COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School and Student
BSEA# 26-01931
RULING ON PARENTS’
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the Parents’ Motion To Quash Subpoena Request (Motion to Quash), filed on November 20, 2025, with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). Specifically, on November 20, 2025, Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School (Pioneer or the District) requested that the BSEA issue 4 subpoenas duces tecum, including to Dr. Mina Farkhondeh and/or Pioneer Valley Pediatrics, Mass General Brigham/Release Of Information Unit, Dr. Veeraraghavan Iyer and/or Baystate Medical Center, and Dr. Tuba Kahn and/or Boston Children’s Hospital for following information “limited to the time period of August 2023 through the present:
1. Complete copies of any and all medical, psychiatric, and other records pertaining to the student.
2. Complete copies of any and all correspondence, electronic mail messages, telephone records, tape recordings, video recordings, photographs, notes, minutes, diaries, letters, and/or memoranda pertaining to the? student.
3. Complete copies of any agreements, contracts, bills, and invoices pertaining to the student.
4. All correspondence, including but not limited to letters and electronic mail, between the providers and the student’s parents.
5. All correspondence, including but not limited to letters and electronic mail, between the providers and any other third party concerning the student and/or parents.”
On November 21, Parents filed Parents’ Objection To PVCICS’s Subpoena Requests, arguing that the District’s subpoenas are improper because they are overly broad, seek privileged medical and psychiatric records, and are not limited to information relevant to Student’s educational needs; Parents have already provided the required DESE Physician’s Affirmation establishing eligibility for home/hospital services, and they have not refused to share educationally relevant information and have offered to forward specific questions to Student’s doctor, but the District never provided any such questions. Moreover, broad medical subpoenas cannot justify the District’s continued failure to implement home/hospital tutoring, which it was required to begin in early October upon receipt of the necessary documentation.
On November 25, 2025, the District filed School’s Response To Parents’ Objection To Requests For Subpoena Duces Tecum, asserting that, to date, Parents have provided only limited medical information in the form of two recent Physician’s Affirmations supporting temporary home/hospital education, and that this documentation does not sufficiently address the severity, chronic nature, or fluctuating symptoms Parents themselves describe as preventing Student from attending school. Because Student’s medical condition is central to determining his ability to access education and the appropriate services, the District argues that broader medical records from August 2023 forward are relevant and necessary. The District asserts that it has repeatedly sought access to medical records and provider communication by agreement, but those efforts have been unsuccessful. It further states that it is willing to comply with any nondissemination or destruction orders the Hearing Officer imposes, and that its sole purpose in seeking this information is to ensure it can accurately assess Student’s needs and provide appropriate educational services.
On December 4, 2025, Parents filed Parents’ Reply To District’s Response To Motion To Quash Subpoenas, along with eleven supporting exhibits. Parents reiterate that
“[n]either IDEA nor Massachusetts regulations permit a district to condition services on unrestricted access to HIPAA-protected medical records. Under 34 CFR §300.9, consent must be voluntary and cannot be coerced. The District has not met the standards for issuing subpoenas under BSEA Rule VII, which require specificity, relevance, and the use of the least intrusive means.”
Parents also assert, in part, that the “supplemental exhibits filed [] show that Parents have provided three years of medically relevant information—including symptom updates, diagnostic confirmations, treatment plans, medication changes, and illness-triggered behavioral shifts.” They continue to argue that the request by the District is overly broad and irrelevant.
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, Parents’ Motion is hereby DENIED.
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 in this hearing include whether PVCICS is able to provide Student with a free appropriate public education given his disability profile, which includes a constellation of significant medical; and whether Student requires homebound educational services for medical reasons.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
- The BSEA’s Authority to Issue and Quash Subpoenas
Both the BSEA 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]
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
Whether the subpoenas duces tecum at issue should be quashed depends on whether the information sought therein is relevant to the issues for hearing. After reviewing Parents’ Motion in the context of the issues for hearing and the above-quoted legal standards, I find that the Motion must be DENIED.
Here, Parents have placed Student’s medical and psychiatric needs at the center of this dispute and rely on the recommendations of Student’s private providers to support their claims. Accordingly, their assertions of privilege and “lack of educational relevance” are unconvincing. Parents’ offer to relay written questions to Student’s physician is insufficient, as the records sought by the District may be essential to its defense, directly relevant, and reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence. Denying the District access to these materials could therefore result in unfair prejudice and could hinder the fulsome presentation of evidence at Hearing. Although Parents contend that the supplemental exhibits demonstrate their provision of “three years of medically relevant information—including symptom updates, diagnostic confirmations, treatment plans, medication changes, and illness-triggered behavioral shifts,” the information they supplied reflects only those details that Parents themselves deem significant, rather than the comprehensive medical documentation typically furnished by qualified medical professionals. Moreover, the District’s requests are not overly broad; they are time-limited and seek information that is highly relevant and independently admissible, subject to appropriate impoundment of Student’s identifying information.
Nevertheless, given the sensitive nature of the information sought, Parents and the District are ordered to confer and submit a proposed protective order within 5 days of the date of issuance of this Ruling that further delineates guidelines for distribution, access, review, and disposal of these records at the conclusion of the Hearing.The District shall also provide Parents with a copy of the documents received from the entities and professionals subpoenaed.
ORDER:
Parents’ Motion is hereby DENIED.
Parents and the District shall submit a proposed Protective Order within five days of the date of this Ruling, consistent with the guidelines delineated above. No documents or information responsive to the pending discovery requests shall be produced until the Protective Order is entered. Upon issuance of the Protective Order, the parties shall promptly proceed with production of the documents at issue.
So ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: December 4, 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