COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In re: Student and Beverly Public Schools
BSEA #2614774
RULING ON BEVERLY PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION FOR ACCELERATED TIMELINES
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the June 16, 2026 Motion for Accelerated Timelines (Motion) filed by Beverly Public Schools (Beverly, or the District), seeking an Order for a shorter timeframe for Parent to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Specifically, the District seeks to have Parent provide her responses no later than June 29, 2026, one day before exhibits and witness lists are due in the underlying matter.
As neither party requested a hearing on the Motion, and because 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 Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (BSEA Hearing Rules). For the reasons articulated below, the Motion is DENIED in substantial part with two exceptions.
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND:[1]
On June 3, 2026, Parent filed an Accelerated Hearing Request identifying eleven issues, all of which pertain to allegations that since Student’s termination from a private non-766 residential school program (Waterford Country School) on April 17, 2026, he has not received a FAPE, and the District has not pursued the search for a new residential program appropriately. The Accelerated Hearing Request indicates that Student remains without a placement since his discharge from Waterford Country School, that the District has proposed inadequate interim services, and that Beverly refuses to permit Student to attend the District’s public school while he is without placement, placing Student and his “entire family at risk.”
Counsel for the District filed their Notice of Appearance on June 2, 2026.[2]
On June 4, 2026, the BSEA issued a Notice of Accelerated Hearing, as the Accelerated Hearing Request was determined to meet the standards for accelerated status. The accelerated Hearing date was set for July 7, 2026.
On June 15, 2026, Beverly filed its Response to Parent’s Hearing Request and related Exhibits.
On June 16, 2026, the District filed the instant Motion for Accelerated Time Lines [sic], Request for Production of Documents and Request for Interrogatories, in which Beverly indicated that Parent had been served with its First Request for Production of Documents (RFPs) and Interrogatories on the same date – June 16, 2026. Beverly’s RFPs requested that Parent produce 21 specified records, some of which requested records from September 1, 2023 to the present and some of which had no date restriction. The District’s Interrogatories requested that Parent respond in writing to 20 stated questions, some of which seek responses pertaining to September 1, 2023 to the present, but many of which contain no date restriction. In its Motion, the District requested an Order directing Parent to respond to its RFPs and Interrogatories no later than June 29, 2026.
On June 16, 2026, Parent emailed to the Hearing Officer and Beverly’s Attorneys an Objection to the District’s request to accelerate discovery deadlines, asserting that an abbreviated timeline would create a substantial burden and undermine her ability to prepare for hearing. Moreover, she argues that “[a]ll of the information sought is in the district’s possession.”
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Discovery
Although the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not provide for a discovery process to occur after a due process hearing request has been filed, such a process is available in Massachusetts pursuant to the BSEA’s Hearing Rules, which “encourage [parties] to exchange information cooperatively and by agreement prior to the hearing.”[3] BSEA Hearing Rule V(B) sets forth a process for formal discovery requests, under which:
… formal requests for information may be made at anytime after a request for hearing is filed and the resolution meeting, when required, has been held or waived…. The party upon whom the request is serve shall respond within a period of thirty (30) calendar days unless a shorter or longer period of time is established by the Hearing Officer.
Pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule V(B)(1), any party may request that another party produce documents that “are not privileged, not supplied previously, and which are in the possession, custody and control” of the party to whom the request is made. Similarly, BSEA Hearing Rule V(B)(2) allows for service of up to 25 written interrogatories for discovery of information that is “relevant, not privileged” and not previously supplied by the party on whom the interrogatories are served through a voluntary exchange of information. BSEA Hearing Rule V(C) allows a Hearing Officer to issue a protective order with respect to discovery requests so as to “protect a party from undue burden, expense, delay, or as otherwise deemed appropriate by the Hearing Officer;” such Orders may include “limitations on the scope, method, time and place for discovery or provisions protecting confidential information.”
In applying these discovery rules, BSEA hearing officers are guided (although not bound) by Rules 26(b)(1) of the Federal and Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal rule allows discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues…the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit.” The material discovered need not be admissible at the hearing.[4] Massachusetts’ Rule (26)(b)(1) also allows discovery of relevant, non-privileged information, which need not be admissible at trial if it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
III. APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS
Here, Beverly seeks to have Parent respond to its 21 RFPs and 20 Interrogatories within 13 calendar days, substantially less than the 30-calendar day timeframe typically provided for such responses. The District contends that this shortened timeframe is warranted as this matter is proceeding on an accelerated track, thereby requiring the Parties to exchange their exhibits and witness lists by the close of business on June 30, 2026.[5] According to the District, receiving Parent’s responses to its discovery by June 29, 2026 will provide it with one day to “adequately review the responses in preparation for the hearing” prior to the exhibit and witness list production deadline.
Although in some circumstances, a request for an accelerated discovery response timeline may be warranted, with two exceptions, I do not find it appropriate in the instant matter. Discovery must be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and must not impose an undue burden.[6] Here, I find that asking Parent to respond to the District’s discovery requests in 13 calendar days would impose an undue burden on her. The issues in this matter are tied wholly to Student’s circumstances since April 17, 2026, particularly the search for a new school placement, and interim educational services pending identification of such a placement. However, with two exceptions, the RFPs and Interrogatories filed by Beverly seek information broader than these issues, for periods well beyond the limited timeframe involved in the instant matter. Moreover, many of the District’s discovery requests appear to involve information already in its possession; to the extent Beverly’s discovery requests seek to have Parent identify the documents and witness testimony on which she will rely at Hearing, the District will receive that information one day later, on June 30, 2026, which timeframe complies with the IDEA and the BSEA Hearing Rules, and provides sufficient time to prepare.
The only exceptions to my analysis relate to RFP Number 5 and Interrogatory Number 11, which seek to have Parent provide information related to any interim services Parent claims to be providing to Student for which she is seeking reimbursement. However, as neither request is limited in scope to any specific date, and so as to ensure that it is appropriately tied to the issues for Hearing in this matter, Parent’s responses to RFP Number 5 and Interrogatory Number 11, need only involve services for which she is seeking reimbursement that were provided to Student on or after April 17, 2026.[7]
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated, the Motion is DENIED in substantial part with two exceptions. Specifically, by June 29, 2026, Parent shall respond to RFP Number 5 and Interrogatory Number 11 with such responses providing information and documents for services provided to Student from April 17 2026, to the present.
The Hearing on the merits remains scheduled for July 7, 2026. The parties are reminded that any requests for advancement must be in writing and specify the reasons for and length of the advancement sought. As this is an accelerated matter, the Hearing on the merits cannot be postponed and can only be advanced in certain circumstances.[8] Should the Parties reach a settlement agreement prior to the Hearing, the moving party shall submit a written withdrawal of the hearing request. Failure to appear at the Hearing may result in dismissal of the matter with or without prejudice. The Parties are encouraged to review the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals, the BSEA Reference Manual, and the BSEA Pro Se Guide which can be found at https://www.mass.gov/lists/bsea-forms-and-publications. Technical assistance is also available by contacting the BSEA by phone at 781-397-4750.
So Ordered,
/s/ Amy Reichbach
Amy Reichbach
Dated: June 23, 2026
Footnotes
[1] The factual statements set forth are taken as true for purposes of this Ruling only.
[2] The Hearing Request may have been filed and sent to Beverly after close of business on June 2, 2026; it was marked “received” at the BSEA on June 3, 2026.
[3] BSEA Hearing Rule V(A).
[4] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
[5] See 34 CFR 300.512(a)(3); BSEA Hearing Rules II(D)(3)(f) and VIII(A).
[6] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1); Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also BSEA Hearing Rule V(C) (“Protective orders may be issued to protect a party from undue burden…”)
[7] Although limitations on the scope of discovery typically occur upon a party’s request for a protective order, given the procedural context of this case, the deadline the District seeks for Parent’s discovery responses, and my analysis of the substance of the requests themselves, there is not sufficient time to wait for Parent to file such a request.
[8] BSEA Hearing Rule II(D)(4)(a).