COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In re: Lauren[1] and Pembroke Public Schools
BSEA # 2610288
RULING ON PARENTS’ MOTION TO ENLARGE THE TIME TO FILE
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File (Motion), filed by Parents on May 28, 2026, in connection with Parents’ Response and Objection to Hearing Officer’s Sua Sponte Reframing of Issues for Hearing (Response), which was filed on May 12, 2026. As neither testimony nor oral argument would advance my understanding of the issues involved, I am issuing this Ruling without a hearing, pursuant to Rule VI(D) of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (BSEA Hearing Rules).
For the reasons set forth below, Parents’ Motion is hereby DENIED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 13, 2026, Parents filed a Hearing Request against Pembroke Public Schools (Pembroke, or the District), on behalf of Lauren, a 19-year-old student who had completed twelfth grade of high school and been unilaterally placed by Parents at the Riverview School at the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year. Parents contest Lauren’s proposed graduation date of December 2025, asserting among other things that she has been denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during the relevant time period due to the proposal of inappropriate individualized education programs (IEPs) and the District’s refusal to conduct a three-year reevaluation. They also contend that they were denied their right to meaningfully participate in the development of two IEPs during 2025.
The Hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2026.
On March 27, 2026, Pembroke filed its Response, arguing that its IEPs were reasonably calculated to provide Lauren with a FAPE and the District had met its obligations to her under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
On April 3, 2026, the parties requested a brief postponement, which was allowed for good cause, and the Hearing was scheduled for May 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2026. A further postponement was requested jointly on May 4, 2026, and allowed for good cause. The Hearing is now scheduled for July 30 and 31 and August 3, 4, 6, and 7, 2026.
During a Conference Call on May 4, 2026, the parties discussed the issues for Hearing. The Hearing Officer indicated that a document memorializing these issues, based on the Hearing Request, would be forthcoming and that the parties would have two weeks to respond with a written request for any changes. Parents requested that the response period be limited to one week. On May 4, 2026, the Hearing Officer issued an Order under which parties had “until close of business on May 11, 2026 to submit a written request for any changes to the Proposed Issues for Hearing, enclosed,” accompanied by a document entitled “Proposed Issues for Hearing” (Proposed Issues Document).
The Proposed Issues Document outlined the issues for Hearing as follows:
I. Whether Student was denied the right to a [FAPE] through Pembroke’s actions or inactions as follows:
A. proposing [IEPs] and placements for the periods January 27, 2025 through May 31, 2025, with termination of eligibility thereafter, and/or May 29, 2025 through December 2025, with termination of eligibility thereafter, that were not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE;
B. refusing to conduct a three-year reevaluation of Student in all areas of disability pursuant to Parents’ requests in or about September 2025 and/or March 2026;
C. denying parents the right to participate meaningfully in the development of the January 27, 2025 and/or May 29, 2025 IEPs;
II. If the answer to any part of the above question is yes, whether Parents are entitled to:
A. a finding that Student remains eligible for services throughout the 2025-2026 school year;
B. reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student at the Riverview School for the 2025-2026 school year;
C. a finding that Student is eligible for services during the 2026-2027 school year;
D. prospective placement of Student at the Riverview School for the 2026-2027 school year;
E. reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs of their independent Transition, Speech and Language, and/or Neuropsychological evaluations, and/or for in-school program reviews;
F. expert fees for evaluators’ participation in Team meetings and/or hearings;
G. a three-year re-evaluation of Student at Pembroke’s expense; and/or
H. any other compensatory services.
On May 12, 2026,[2] Parents filed their Response, in which they objected to the fact that the Hearing Officer framed the issues for Hearing. According to Parents, their Hearing Request “sets forth a detailed and intelligible statement of facts, claims, and requested remedies spanning approximately 70 pages and specifically alleges procedural violations, substantive denials of FAPE, unlawful predetermination, denial of meaningful parental participation, inappropriate evaluations, unlawful graduation practices, inappropriate goals and benchmarks, transition failures, reevaluation manipulation, and denial of appropriate post-secondary transition programming.” Rather than request any specific changes to the Proposed Issues Document, Parents assert that the Hearing Officer may not frame the issues for Hearing at all.
On May 13, 2026, the Hearing Officer issued an Order confirming that the Proposed Issues Document would stand as no response had been submitted by either party prior to close of business on May 11, 2026.
On May 22, 2026, Parents responded by electronic mail, explaining through Counsel that they had sent their Response at 5:00 PM and requesting that the Hearing Officer and opposing Counsel confirm receipt.[3] Opposing Counsel responded that she had received Parents’ Response after 5:30 PM on May 11, 2026,[4] as had the undersigned Hearing Officer.
Parents filed the instant Motion to Enlarge on May 28, 2026. According to Parents, their Counsel:
sent an email to the hearing officer and opposing counsel inclusive of Parents’ response to the hearing officer’s reframed issues for hearing on May 11, 2026 at 5:00 pm, as required, but due to technological reasons beyond this attorney’s understanding such email was not received by the opposing counsel until approximately 5:33 pm that same day (an approximate 33 minute delay).
Parents assert that the delay does not prejudice any party, as the hearing is not imminent, and restate their substantive objection to the Proposed Issues.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standards for Enlargement of Time
The BSEA Hearing Rules do not explicitly address motions for enlargement of time, where a party misses the due date for filing. Under the Formal Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure (Standard Rules),[5] a Hearing Officer may,” for good cause shown, extend any time limit contained in 801 CMR 1.00 unless otherwise restricted by law. All requests for extensions of time shall be made by motion before the expiration of the original or next previous extended time period” (emphasis added).[6]
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules) and their state counterpart, the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure (Massachusetts Rules), consulted here for guidance, address this issue. Under the Federal Rules, “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”[7] Similarly, the Massachusetts Rules permit a court, for cause shown and within its discretion, “upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.”[8] Pursuant to Massachusetts and First Circuit case law, “[e]xcusable neglect requires circumstances that are unique or extraordinary,” and is meant “to take care of emergency situations only.”[9] The establishment of excusable neglect is jurisdictional.[10]
II. Application of these Standards Does Not Permit Enlargement Here
As explained above, nothing in the Hearing Rules or the Standard Rules permits the Hearing Officer to grant a motion to enlarge time that was filed more than two weeks after the expiration of the original time period. The Federal Rules and Massachusetts Rules permit such enlargement only upon a showing of excusable neglect.[11]
In the instant matter, Parents assert that they filed their Response and accompanying email at 5:00 PM on May 11, 2026, though the email inboxes of both the Hearing Officer and opposing counsel show that the email was delivered after 5:30 PM on that date. Although the Hearing Officer had offered an additional week for the parties to respond to the Proposed Issues Document, a shorter deadline was ultimately imposed at Parents’ request. The Order issued on May 4, 2026, gave the parties “until close of business on May 11, 2026 to submit a written request for any changes” to the Proposed Issues Document.[12] Parents had seven days, pursuant to their own request, to request any changes. Parents have not pled any excusable neglect in their Motion. Further, even accepting the argument made in the Motion, filing their Response at what was literally the last minute, and thereafter missing the deadline as a result of technological reasons “beyond [their Counsel’s] understanding”, does not constitute excusable neglect.[13] Whether the opposing party was prejudiced by the delay is irrelevant to the jurisdictional analysis.[14]
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Parents’ Motion to Enlarge the Time to File is hereby DENIED.
The matter will proceed to Hearing on July 30 and 31 and August 3, 4, 6, and 7, 2026, on the issues outlined in the Proposed Issues Document.[15]
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Amy Reichbach
Date: June 16, 2026
Footnotes
[1] “Lauren” is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the privacy of the Student in documents available to the public.
[2] As Parents’ Response was submitted after close of business on May 11, 2026, it is deemed filed on May 12, 2026. See 801 CMR 1.01(4)(b) (“Papers received after usual business hours shall be deemed filed on the following business day.”)
[3] Although Parents asserted that their Response and the accompanying email had “cleared” Counsel’s outbox by 5:00 PM, the screenshot attached to the email communication purported to show a “sent” time of 5:00 PM.
[4] The screenshot provided by opposing counsel purported to show that the Response, and the accompanying email, were delivered at 5:33 PM.
[5] Pursuant to the Scope of the Rules section of 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.”
[6] 801 CMR 1.01(4)(e).
[7] Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1).
[8] Mass. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
[9] Feltch v. Gen. Rental Co., 383 Mass. 603, 613-14 (1981); see Student v. Winthrop Public Schools (Ruling on Parents’ Motion for Default), BSEA # 2506433 (Kantor Nir, 2025); see also Spound v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir. 1976) (abrogated on other grounds) (If excusable neglect “includes a mere palpable mistake by experienced counsel, the requirement would be meaningless”).
[10] See Spound, 534 F.2d at 410.
[11] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); Mass. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
[12] I note, moreover, that Parents submitted a challenge to the authority of the Hearing Officer to frame the issues for Hearing, rather than request for any changes to the Proposed Issues Document, as directed in the May 4, 2026 Order.
[13] See Spound, 534 F.2d at 410-11; Feltch, 383 Mass. at 613-14; Winthrop Public Schools.
[14] Spound, 534 F.2d at 410; see also id. at 411 (“Finally, the rule makes no provision for plaintiff’s contention that the defendant was not prejudiced. Such an exception would be limitless.”)
[15] As part of a Hearing Officer’s duties and powers, the BSEA Hearing Rules explicitly provide the Hearing Officer with the ability to “define the issues” for Hearing. BSEA Hearing Rule IX(B)(2). Similarly, pursuant to 603 CMR 28.08(5)(c), the Hearing Officer “shall have the power and the duty to conduct a fair hearing; . . . “to define issues; . . . [and] to take such other steps as are appropriate to assure the orderly presentation of evidence and protection of the parties' rights at the hearing.”