1. Home
  2. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) Rulings
  3. In Re: Student Brookline Public Schools v. BSEA # 23-03670         
Searching...

Advanced Search +

In Re: Student Brookline Public Schools v. BSEA # 23-03670         

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Division of Administrative Law Appeals

Bureau of Special Education Appeals

In Re: Student v. Brookline Public Schools

BSEA # 23-03670        

Ruling on Parents’ Motion For Summary Judgment;

Ruling on Brookline Public Schools’ Motion To Compel Advocate [To] Comply with August 4, 2023 Ruling by Filing Issues For Hearing;

Ruling on Brookline Public Schools’ Motion To Compel Document Production From Parents; and

Ruling on Parents’ Motion to Amend

On February 5, 2024, Parents filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion) in the above-referenced matter. 

Following granting of a request for an extension to file a response, on February 23, 2024, Brookline Public Schools (Brookline or District) filed a Public Schools of Brookline Opposition to Parents’ Motion for Summary Judgment & Motion to Compel Advocate [to] Comply with August 4, 2023 Ruling by Filing Issues for Hearing.

Thereafter, on March 26, 2024, Brooklinefiled a Motion To Compel Document Production From Parents (Motion to Compel).  On April 1, 2024, Parents requested and were granted an extension of time to file a response.  Parents filed their Objection to the District’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents on April 8, 2024.

On April 18, 2024, Parents filed a Motion to Amend the Hearing Request.

This Ruling addresses all four Motions referenced above, and is issued in consideration of the Parties’ submissions.  Neither party has requested a hearing on the Motions.  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).

Procedural Background and Facts:

  1. Student, who is 13 years old, is eligible to receive special education services. 
  2. On October 26, 2022, Parents filed the instant Hearing Request against Brookline and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). 
  3. Brookline filed a Response to the Hearing Request on November 16, 2022.
  4. DESE was dismissed as a party via Ruling issued on April 3, 2023.
  5. Between April and August of 2023, Parents filed numerous Motions, including Motions to Compel, and also sought to Amend the Hearing Request several times.  Several Rulings have been issued to date addressing the Parties’ motions.  Most recently, on November 9, 2023, the BSEA received Parents’ Advocate’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which motion she later withdrew[1] when the Parties agreed to participate in a mediation held in January of 2024.  The mediation did not resolve the Parties’ dispute.
  6. Brookline filed several responses to Parents’ numerous Motions to Compel and Motions to Amend the Hearing Request, and the District also filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss in 2023.
  7. The Ruling on Brookline’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, issued on August 4, 2023, dismissed Parents’ claims falling outside the IDEA’s 2-year statute of limitations, claims unrelated to the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (including Civil Rights Acts and Title IX of the Education Act), any and all claims raised against DESE, requests for monetary and punitive damages and Parents’ request for enforcement of a DESE Compensatory Service Plan. 

    The August 4, 2023 Ruling further ordered Parents’ Advocate to file a one-page list of surviving issues and the remedies sought, excluding any restatement of claims that were dismissed, by August 7, 2023.[2]
  8. Parents did not file the list of issues and remedies ordered to be submitted by August 7, 2023. 
  9. On or about January 31, 2024, the Parties participated in a BSEA mediation, but were unable to reach resolution.
  10. On April 18, 2024, Parents filed a Motion to Amend their Hearing Request.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

801 CMR 1.01(7)(h), applicable to BSEA proceedings, provides that summary judgment “may be granted when there is no genuine issue of fact relating to all or part of a claim or defense, and [the moving party] is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”  Summary judgment is available to a party that can demonstrate that the opposing side has no reasonable expectation of proving the essential elements of the case.  The party seeking summary judgment carries the burden of proof, and all evidence presented and inferences made must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party.[3]  To survive summary judgment, once the party seeking summary judgment has met its initial burden, the opposing party “must [then] set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”.[4]  A “genuine issue” is one that can be resolved in favor of either party.  The evidence presented must be both substantial and substantive; that is, evidence that goes beyond mere speculation or conclusory allegations. Rather, the evidence presented “must have substance in the sense that it [feasibly depicts] differing versions of the truth which a fact finder must resolve at an ensuing trial.”[5]

In the context of a BSEA proceeding, summary judgment is appropriate if the party seeking summary judgment can show, with the support of documents, affidavits, and other evidence, that the parties agree on all operative facts and there is no genuine issue of fact relating to the claim or defense.

In the instant case, if Brookline can demonstrate that a dispute relating to material facts exists, then, as a matter of law, Parents are not entitled to summary judgment.[6] 

Discussion:

  1. Motion for Summary Judgment:

Parents’ 9-page Motion asserts the absence of disputed facts.  Brookline however, disputes Parents’ assertions, noting that there are “profound and fundamental factual disputes between the Parties” which warrant a hearing before findings may be entered.

Brookline disputes Parents’ claims that in order for Student to make effective educational progress in the least restrictive environment, he requires, and is entitled to a remote-based IEP program and placement, as opposed to an in-person, substantially separate special education day school program and placement.  Brookline further contends that Student was not medically home bound during the time-period at issue and further notes that no medical or educational evaluator has recommended the need for fully remote services for Student.

Brookline’s Opposition to Parents’ Motion for Summary Judgment further disputes Parents’ allegations that it has not complied with Student’s last agreed upon IEP noting that it has offered Parents access to all of the IEP services through Brookline and its qualified contractors.

Parents allege that Brookline failed to re-evaluate Student in a timely manner, but Brookline asserts that it has made numerous offers to evaluate Student, arguing that in order for its evaluations to be comprehensive and appropriate they must be conducted in person.  Without waiving this argument, on November 6, 2023, Brookline was willing to schedule an online psychological evaluation of Student so as to move forward with the evaluation process.  At present, Brookline remains willing to have its staff conduct Student’s psychological evaluation remotely and all other evaluations in-person.

Lastly, Brookline disputes Parents’ assertions regarding alleged procedural violations, noting that even when the District may have made procedural errors, they did not amount to a substantive FAPE deprivation.  The District seeks to proceed to hearing to present evidence in contravention of Parents’ factual assertions (including that Student is entitled to compensatory services), in light of mitigating factors, consistent with this Hearing Officer’s Ruling of August 4, 2022.

Review of Parents’ and the District’s submissions support a finding that a hearing is needed to determine the merits of the alleged substantive and procedural violations claimed by Parents, and what the appropriate equitable remedy may be in light of the totality of the evidence.  

I find that genuine issues of fact relating to all or part of Parents’ claims exist, such that  Parents’ Motion does not meet the standard for  summary judgement.  As such, Parents’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 

  1. Motion to Compel Advocate [to] Comply with [the] August 4, 2023 Ruling by Filing Issues for Hearing:

Brookline seeks an order compelling Parents’ Advocate to comply with an order in the August 4, 2023 Ruling, directing Parents’ advocate to submit a one-page list of the issues surviving the partial motion to dismiss and the specific remedies sought for each by August 7, 2023.[7]  Parents did not comply with the aforementioned order.[8]

On April 18, 2024, Parents filed a 13-page Motion to Amend the Hearing Request.  This Amendment (discussed in a separate section in this Ruling), delineates Parents’ position as to the current issues for hearing and the remedies sought.  Once again, however, it is not a one-page, discrete list of issues and remedies as required by the August 4, 2023 Ruling. 

To the extent that Parents have failed to follow the August 2023 Hearing Officer’s Order directing them to file a succinct list of the issues for Hearing in the manner in which they were instructed, the District’s Motion is ALLOWED.  Parents shall comply with the order reflected in the August 4, 2023 Ruling regarding the issues for Hearing and remedies sought, consistent with Parents’ April 2024 Motion to Amend Hearing Request and my Ruling on said Motion (infra, at Section IV).  Parents’ submission is due by the close of business on Monday, April 29, 2024. 

  1. Motion To Compel Document Production:

The District seeks enforcement of a Ruling addressing the District’s request for production of documents.  The District further seeks Parents’ full compliance with production of documents alleging that to date, Parents have only responded in part.     

Brookline states that on July 7, 2023, it served Parents a Request for Production of Documents, and that same day requested that the BSEA issue subpoenas duces tecum seeking Student’s medical records.  Parents’ advocate immediately filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and requested a protective order, arguing in part that Student’s pediatrician’s, neurologist’s and neuropsychologist’s records were protected.  Via Ruling issued on August 1, 2023, Parents’ Motion to Quash the Subpoenas was denied on the grounds that Student’s medical records were discoverable via subpoena because Parents had made Student’s medical, neurological and neuropsychological condition an element of their claims.  Further, given Parents’ reliance on the aforementioned information to support their claims, the District was correct that the information sought via the subpoenas was likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Thus, the subpoenas were not quashed.

Parents filed a Response to the District’s Request for Production of Documents on October 18, 2023, in essence refusing to produce documents for a variety of reasons.  Brookline now seeks Parents’ full compliance with its Request for Production of Documents.

Parents’ response to the District’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents addresses requests #s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the District’s requests, and seeks denial of the District’s Motion.  Parents’ objections to producing the documents are addressed in no particular order.

Regarding requests #s 2, 3 and 4, Parents assert that they are overly broad, irrelevant to the issues in dispute, protected by (unspecified) constitutional and statutory safeguards, and encroach on Parents’ right to privacy and confidentiality.[9] 

Regarding Item #5 (involving a request for communications between the advocate, Parents, the educational consultant and evaluators and program professionals) the advocate argues that said communications are protected by the Massachusetts Work Product Doctrine and thus, should be denied.

Parents’ advocate argues that request #6 is premature in that it seeks disclosure of information she intends to use at Hearing and thus, she is not required to disclose it to the District until 5 business days prior to the Hearing, consistent with IDEA Regulations and BSEA Rule IX.A.  Additionally, the advocate raises general objections on the basis of broadness and relevancy.

Lastly, Parents object to the District’s Motion to compel item #1, Student’s medical records, on the basis that: the subpoenas were directed to third parties and Parents were never issued a subpoena to produce these documents; the information is protected by HIPPA regulations; and, that the requests are not relevant to the issues before the BSEA, and

Not only do the requested records exceed the scope of relevance, but their broad and burdensome nature also contravenes various state and federal regulations including civil and constitutional rights and protections pertaining to privacy and confidentiality.

The IDEA is silent as to whether discovery, in the context of a special education case, may occur.  This silence, however, cannot be construed as a prohibition of discovery in states where, as is the case with Massachusetts, rules and regulations applicable to special education hearings allow discovery. 

The issue of discovery[10], specifically with respect to Massachusetts and the BSEA, was examined and discussed by OSEP (the federal agency responsible for oversight of special education) in 2017.  In its Massachusetts Monitoring and Support Visit Summary and Next Steps, May 8-10, 2017, OSEP noted that “IDEA does not prohibit states from having discovery rules in their due process procedures” so long as discovery does not lead to a postponement of the Hearing and extension of the 45-day timeline for issuance of a decision.   801 CMR 1.00, the Administrative Rules for Practice and Procedure, and Rule V.B. of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals provide the framework and delineate the parameters for conducting discovery at the BSEA.[11]  With this guidance, I turn to Parents’ advocate’s arguments, in no particular order of presentation.

 Parents’ advocate’s argument that she is not bound to produce information otherwise discoverable so long as she abides by the IDEA five-day rule addressing exchange of documents and witness lists is unpersuasive.  Rules applicable to discovery and the five-day rule serve separate and distinct purposes.  Moreover, the five-day rule does not absolve Parents of the duty to respond to the District’s requests for production of documents.  Failure to respond to the District’s discovery requests may leave Parents in a precarious position at hearing.  If Parents later attempt to submit evidence at hearing they were instructed to release to the District, they are vulnerable to sanctions, including, but not limited to, affording little or no weight to such evidence and/or exclusion of the evidence.    

Moreover, to the extent that the advocate argues “reliability” as the standard applicable to  discovery, this is incorrect; the standard in the context of a discovery request is admissibility, that is, whether the request is reasonably calculated to result in the discovery of admissible evidence.

Parents’ main contention regarding document requests #1 (and partially #2) involve HIPPA protections.  This issue has already been addressed in the Ruling issued on August 1, 2023. 

Further, the advocate’s argument that documents responsive to request #1 need not be produced because Parents have not been subpoenaed, is without merit.  Parties to an action need not be subpoenaed.  It is sufficient that the District’s Request for Production of Documents asked Parents to produce, among other documents, the same information sought from the providers that were subpoenaed. (See document request #1.)  At all times, Parents have had access to Student’s medical, neuropsychological and neurological data.  All they had to do was to request this documentation from the providers if it was not already in their possession.

I note that Request #2 seeks information regarding wrap-around services that Parents may have provided Student since January of 2020. 

Parents have had ample opportunity to discuss Brookline’s July 2023 requests with District counsel, including potential measures to minimize exposure of sensitive information which may be contained in the documents sought in requests #1 and #2.  Parents could have also sought issuance of a protective order limiting disclosure of sensitive documents to individuals not qualified to offer an opinion.  At this juncture, and given that Parents have requested a public hearing, this Hearing Officer is unable to offer any protection from the flow of any and all information presented at hearing that is necessary for the Parties to state their claims and defenses, including information which may be sensitive.

Requests #3 and #4 seek information not privileged under any doctrine, therefore, full disclosure of this information is warranted and essential to the Parties’ ability to present a strong and coherent case.  There is absolutely no reason why nine months after the District’s initial request Parents have not yet produced this information/ documents.

To the extent that the District’s discovery requests seek the release of communications between the current advocate, Parents, educational consultant, evaluators, and the like since June of 2020, as delineated in request # 5, including information and communications exchanged for purposes of the PRS complaint filed prior to filing of the Hearing Request, this information must be produced.  While the work product doctrine may offer the advocate some protection regarding documents prepared in anticipation of this Hearing, it offers no protection relative to the PRS complaint.[12]  As a non-attorney, the advocate may not rely on the attorney client privilege.  See In Re: Dorian and Waltham Public Schools, Ruling on Parent’s Motion to Quash and Vacate Subpoenas and Waltham Public Schools’ Motion to Compel, BSEA #17-02306 (Reichbach, 7/20/2017).

Parents are compelled to produce documents responsive to the District’s requests for production of documents by the close of business on Wednesday May 1, 2024.  To the extent that Brookline seeks enforcement of this or previous rulings regarding Discovery, this remedy is not available through the BSEA.  The District may proceed to a court with competent jurisdiction to seek enforcement.  Thus, Brookline’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Enforcement of the August 1, 2023 Ruling is GRANTED in PART.

  1. Motion to Amend:

On April 18, 2024, Parents filed the instant Motion to Amend the Hearing Request.  Pursuant to Rule 1.G. of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals, an amendment triggers re-calculation of the timelines for Hearing.  However, this matter presents unique circumstances which serve to mitigate strict application of this Rule.  Here, both Parties agreed to the scheduling of specific Hearing dates in mid-May, by which time Parents are expected to have returned to the US from abroad.  An Order scheduling the Hearing for May 13, 14 and 15, 2024 was issued over two months ago on February 23, 2024. Mindful of the fact that the hearing request herein was filed on October 26, 2022, said Order reflected that no further postponements of the Hearing would be granted.  Therefore, upon receipt of the District’s written confirmation that a Resolution Session has been held or waived with respect to the amended hearing request, the Hearing on such amended request will be advanced to the May 2024 dates reflected in the February 23, 2024 Order, and as such, no recalculated notice of hearing will be issued.

In addition to stating Parents’ intention to raise additional allegations and claims, Parents’ 13-page Motion to Amend the Hearing Request notes that it is Parents’ objective to

… clearly and concisely delineate their allegations and claims in the Amendment to ensure that both the Hearing Officer and the District have a comprehensive understanding of the specific issues that will be addressed during the due process hearing.  The Parents are placing a significant emphasis on the precise presentation of their complaints and accusations in order to guarantee a fair and comprehensive adjudication of the case.

In their submission, Parents set out the following issues for Hearing:

  1. [Whether the District] impeded the child’s right to a FAPE;
  2. [Whether the District] significantly impeded Parents’ opportunity  to participate in the decision-making process regarding provision of a FAPE to the Parents’ child and,
  3. [Whether the District] caused a deprivation of educational benefit; and, if so,
  4. To what degree and what if any compensatory or reimbursement of tuition would make the student whole.

Parents’ submission further provides an explanation of each of the claims and detailed specific allegations concerning the period September 2021 through December 2021, including non-compliance with “PRS 6924 Corrective Action Order issued on June 6, 2022”.  Parents further claim that the District’s failure to implement the PRS 6924 compensatory service plan issued on or about August 23, 2022 resulted in additional denials of FAPE.[13]

As noted in prior rulings, to the extent that Parents’ claims seek enforcement of the aforementioned PRS 6924 Corrective Action Order/ Plan, the BSEA lacks jurisdiction to enforce any such determination. 

Parents allegations regarding violations of procedural safeguards involve: failure to provide prior written notice consistent with 34 CFR 300.503, 34 CFR 300.504 et al; change of placement 34 CFR 300.116 and denial of FAPE 34 CFR 300.101.  To the extent that the claim also mentions “deprivation of rights and acting under color of law as defined by 18 U.S.C. 242”, this claim is excluded as it falls outside the jurisdiction of the BSEA (as conceded by Parents).  Parents’ may present evidence regarding allegations that the District failed to conduct a 3-year re-evaluation after Parental consent was received.[14]  Parents may also proceed with allegations regarding: the District’s failure to implement Student’s IEP for the period from September to December 2021, and from January 2022 to June of 2023 (excluding the periods when the family was outside the United States); failure to provide properly certified personnel to deliver services to Student; failure to provide translation and interpretation services as an accommodation for Parents whose primary language is not English, thereby depriving them of meaningful participation; failure to develop an IEP reasonably calculated to address Student’s needs in September of 2021; failures related to home-based education programming; procedural allegations regarding a change of placement without first conducting evaluations or providing prior written notice of the change; and compensatory education claims. 

Any Section 504 educational claim distinguishable from the rest of Parents’ IDEA related educational claims must be specifically articulated and supported.[15]

To the extent that Parents again assert claims for purposes of exhaustion of administrative remedies that fall outside the jurisdiction of the BSEA, those claims have already been dismissed in a 2023 Ruling on Brookline’s Motion to Dismiss.  Said Ruling dismissed claims related to DESE’s monitoring of the District and enforcement of PRS action plans, as falling outside the jurisdiction of the BSEA and will not be entertained at Hearing.

Regarding Parents’ allegations that the BSEA and the District have denied Parents due process pursuant to BSEA Rule IX.A of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals with respect to submission of exhibits for Hearing, Parents seem to be confusing Rules addressing documents for hearing with rules addressing discovery requests.  The distinction between discovery and BSEA Rule IX. A has already been addressed supra in the instant Ruling.

As a remedy for the District’s alleged procedural and substantive violations, Parents seek an order for compensatory services for those periods of time between 2021 and 2022 and 2022 and 2023 that Student was present in the United States and Brookline failed to offer him services, and further that a specific date for implementation of said order be established.  Parents request that the compensatory order state the specific services and number of hours owed Student and order that the services be provided by properly certified individuals.  Lastly, if Brookline is found to have violated Student’s procedural rights, Parents request that training be ordered in the pertinent areas within an established timeframe.

Parents further seek full funding for independent evaluations in all areas of suspected disabilities without imposition of any conditions, a copy of the independent evaluations, and an order that the District convene Student’s Team at the conclusion of the evaluations within established timelines.  Parents further demand that the meeting be scheduled at a time convenient to Parents, the District and the evaluators. 

Parents’ Motion to Amend the Hearing is GRANTED in PART consistent with the terms of this Ruling. 

Parents are reminded that they carry the burden of persuasion at the due process Hearing, with respect to their substantive and procedural allegations regarding denials of FAPE, and the remedy of compensatory education.  Parents have been told on numerous occasions that while the PRS findings are one piece of information to be considered at Hearing, the BSEA is not limited in its findings and determinations by PRS’ findings.   

Finally, to date, over 22 motions have been filed in this matter over the course of a year, the great majority of them filed by Parents.  The sheer number and nature of many of the motions filed by Parents raise concerns, as some appear to be attempts to by-pass the Hearing process.  The Parties are placed on notice that no further dispositive motions will be entertained.  Any attempt to do so will be met with a simple denial of the request. 

This matter is scheduled to proceed to Hearing on May 13, 14 and 15, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

Orders:

  1. Parents’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
  2. The District’s Motion to Compel [the] Advocate [to] Comply with [the] August 4, 2023 Ruling by Filing Issues for Hearing is ALLOWED.  The Advocate shall comply with the order reflected in the August 4, 2023 Ruling regarding the issues for Hearing and remedies sought, consistent with Parents’ April 2024 Amendment to the Hearing Request and the instant Ruling regarding said Motion to Amend, by the close of business on Monday April 29, 2024.     
  3. Parents are hereby ordered to produce documents in response to Brookline’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by the close of business on Wednesday May 1, 2024.  To the extent that Brookline’s Motion seeks enforcement of the August 1, 2023 Ruling through this forum, the request is DENIED as this remedy is not available through the BSEA.  Brookline may seek enforcement of both the August 1, 2023 and the instant Ruling in a court of competent jurisdiction.
  4. Parents’ Motion to Amend the Hearing Request is GRANTED IN PART, consistent with the terms of this Ruling.
  5. Brookline shall file written confirmation that it has held or waived the resolution session triggered by Parents’ Amendment of the Hearing Request by the close of business on May 3, 2024.

So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,

Rosa I. Figueroa

Rosa I. Figueroa                                                                                 

Dated:  April 26, 2024

[1]   The November 2023 Motion for Summary Judgment contained 11 exhibits; no exhibits were submitted with the February 2024 Motion.

[2]   The Ruling further ordered that each surviving issue and remedy be stated in no more than 3 lines, be formatted in a font of 12 or 12.5, double spaced with one-inch margins.

[3]   Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).

[4]   Id. At 250.

[5]  In Re: Student v. Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District, Ruling on Parents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, BSEA #1303762, 19 MSER 17 (1/18/2013); Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 at 252.

[6]  See Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[7]   As noted supra, Parents were further ordered to present each issue in a maximum of 3-lines with specific formatting, excluding restatements of the claims dismissed.  Prior to issuance of the instant Ruling Parents submitted a 13-page Amendment to the Hearing Request, which did not comply with the parameters established in the August 4, 2023 Ruling.

[8]  Embedded in Parents’s Motion for Summary Judgment, however, the issues for Hearing were set forth as follows:

1) Failure to conduct Student’s re-evaluation between October 26, 2020 and October 26, 2022[8];

2) District’s proposal to change Student’s placement without first conducting a re-evaluation[8], and failure to conduct said evaluation between 2020[8] and October 26, 2022;

3) Failure to implement the 2019 stay-put IEP between September 2021[8] and April 30, 2022, and between September 2022[8]  and October 26, 2022;

4) whether Student is entitled to compensatory services for the aforementioned violations of the 2019 IEP.

In addition, later in their Motion for Summary Judgment, Parents provide additional details regarding alleged procedural and substantive violations (involving a three-year re-evaluation, Brookline’s failure to provide Student’s IEP services and placement), citing multiple federal regulations to support their position. 

[9]   Parents note that the focus of the dispute before the BSEA involves a claim for compensatory services from September 2021 to December 2021, for Brookline’ failure to adhere to a DESE/PRS corrective action plan in PRS Investigation # 6924.  Parents’ claim also seeks redress for the District not having conducted a three-year re-evaluation, failure to offer Student services consistent with his 2019 IEP and additional procedural violations.

[10]   Formal requests for information that occur after a hearing request has been filed and the resolution meeting has been held or waived consistent with 34 CFR §300.510(a).

[11]   While the standard time to respond to a discovery request is 30 days, the rules authorize the Hearing Officer to establish a shorter or longer period of time to respond.  Rule V.B. of the Hearing Rules for Special education Appeals.

[12]   See Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A).

[13]   Parents further mention additional PRS Complaints, namely: PRS 7896, 7930, 9497 and 10730, providing no explanation or discussion as to what these involved.

[14]   Parents further conveyed their intention to raise claims against DESE and the District regarding PRS complaints in Federal District Court. 

[15]   Parents raise unspecified deprivations of rights “including the right to an education in a public agency”.

Updated on May 8, 2024

Related Documents