 2026 N1 states that the Team reviewed Student’s data and progress which showed that Student’s maladaptive behaviors were decreasing, and a full-day schedule was proposed to provide the structure and instructional time for the student to continue to successfully access the curriculum and social environment within the public school setting.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
1. Summary Judgment
Pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h), summary decision may be granted when there is “no genuine issue of fact relating to all or part of a claim or defense and [the moving party] is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”[4] Hearing Officers often consult Rule 56 of the Federal and Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure when determining whether to grant summary judgment. Said Rules provide that summary judgment may be granted only if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."[5] A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists if a fact that “carries with it the potential to affect the outcome of the suit” is disputed such that “a reasonable [fact-finder] could resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party.”[6] “As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.”[7]
The moving party bears the burden of proof, and all evidence and inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.[8]
In response to a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”[9] To survive this motion and proceed to hearing, the adverse party must show that there is “sufficient evidence” in its favor that the fact finder could decide for it.[10] In other words, the evidence presented by the non-moving party “must have substance in the sense that it [demonstrates] differing versions of the truth which a factfinder must resolve at an ensuing trial.”[11] The non-moving party’s evidence will not suffice if it is comprised merely of “conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation.”[12]
2. 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 that other parties produce documents or answer up to 25 interrogatories within thirty (30) calendar days of being served such requests, unless a Hearing Officer orders otherwise.[13] Objections to any discovery requests may 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.[14]
Furthermore, 801 CMR 1.01(8)(i)[15] permits 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.”
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
After careful review of the pleadings and submissions, I find that summary decision is not appropriate in this matter. The record reflects multiple genuine disputes of material fact that are central to the determination of whether Student was denied a FAPE. Specifically, the Parties dispute, among other issues: (1) what constitutes an appropriate program and placement for Student; (2) whether the District’s proposed IEP and placement were reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE; (3) whether the District predetermined Student’s program or otherwise violated the Team process; (4) whether Parent was denied meaningful participation; (5) the significance and interpretation of Student’s progress data, including reported success rates; and (6) whether the District failed to consider a less restrictive environment. In addition, factual disputes exist regarding the events surrounding the April 2026 Team meeting and subsequent IEP proposal. These disputed issues are material and require credibility determinations and weighing of evidence, which are not appropriate at the summary decision stage. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the District, as the non-moving party, I cannot conclude that Parent has met her burden to demonstrate that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, Parent’s Motion for Summary Decision is DENIED.
Moreover, pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule V(B), formal discovery may proceed after the filing of a hearing request and the resolution meeting. Here, the District properly served discovery requests on April 14, 2026, with responses due within thirty days. The existence of a thirty-day IEP review period does not toll or otherwise limit the Parties’ discovery obligations under the Hearing Rules.
Parent’s assertion that the discovery requests are unduly burdensome is likewise unavailing as she has failed to identify with specificity which requests are objectionable or to articulate the basis for any particularized burden.
Accordingly, Parent’s Motion for a Protective Order and to Stay Discovery is DENIED.
ORDER:
Parent’s Motion for Summary Decision is hereby DENIED. Parent’s Motion for a Protective Order and to Stay Discovery is also DENIED.
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: May 7, 2026
Footnotes
[1] Parent mailed her filings on April 21, 2026, but they were not received by the Hearing Officer and the opposing party until April 27, 2026.
[2] Parent filed Exhibits A through K in support of her Motion for Summary Decision.
[3] The information in this section is drawn from the parties’ pleadings and is subject to revision in further rulings and decision.
[4] 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h). 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] Id.
[6] French v. Merrill, 15 F.4th 116, 123 (1st Cir. 2021); see Maldanado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576, 581 (1st Cir. 1994).
[7] Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
[8] See id. at 252; see also In Re: Westwood Pub. Sch., BSEA No. 10-1162 (Figueroa, 2010); In Re: Mike v. Boston Pub. Sch., BSEA No. 10-2417 (Oliver, 2010); Zelda v. Bridgewater-Raynham Pub. Sch. and Bristol County Agricultural Sch., BSEA No. 06-0256 (Byrne, 2006).
[9] Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.
[10] Id. at 249.
[11] Mack v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 181 (1st Cir. 1989).
[12] Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990).
[13] See BSEA Hearing Rule V(B)(1) and (2).
[14] See BSEA Hearing Rule V(C).
[15] 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.”