COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Springfield Public Schools
BSEA No. 24-06592
RULING ON PARENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter comes before the BSEA on Parent’s Motion to Compel production of documents sought in discovery. For reasons explained below, the Motion is DENIED in part as moot and GRANTED in part.
Background and Legal Framework
On July 3, 2024, Parent served the Springfield Public Schools (Springfield, SPS or District) with a request for production of documents, pursuant to Rule V(B)(1) of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules).[1] The substance of the request is reproduced verbatim, below:
- All emails, text messages, and internal email from 8-15-22 through
6-13-24 with his [Student’s] name, student ID, parent’s name, and advocate’s name (only involving this student).
- All documentation regarding the communication with SSCD.
- Entire copy of the student’s file including the sign-in sheet of who viewed his file, and any notes.
Rule V(B) of the Hearing Rules requires that “[t]he party upon whom the request is served shall respond within a period of thirty (30) calendar days unless a shorter or longer period of time is established by the Hearing Officer.” Rule V(C) provides that [t]he party upon whom a request for discovery is served, may, within ten (10) calendar days of service of the request, file…objections to the request or move for a protective order.” [2]
Pursuant to the above-cited provisions, Springfield’s Notice of Objections to the discovery request, if any, would have been due on or before July 12, 2024. The District’s responses to Parent’s request for production of documents were due on or before August 2, 2024. Springfield neither served Parent with the documents requested on or before the deadline of August 2, 2024, nor filed a ten-day Notice of Objection to the requests.
On August 5, 2024, Parent filed the above-referenced Motion to Compel production of the documents requested on July 3, 2024. On August 7, 2024, in response to Parent’s Motion to Compel, Springfield’s counsel requested an extension of time to August 14, 2024, to respond to discovery, explaining that the District was “undergoing some internal work with its databases in preparation for the school year which meant that it did not have access to its records for a period of several weeks in July.” Parent responded on the same date with an email stating, in effect, that Springfield should have brought the database access issue to Parent’s attention in July rather than waiting until “a week after [responses] are due.”
On August 9, 2024, the office of Springfield’s counsel emailed Parent’s advocate a link to an electronic copy of its responses to discovery and informed the advocate that a hard copy of the documents had been mailed to her via overnight mail, on that day.
On August 21, 2024, Springfield filed correspondence reporting that all discovery had been provided with the exception of emails, which the District was in the process of redacting prior to providing them to Parent. Springfield requested an extension of the deadline to complete its response to discovery to August 30, 2024. On the same date, Parent’s advocate responded that she had not yet received “texts, memos, sign-in sheets, etc.” included in her discovery request. Prior to this exchange of correspondence, neither party had informed the Hearing Officer that discovery was incomplete. Specifically, having been informed by the District on August 9, 2024, that it had forwarded copies of all responsive documents to Parent, and having received no communication to the contrary from Parent between August 9 and August 21, 2024, this Hearing Officer assumed that the discovery issue had been resolved.
A conference call was held on August 22, 2024, to discuss the outstanding discovery, during which the parties agreed that Springfield would provide the outstanding emails by August 30, 2024. District counsel reported that to her knowledge, there exist no text messages responsive to the discovery request, and no “sign-in sheets.” Parent’s advocate stated that she was aware of such sign-in sheets, as well as of texts between District staff and Parent, in addition to texts exchanged among staff during Team meetings. Parent’s advocate was instructed to inform District counsel, in writing, of the approximate dates, times, and involved staff to enable the District to locate the texts so that they could be produced.
Discussion
It is clear that Springfield neither complied with the 10-day deadline for filing a Notice of Objections to Parent’s discovery request, nor with the 30-day deadline for providing Parent with the documents requested. Further, Springfield’s request for an extension of the 30-day discovery deadline was submitted five days after this deadline had elapsed. Nonetheless, on August 9, 2024, two days after filing its Response to the Motion to Compel, and seven calendar days after the original due date, the District sent to Parent’s advocate an electronic copy of what was reported to be the documents requested, as well as a hard copy via overnight mail.[3]
Nearly two weeks after the District reported having served the documents requested, the undersigned Hearing Officer was informed for the first time that the emails and text messages requested had not, in fact been provided. The District had not indicated that its discovery response of August 9, 2024, did not contain these items, and Parent did not report that she had not received them.
Clearly, Springfield is obligated to provide the remainder of the requested documents. It is also clear that Parent must provide sufficient, specific information to enable the District to identify the texts and other documents (such as sign-in sheets) that she asserts are missing. This may include, but is not limited to, identifying the District personnel whom Parent believes exchanged texts with her and with each other, as well as the approximate dates and circumstances (e.g., Team meetings) of these exchanges. Additionally, Parent must provide Springfield with sufficient information to locate, retrieve, and produce any other documents that Parent requested but has not received. The hearing is currently scheduled for September 12 and 13, 2024. If the District provides the additional documents requested, Parent will have had over one month prior to hearing to review the documents that she did receive on August 9, 2024, and nearly two weeks to review the additional documents.
During the conference call held on August 22, 2024, Parent’s advocate reported that she had received medical reports indicating harm to Student due to his non-attendance at school. The Advocate was instructed to forward this information to counsel for the District for review by the Team.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Order Regarding Motion to Compel
Based on the foregoing, Parent’s Motion to Compel is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The Motion is DENIED as moot with respect to all documents provided to Parent on August 9, 2024, electronically and via overnight mail.
The Motion is GRANTED with respect to emails, appropriately redacted, as requested by Parent, as well as other documents requested such as “sign-in sheets.” Springfield shall provide Parent with electronic and/or printed versions of such emails by close of business on August 30, 2024.
The Motion is GRANTED with respect to text messages, provided that, no later than close of business on August 23, 2024, Parent shall provide counsel for the District with sufficient information to enable identification, location, and retrieval of such text messages. If such information is provided, then Springfield shall provide Parent with electronic and/or printed versions of the text messages by close of business on August 30, 2024.
Upon completion of service of discovery, Springfield shall certify, in writing, that it has provided Parent with all documents requested that are in its custody, possession, or control, and shall supplement such discovery in the future, if appropriate.
Order Regarding Information for Team
Parent shall immediately forward to counsel for the District any and all evaluations, medical correspondence, and any other information that has not yet been made available to the Team, and which Parent seeks to have considered by the Team in determining appropriate services for Student. Springfield shall convene a Team meeting to review such information within ten school days of receipt. 603 CMR 28.04(5)(f).
Notice Regarding Decorum
Lastly, parties are advised that pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01(1)(d)(1):
All Parties, their Authorized Representatives, witnesses, and other Persons present at a hearing, shall conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the standards of decorum commonly observed in any court. Where such decorum is not observed, the Presiding Officer may take appropriate action…[which] may include refusal to allow a disruptive Person to remain in the hearing room…
This means that personal attacks of any kind on a party, representative, witness, or other participant, including, but not limited to, berating, name-calling, making accusations, and other, similar conduct are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. In the future, any such conduct may result in immediate termination of the conference call or other proceeding and/or exclusion of the offending party or representative from participation.
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Sara Berman
______________________________
Sara Berman
Date: August 22, 2024
[1]In this Ruling, the terms “Parent,” and “advocate,” and “District” and “District’s counsel” are used interchangeably for the sake of clarity; however all actions, including filings and other communications, were conducted by the parties’ respective representatives, i.e., Parent’s advocate and Springfield’s attorney.
[2] The 10-day deadline for objections may be satisfied by filing a general Notice of Objections, which may be followed by more detailed objections at a later time. See In Re: Danvers Public Schools, BSEA No. 12-3302 (Berman, 2012)
[3] The time stamp on the email from District counsel’s office shows that the link was sent at 5:33 PM, presumably shortly after business hours; however, at most, this represents a delay of eight calendar days from the original due date for responding to discovery.