COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Dartmouth Public Schools BSEA # 2610450
RULING ON PARENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND SUBPOENA COMPLIANCE; AND
DARTMOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO VACATE SUBPOENA
On March 17, 2026, Parent requested a Hearing in the above-referenced matter. The Hearing was subsequently postponed for good cause on April 9, 2026, at the request of Dartmouth Public Schools (Dartmouth or District). Parent’s Hearing Request alleges denials of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2025-2026 school year. Specifically, Parent’s Hearing Request alleges that the District failed to implement Student’s IEP services, did not provide prior written notice to Parent, did not consider outside evaluations, prevented Parent from participating in the Team process, and retaliated by declining to offer services. The Hearing is scheduled to proceed on May 27, 2026.
Parent served the District with a Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories on or about April 8, 2026.
On April 14, 2026, Parent requested that the BSEA issue a subpoena duces tecum (subpoena) to the District’s Information Technology Department seeking information in six areas and involving several individuals. Parent’s first request seeks actual email content for communications involving six named staff members[1] and “any [Dartmouth High School] (DHS) guidance, counseling, special education, or administrative staff involved in decisions” regarding Student, related to “the December 5, 2025 Team meeting, parent-requested supports, development, revision or editing of [Student’s] IEP, the January 12, 2026 removal of trusted-adult support, parent corrections submitted December 15, 2025, decisions to accept, reject, or modify supports, internal discussions of Student’s anxiety, counseling access or need for support”. The remainder of Parent’s requests involved: 1) Email Server Logs (Metadata); 2) Microsoft Teams Logs; 3) Archive and Backup Records; 4) Search Methodology Documentation; and 5) Retention Policy Documentation. According to Parent, the information was necessary for,
• [For p]arity of discovery.
• [To v]erify the completeness of the district’s responses to Parent’s [public record’s request] (PRR)[2], [Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act] (FERPA), and Rule V(B) requests.
• [To c]onfirm whether internal communications exist regarding the December 5, [2025] Team agreement and the January 12, [2026] removal of trusted-adult support.
• [To e]stablish an accurate and complete record of the district’s internal documentation practices.
Parent’s subpoena request makes reference to items previously requested under FERPA, 603 CMR 23.00, and her April 8, 2026, discovery requests. The BSEA issued the subpoena requested by Parent on April 14, 2026.
On April 17, 2026, Dartmouth filed Objections to Parent’s First Request for Production of Documents and Parent’s First Set of Interrogatories. Dartmouth agreed to produce records responsive to Parent’s requests that were within the District’s possession, custody and control, in addition to producing documents consistent with 603 CMR 23.00 that were not subject to the District’s specific objections. Dartmouth objected to producing any documents or responses that were: confidential or privileged consistent with the attorney-client and work product doctrines; were overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant/ admissible evidence; called for legal conclusions and/ or assumed facts not in evidence.
On April 23, 2026, Parent filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and Subpoena Compliance seeking an order for Dartmouth to respond to her requests for documents, interrogatories and for records responsive to the subpoena by a deadline set by the BSEA.[3]
On April 23, 2026, Dartmouth filed an Opposition to Parent’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Subpoena Compliance and Motion to Vacate Subpoena, noting that Parent’s discovery and the items subpoenaed were duplicative of each other, exceeded the scope of what would likely lead to the discovery of relevant information and admissible evidence at hearing given the issues disputed. Dartmouth specifically noted that “between January and April of 2026, the Parent has made and appealed approximately forty-two public records requests to the Secretary of State’s office” and argued that the BSEA was not the appropriate forum to address the Parties’ ongoing public records requests disputes. Lastly, the District argued that Parent’s requests sought disclosure of information protected and privileged consistent with the attorney-client and work product doctrines. As such, Dartmouth asked that Parent’s subpoena be vacated consistent with Rule VII. C. of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals.
On April 24, 2026, Parent filed a Notice of Procedural Conflict Relevant to Pending Motions advising that the District had asked the State’s Supervisor of Records to dismiss Parent’s PRR appeal on the grounds that the same records were being sought under subpoena issued by the BSEA. Parent argued that the District improperly seeks dismissal of Parent’s records related actions with the State of Massachusetts and the BSEA arguing to each agency that Parent’s requests are pending before the other forum. Parent asserts that the District’s position limits her ability to receive documents responsive to her requests which she would need in order to present her case at Hearing. The District responded the same date, noting that any conflict or confusion resulted from Parent’s actions in trying to use the BSEA to investigate and prosecute claims against the District currently pending before the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Public Records Division.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
BSEA’S AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AND QUASH SUBPOENAS:
Both, the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules) and the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure applicable to BSEA proceedings, grant Hearing Officers authority to issue, vacate or modify subpoenas.[4] Rule VII. B. of the Hearing Rules provides that,
[u]pon 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.
Furthermore, pursuant to 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]
Application of Legal Standards:
In the case at bar, Parent has requested production of records through FERPA, 603 CMR 23.00, BSEA discovery requests and a subpoena issued by the BSEA. Only the last two, information sought through discovery requests and/ or subpoenas issued in the context of a BSEA proceeding, fall within the jurisdictional authority of BSEA Hearing Officers.
Review of Parent’s discovery requests and subpoena requests show that they are overly broad, burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant/ admissible evidence at Hearing. Moreover, some of Parent’s requests may be protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges. As such, the District’s objections to Parent’s requests for documents and interrogatories are SUSTAINED and the District’s Motion to Vacate the Subpoena is ALLOWED in Part. Parent’s requests involving Email Server Logs (Metadata), Microsoft Teams Logs, Archive and Backup Records, Search Methodology Documentation, and Retention Policy Documentation, need not be produced as these are not relevant to the issues for Hearing. The District shall produce information pertaining to Student maintained by the District in Student’s file, as well as in any other file (inclusive of emails) maintained by any of the six individuals listed by Parent in her Subpoena request. As such, Parent’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Subpoena Compliance is DENIED in Part.
To the extent that the District has not already produced the discoverable information responsive to Parent’s requests not subject to privilege or other protections as noted supra, it shall do so by the close of business on May 14, 2026.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: May 7, 2026
Footnotes
[1] The request specifically listed: June Saba Maguire, Laurie Dionisio, Anna Soares, Mr. Tweedie, Jessica Skammels and Melissa Fitzgerald.
[2] PRR presumably refers to Parent’s Public Records Request.
[3] Parent did not copy Dartmouth’s Attorney on the subpoena request.
[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).