COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Topsfield Public Schools and Masconomet Regional School District
BSEA# 25-10694
RULING ON TOPSFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS’
MOTION TO QUASH
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the Topsfield Public Schools’ Motion To Quash Subpoena Request (Motion to Quash), filed on November 20, 2025 with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). Specifically, on November 19, 2025, Parents requested that the BSEA issue 3 subpoenas, inclusive of one to the Vice Chair of the School Committee of Tri Town School Union. Parents noted that School Committee meeting notes dated November 2025 state that “[] expressed her disappointment that students with disabilities perform significantly worse than students without disabilities. [] believes that the administration has failed to address this persistent trend in the data.” Parents believe that at hearing “[] [c]an speak to The Elementary Language Academy at Proctor School which serves fourth and fifth grade students who have been diagnosed with reading disabilities and are in need of a highly specialized language-based program in a fully inclusive environment.”
In its Motion to Quash, Topsfield objected to Parents’ request for a subpoena for “[] to testify at this hearing,” asserting that she is
“a member of the Topsfield Public Schools School Committee. She is not nor ever has been a Team member of [Student’s]. She does not provide any direct service to [Student] and has no authority or role relative to making special education decisions for [Student]. Whatever general statements [] may or may not have made during a school committee meeting bears no relevance on the issues in this case. It would be wholly inappropriate and a violation of student privacy to have a school committee member testify or take any part in a BSEA hearing. For these reasons, the District seeks a ruling quashing the subpoena request for [].”
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 Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VII(D).
For the reasons set forth below, the District’s Motion is hereby ALLOWED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The factual background and procedural history of this matter have been described in detail in my previous Rulings. I need not repeat them here, except to note that the issues for Hearing have been outlined as follows:
- Whether the IEP for the period 11/12/2024 to 11/11/2025 fails to provide the Student a free appropriate education (FAPE); and
- Whether Student is entitled to compensatory services and a change of placement due to the alleged denial of FAPE for the current IEP term.
The Hearing is scheduled for January 5, 6, and 16, 2025.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
- The BSEA’s Authority to Issue and Quash Subpoenas
Both the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules) and the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure which govern due process hearings at the BSEA allow Hearing Officers to issue, vacate or modify subpoenas.[1] 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.”[2]
Whether a subpoena subjects a witness to undue burden
“usually raises a question of the reasonableness of the subpoena, requiring a court to balance the interests served by demanding compliance with the subpoena against the interests furthered by quashing it. This process of weighing a subpoena’s benefits and burdens calls upon the trial court to consider whether the information is necessary and whether it is available from any other source, which is obviously a highly case specific inquiry and entails an exercise of judicial discretion.”[3]
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
Whether the witness at issue should be compelled to attend and testify at the hearing in this case depends on whether her testimony is relevant to the issues for hearing. After reviewing Topsfield’s Motion in the context of the issues and the above-quoted legal standards, I find that the Motion must be ALLOWED. I find that []’s connection to the issues before me is completely attenuated and I am not persuaded that her testimony would be relevant to any of the issues in this case.
ORDER:
The District’s Motion is hereby ALLOWED.
So ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: November 21, 2025
[1] See 801 CMR 1.01(10)(g) and BSEA Hearing Rules VII B and C.
[2] See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3
[3] Vesper Mar. Ltd. v. Lyman Morse Boatbuilding, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00056-NT, 2020 WL 877808, at *1 (D. Me. Feb. 21, 2020) (internal citations and quotations omitted).