COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
In Re: Student v. Longmeadow Public Schools
BSEA# 25-10207
Ruling on Longmeadow Public Schools’ Motion for Protective Order Relative to Parent’s [Revised] First Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories; Longmeadow’s Motion for Protective Order Relative to Parent’s Request for Issuance of Subpoenas; and Parent’s Notice of Non-Compliance/Parent’s Motion to Compel Discovery
On September 8, 2025, Parent filed revised Requests for Production of Documents #1-25 and revised Requests for Interrogatories #1-25. The Parties communicated via email and were able to resolve some, but not all, of their discovery disputes.
On September 12, 2025, Longmeadow Public Schools (Longmeadow or District) filed a Motion for Protective Order Relative to three requests in Parent’s [Revised] Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories.
On October 6, 2025, Parent requested issuance of ten subpoenas, and the next day, October 7, 2025, Longmeadow filed a Motion for Protective Order Relative to Parent’s Request for Issuance of Subpoenas, with respect to three of the ten Longmeadow employees whom Parent sought to be subpoenaed (#5, #6 and #10).
On October 9, 2025, Parent filed a Notice of Non-Compliance/ Parent’s Motion to Compel Discovery, seeking an order that the District produce discovery, and a ruling on the discovery disputes. Via email dated October 9, 2025, the District noted that it was working on making the documents available to Parent “very shortly”. On October 10, 2025, Parent emailed the Hearing Officer restating her concerns regarding the District’s discovery responses.
Lastly, on October 14, 2025, Parent submitted an Opposition to Longmeadow Public Schools’ Motion for Protective Order Relative to Subpoenas #5, #6 and #10.
This Ruling addresses the pending discovery disputes between the Parties.
Discussion:
- Longmeadow’s Motion for Protective Order:
Relying on Rule VI.C of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals,[1] the District seeks a protective order relative to document requests #20 and #22, and Interrogatory #25. Specifically:
Document Request #20 seeks the personnel file of Mrs. Fedorov including but not limited to:
- Employment history.
- Performance evaluations 2022 to date.
- Disciplinary records.
- Parent or student complaints (formal or informal) .
- Documentation of any internal investigations.
- Records of any formal or informal corrective actions.
- The date and reason for her separation from employment with Longmeadow Public Schools and indication if she is eligible for rehire.
Document Request #22 seeks class transfer requests and documentation of concerns involving Mrs. Fedorov-
Please produce all documents from the past five years reflecting requests by students or parents to transfer out of Mrs. Fedorov’s class.
Any documentation reflecting patterns, concerns, or recurring themes associated with these transfer requests.
Interrogatory #25 (Class transfer requests – Historical Pattern)-
From 2020 to present, described the circumstances of any parents or students [who] requested for a transfer out of Mrs. Fedorov’s class. In your response, identify the month and year of each request, the student’s grade level at the time, and whether the request was made by a parent, student, or other; summarize the reason for the request (with names redacted as appropriate); state whether the request was granted or denied and the rationale; Indicate whether the decision to grant or deny was discussed with the student, parent, or both, and describe the outcome.
The District objects to document requests #20 and #22, and Interrogatory #25,on the basis of relevance, noting that “the requests are aimed at harassing a staff person and are not relevant to any claims regarding FAPE for the Student.” Longmeadow relies on In re: Grafton Public Schools and Logan, BSEA #1506275, 21 MSER 131, 132-133 (2015), in support of its argument that discovery requests “must encompass relevant information related to the claims and defenses involved in the underlying matter”.
Additionally, the District argues that Parent’s requests involve a time during which a fully accepted and expired IEP was in effect, precluding revisiting of those issues, as BSEA Hearing Officers are precluded from reviewing the appropriateness of fully accepted, implemented and expired IEPs, in situations where the parent had an opportunity to participate in the development of the IEP and received a Notice of Parental Rights (Procedural Safeguards).
The District further states that the BSEA does not oversee grievances regarding staff conduct or performance, and Parent’s requests seek “personnel files for a specific teacher that Parent appears to have a grievance with as well as information about other students pertaining to this teacher.”
Longmeadow asserts that since the information sought by Parent is not “reasonably calculated to discovery of admissible evidence”[2] as it is not relevant to the student in the instant matter or the case before the BSEA, a protective order relative to the aforementioned documents and Interrogatory should be issued.
Parent opposes the District’s request for a protective order citing to FERPA, Public Records Law, and In Re: Student v. Blue Hills Regional Technical School, Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment, BSEA #2008213 (5/22/2020), as limiting “re-litigation of expired, accepted IEPs,” but not barring “inquiry into implementation failures, informal exclusions, or retaliation occurring during the term of an IEP.” Additionally, Parent argues that the relevant IEP was rejected within the term of the IEP, noting that Logan “addresses scope, not suppression of relevant evidence.”[3] Lastly, Parent argues that the information sought is relevant and the requests narrow.
Regarding Parent’s Document Request #20, to the extent that it seeks a copy of Ms. Fedorov’s entire personnel file, this request is DENIED as irrelevant. The BSEA lacks jurisdiction over district personnel hiring, firing or disciplinary determinations and it does not interfere with general grievances involving personnel conduct or performance. Thus, Longmeadow’s Motion for Protective Order relative to Document Request #20 is ALLOWED.
Document Request #22 and Interrogatory #25, seek information related to requests from other students and parents, as opposed to Student in the instant matter. The BSEA does not have jurisdiction over systemic issues, but rather FAPE denials impacting the individual student before the BSEA. As such, Longmeadow’s Motion for Protective Order relative to Document Request #22 and Interrogatory #25 is ALLOWED.
- Parent’s Requests for Issuance of Subpoenas for Witness & Longmeadow’s Motion for Protective Order:
Parent requested that subpoenas be issued to ensure the testimony of several Longmeadow witnesses at Hearing. The following day, Longmeadow filed the instant Motion for Protective Order relative to three of the witnesses for whom Parent sought subpoenas. Thereafter, on October 14, 2025, Parent Opposed the District’s Motion for Protective Order. Although submitted as a Motion for Protective Order, the District’s Motion is akin to a Motion to Quash subpoenas.
Arguing relevancy, Longmeadow seeks a protective order dispensing with the testimony of Thomas Lander, Principal at Longmeadow High School, on the basis that he investigated allegations of bullying by a teacher during the 2023-2024 school year, whereas Parent’s Hearing Request involves reimbursement for her unilateral placement of Student for the 2024-2025 and the 2025-2026[4] school years. To the extent that issues before me include events occurring during the last portion of the 2023-2024 school year, during which Student’s IEP was rejected, and construing Parent’s Amended Hearing Request liberally, Mr. Lander may have relevant information regarding delivery of special education services to Student and/ or violations of FAPE. Parent’s opposition on the basis of internal action allegedly taken or not taken by Mr. Lander against a specific teacher is however, unpersuasive and will not be allowed. Parent is again placed on notice that the focus of Mr. Lander’s testimony should be any participation he may have had in determinations related to the delivery or failure thereof of Student’s special education/ Section 504 accommodations, not grievances related to Ms. Fedorov, or any other teacher or service provider. Focus on the latter will not be allowed.
The District’s request for a Protective Order relative to Mr. Lander, is DENIED with limitations.
The District further argues that since the period covered in Parent’s Hearing Request involves a time during which Student was in high school, the testimony of Kim Mirrer, Student’s elementary school occupational therapist, is irrelevant. Parent opposes this argument on the basis that Ms. Mirrer may provide a historical perspective relative to Student’s fine motor and written expression deficits. Further, she participated in Student’s November 2024 Team meeting during which Parent argues that she presented updated occupational therapy findings and made specific recommendations, and she also served as a District consultant for Student’s accommodations. Parent’s position regarding Mrs. Mirrer’s role as District consultant for Student’s accommodations and well as her participation in the November 2024 are convincing as to relevancy. Parent’s additional argument related to Ms. Mirrer’s direct involvement with Student while he was in elementary or middled school are however not persuasive as to relevancy, as this Hearing involves Student’s final high school years and that information is now stale. Longmeadow’s Motion for Protective Order for Ms. Mirrer is DENIED.
Lastly, the District argues that the testimony of Catherine Gianpietro, Student’s ninth grade special education teacher is irrelevant as Student’s 10th grade special education teacher (his teacher during Student’s last year in the District before Parent’s removal to a different setting), is available and able to testify. Parent’s opposition argues Ms. Gianpietro’s information/ input relative to Student’s stay-put IEP. However, since the IEP may be submitted as an exhibit at Hearing, Student’s ninth grade is not at issue, and an individual with more current information is available to testify, Ms. Gianpietro’s testimony is irrelevant. The District is persuasive in its argument regarding Ms. Gianpietro. As such, Longmeadow’s Motion for Protective Order, and/or to quash the subpoena and testimony of Ms. Gianpietro, is ALLOWED.
- Parent’s Motion to Compel Discovery:
Parent served her revised discovery requests on the District on September 8, 2025, after which the Parties discussed and agreed to production of numerous components of Parent’s requests. The District’s responses to discovery were due thirty days later, that is, by October 8, 2025. As such, the District’s responses are now overdue.
Parent requests that the District produce responses by the close of business on October 14, 2025, and that the BSEA issue a Ruling on the pending motions.[5]
The instant Ruling addresses Parent’s requests.
Parent’s Motion is ALLOWED in PART. Longmeadow is ordered to file its responses to Parent’s discovery requests by the close of business on October 15, 2025.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Rosa Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: October 14, 2025
[1] “Protective Orders may be issued to protect the party from undue burden, expense, delay, or as otherwise deemed appropriate by the Hearing Officer. Orders of the Hearing Officer may include limitations on the scope, method, time, and place for discovery or provision protecting confidential information.” Rule VI.C. of the Hearing Rules.
[2] Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(1).
[3] See In re: Grafton Public Schools and Logan, BSEA #1506275, 21 MSER 131, 132-133 (2015).
[4] In response to an informal inquiry by Parent relative to her claims over the 2025-2026 school year, the Parties were instructed to brief the issue. Legal briefs/ arguments may be submitted before the Hearing or as part of the Parties’ closing arguments.
[5] Parent further noted that depending on when she received the responses to her discovery requests, she may seek extension of other timelines or request a postponement.