COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Stoneham Public Schools
BSEA # 26-10932
RULING ON STONEHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
On April 21, 2026, Stoneham Public Schools (Stoneham or the District) filed Motion To Quash Subpoenas (the Motion to Quash), moving to quash, in part, Parent's April 17, 2026 request for the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) to issue subpoenas to the Superintendent and the Principal. Specifically, the “Superintendent [] and Principal [] have never provided any services to the student at issue, and nowhere in the Parent's request did the Parent raise any allegation relative to Superintendent [] and Principal []; however, if the purpose of calling either witness is about the failure to grant a change in classroom, the Hearing Officer already ruled on that issue and dismissed it. It is Stoneham's position that Superintendent [] and Principal [] have no substantive information to provide to this Hearing Officer on this matter.”
On the same day, via email, Parent responded that the Motion to Quash should be denied because the Principal and the Superintendent “are responsible for all school operations, and for everything that happens in school. They are the primary individuals accountable for this situation we are in.”
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 Rule VI(D) of the Hearing Rules for Special Educaotin Appeals (Hearing Rules).
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The issues in this matter have been identified in my April 14, 2026 Ruling on Stoneham Public Schools’ Partial Motion to Dismiss as follows: 1) whether Stoneham denied Student a FAPE by maintaining Student in a classroom causing emotional distress and fear and 2) whether Stoneham denied Student a FAPE by failing to investigate or respond to documented safety concerns.
RELEVANT FACTS:
1. Student is a kindergartener in Stoneham, Massachusetts, receiving special education services under an IEP for a communication disability, with a stay-put placement in an integrated classroom that he initially accessed successfully.
2. In fall 2025, the District began reevaluations. Around November, Parent observed that the Student developed fear and avoidance specifically toward his primary classroom teacher, behavior not seen with others. By December, Parent also observed Student being isolated from peers, which the teacher attributed to his disability. Parent requested a classroom reassignment but was told it was not possible, though this was later believed to be inaccurate. Reports indicated Student functioned well when the teacher was absent.
3. In January 2026, Student exhibited acute distress upon seeing the teacher, including running and falling to the floor. Parent requested an investigation, reassignment, and a safe learning environment, but the Principal refused and instead suggested a substantially separate placement. No investigation was conducted, and Student has not attended school since January 21, 2026.
4. Subsequent meetings with District leadership did not resolve the concerns, and Parent alleges pressure to accept a more restrictive placement.
5. Parent has filed a disability discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which complaint is still pending.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
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.[2] 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.”[3]
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARD:
Whether the subpoenas at issue should be quashed depends on whether the information sought is relevant to the issues for hearing (i.e., whether Stoneham denied Student a FAPE by maintaining Student in a classroom causing emotional distress and fear and whether Stoneham denied Student a FAPE by failing to investigate or respond to documented safety concerns).
Based on the record, the Principal appears to have been directly involved in the events underlying Parent’s claims, including the response to Parent’s request for an investigation, consideration of Student’s classroom experience, and the recommendation of a more restrictive placement. As such, the Principal is likely to possess firsthand knowledge relevant to both Student’s educational experience and the District’s response to the concerns raised. Therefore, the Principal’s testimony is relevant to the issues for hearing.
In contrast, although the Superintendent holds general supervisory authority over District operations, Parent has not demonstrated that the Superintendent possesses unique, firsthand knowledge that is not duplicative of information available through other witnesses, such as the Principal. Absent a showing that the Superintendent has specific, non-cumulative information directly bearing on the claims, requiring the Superintendent’s testimony would not be relevant to the issues under review in the hearing.
Accordingly, the subpoena directed to the Principal shall stand, while the subpoena directed to the Superintendent shall be quashed.
ORDER:
The District’s Motion to Quash is DENIED as to the Principal and ALLOWED as to the Superintendent.
So ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Date: April 22, 2026
Footnotes
[1] The following facts are derived from the pleadings and are subject to change in subsequent rulings or decision.
[2] See 801 CMR 1.01(10)(g) and BSEA Hearing Rules VII(B) and (C).
[3] See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3).