COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Holyoke Public Schools BSEA # 2610449
CORRECTED RULING ON PARENT’S MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR LIMIT SUBPOENAS
FOR MEDICAL AND DCF RECORDS
On April 13, 2026, Parent filed Parent’s Motion To Quash and/or Limit Subpoenas for Medical and [Department of Children and Families (DCF)] Records (the Motion to Quash). Parent advised that the Motion to Quash was filed “in response to [the Holyoke Public Schools’ (Holyoke or the District)] anticipated requests for records and seeks to ensure that any discovery remains reasonably tailored to the issues for hearing.” Parent moved to quash or limit subpoenas issued (or that would potentially be issued) by the District seeking medical, DCF, and other non-educational records, arguing that the requests would be overly broad and not reasonably tailored to the central issue in the instant matter. While acknowledging the District’s right to relevant evidence, Parent contended that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) focuses on the District’s response to Student’s educational needs, not the underlying causes of those needs. As such, broad access to sensitive medical and family records would improperly expand the scope of the case and invade privacy, especially given that the District already had substantial information about Student’s needs during the relevant period. Parent maintained that references to medical issues in her pleadings were made only to show educational impact and notice, not to open the door to unlimited discovery. Accordingly, Parent requested that any subpoenas sought be quashed or narrowly limited to relevant, time-bound information directly related to Student’s educational functioning and the District’s response thereto, with appropriate privacy protections such as redaction or in camera review.
On April 15, 2026, via email, Holyoke advised that the District would “be submitting to Director [Reece] Erlichman [of the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA)] requests for the issuance of subpoenas this week and does intend, despite the Parent’s motion being unripe at the time of filing on April 13, 2026, [] to respond to the Parent’s motion within the time period provided under Rule VI(C) of the applicable [Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules)].”
On the same date, Holyoke requested that the BSEA issue Subpoenas Duces Tecum to 1) DCF for all documents within its possession, custody, and control relating to 51A reports and 51B investigations from January 1, 2023, to the present regarding Student and Parent; and 2) the Valley West School for all communications to and/or from Student and Parent (or their representatives) pertaining to Student since January 1, 2024; all disciplinary records, incident reports, and reports of investigations conducted by Valley West relative to аnу incidents involving Student while attending Valley West since January 1, 2024; and all communications between Valley West and Holyoke pertaining to Student since January 1, 2024; complete copies of any and all documents pertaining to Student since January 1, 2024; 3) the West Springfield Public Schools for any/all communications to and/from Student and/or Parent or аnу agent or representative of Student and/or Parent pertaining to Parent since January 1, 2022; all disciplinary records, incident reports, and reports of investigations by West Springfield relative to аnу incidents involving Student while attending а West Springfield Public School since January 1, 2023[1]; aII communications between West Springfield and the Holyoke Public Schools pertaining to Student since January 1, 2023; all communications between West Springfield and Parent pertaining to Student since January 1, 2022; all civil complaints, requests for hearing, and/or tort claims presentments served upon West Springfield by Parent, Student, or any of their legal representatives since January 1, 2022; complete copies of any and all records pertaining to Student since January 1, 2022.
On April 16, 2026, Parent filed Parent’s Response to District’s Request for Issuance of Subpoenas, objecting to the overbreadth of the District’s subpoena requests. While acknowledging the District’s right to develop its case, Parent argued that the central inquiry of the hearing must remain focused on whether the District provided Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) based on the information available to the school team at the time decisions were made. Parent requested that the Hearing Officer narrowly tailor any issued subpoenas to include only records that are within the relevant timeframe, directly related to educational functioning, and relevant to the District’s knowledge during the period in dispute. Furthermore, Parent requested that any sensitive medical or DCF records deemed necessary to be produced under these guidelines be subject to safeguards, such as redactions or in-camera reviews, to protect Student's privacy.
On April 21, 2026, the Holyoke Public Schools filed Opposition To The Parent’s Motion To Vacate Or Quash Subpoenas (Opposition), asserting that Holyoke is entitled to conduct discovery to defend against claims that the District caused Student emotional and educational harm and increased service needs. Holyoke noted that Parent’s March 17, 2026 hearing request attributed Student’s difficulties to Holyoke’s actions. To rebut these claims, the District seeks records from Valley West School (where Student was placed and remains), West Springfield Public Schools (to compare Student’s needs before and after enrollment in Holyoke), and the Department of Children and Families (to explore whether external factors, including alleged abuse or related investigations raised by Parent, contributed to Student’s condition). The District maintained that the subpoenas are narrowly tailored, reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, and not unduly burdensome because the records would be produced directly by third parties.
Because neither party requested a hearing on the Motion, 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 Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VI(D).
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As indicated in my April 3, 2026 Ruling on Holyoke Public Schools’ Partial Motion to Dismiss in this matter, the only remaining issue for hearing is whether the District denied Student а FAPE between March 17, 2024, and April 1, 2025.
RELEVANT FACTS[2]
1. Student is eligible for special education under an emotional disability classification, with multiple diagnoses including ADHD, depression, anxiety, and trauma-related disorders. His May 2025 IEP provided for a private day placement at Valley West School, funded by Holyoke.
2. Student attended the Joseph Metcalf Middle School during the 2023–2024 school year. Delayed IEP implementation, staff misunderstandings, and negative interactions contributed to his increased distrust, anxiety, and school avoidance. The District substantiated bullying claims in October 2023 and implemented a safety plan.
3. Despite a December 2023 IEP amendment adding protective supports, Student’s anxiety worsened, leading to school avoidance and hospitalization. Parent raised concerns about IEP implementation. She also questioned a staff comment made about her ( documented in a “DCF 51В response log”) and requested a change in counselor.
4. Following an alleged Title IX incident and delayed investigation, Student stopped attending school on March 18, 2024. A physician later deemed him medically unable to attend due to severe anxiety and depression related to bullying.
5. In June 2024, the District placed Student at Valley West School, where he began attending in July 2024. After the family moved to West Springfield in April 2025, Holyoke remained financially responsible through the end of the school year, while West Springfield assumed programmatic responsibility.
LEGAL STANDARDS
1. The BSEA’s Authority to Issue and Quash Subpoenas
Both the Hearing Rules and the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, which also govern due process hearings at the BSEA, allow Hearing Officers to issue, vacate or modify subpoenas.[3] 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.”[4]
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS
Whether the Subpoenas Duces Tecum at issue should be quashed depends on whether the information sought is relevant to the issues for hearing (i.e., whether the District denied Student а FAPE between March 17, 2024, and April 1, 2025). I address each separately.
With respect to Holyoke’s request for a Subpoena Duces Tecum to DCF for 51A reports and 51B investigations concerning Student and Parent from January 1, 2023 to the present, I note that Parent’s claim arises from statements allegedly made by a school counselor during a 51B investigation, which, according to Parent’s timeline, occurred prior to March 17, 2024. To the extent such statements or DCF involvement may bear on the provision of a FAPE during the relevant period, and relevant context may exist immediately before and after the March 17, 2024, to April 1, 2025 timeframe, the information sought by the subpoena is warranted, as it may lead to relevant and admissible evidence. However, the request is overly broad in seeking records through the present, as there is no reason for the District to explore whether external factors are currently impacting Student’s condition. Given that relevant context may exist immediately before and after this timeframe, the Motion to Quash is ALLOWED in part, limiting the subpoena to records within the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 school years, and is otherwise DENIED.
With respect to Holyoke’s request that the BSEA issue a Subpoena Duces Tecum to the Valley West School, I find that the request is generally appropriate insofar as the Student attended the program during the relevant time period between March 17, 2024 and April 1, 2025. Because discovery can cover a reasonable window beyond the timeframe associated with issues for a hearing,(cite?) as it may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and because Parent has asserted that Student experienced emotional and educational harm as a result of actions taken or not taken by the Holyoke Public Schools, it is reasonable that records from Valley West School, where Student remains to date, will lead to relevant and admissible information. As such, the Motion to Quash relative to Valley West School is DENIED.
With respect to Holyoke’s request that the BSEA issue a Subpoena Duces Tecum to the West Springfield Public Schools, I find that the request is appropriate. Specifically, because West Springfield became programmatically responsible for Student on April 1, 2025, records reflecting the transition of responsibility, as well as communications between West Springfield and Holyoke pertaining to Student during that time, may be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. In addition, because Parent asserted that Student experienced emotional and educational harm as a result of actions taken or not taken by the Holyoke Public Schools during the Student’s enrollment in the District, it is reasonable that records from West Springfield will yield relevant and admissible information. As such, the Motion to Quash relative to West Springfield School District is DENIED.
ORDER
Parent’s Motion to Quash is ALLOWED in part, insofar as it requests that the Subpoena Duces Tecum relative to DCF be limited to records within the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 school years, and is otherwise DENIED. In addition, information produced in response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum addressed to DCF will be handled cautiously. Holyoke may not share it with individuals not qualified to offer an opinion in this matter, may not make multiple copies of these records, and, after the Hearing, shall destroy all copies (other than those maintained in the BSEA file).
So ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: April 21, 2026
Footnotes
[1] In the Subpoena Duces Tecum addressed to West Springfield Public Schools, the District requests some documents from January 1, 2022 and others from January 1, 2023.
[2] The following facts are derived from the pleadings and are subject to change in subsequent rulings or decision.
[3] See 801 CMR 1.01(10)(g) and BSEA Hearing Rules VII(B) and (C).
[4] See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3).