Understanding Subpoenas in Special Education Due Process
The language of subpoenas, common themes, overly broad requests, duplicative and layered demands, undue burden on parents, and more.
When parents file for a due process complaint under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), they should be prepared for subpoenas—legal demands used by both school divisions and parents to request records and other information.
What happens when those subpoenas are too broad, duplicative, and/or simply overwhelming?
This article examines three subpoenas submitted by lawyers with the Virginia firm Blankingship & Keith, regarding due process complaints filed against Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in 2017, 2020, and 2025. It identifies patterns and cites case law related to subpoenas. (Scroll to the bottom of the article to access the three subpoenas). As a reminder: It is not legal advice. If you continue to have questions, consider consulting with an advocate and/or attorney.
The Language of Subpoenas
Subpoenas use commanding language such as "you are hereby commanded" or "must produce", which can feel aggressive, harsh, and/or even accusatory—especially if you’re simply advocating for your child’s needs. Reading a document that demands you take an action—especially when your complaint might be about the school’s history of inaction—can hurt, like salt on an open wound.
Here's what you should understand:
Subpoenas are legal documents. They reflect “legalese”—a style of writing used and/or required by courts and/or hearing officers. The style is serious because subpoenas are serious legal documents.
Even though the language sounds like you must comply no matter what, that might not necessarily be the case. You have the right to challenge a subpoena if you believe it goes too far.
In fact, one parent saw one of the subpoenas in this article within an earlier Special Education Action article, copied it almost verbatim, and submitted it as her subpoena to a different Virginia school district, regarding a due process hearing that parent filed. The result? The opposing school district challenged the subpoena, stating it was overly broad. And yet . . . The subpoena had been written by lawyers representing a school district. This story shows that even language written by seasoned attorneys can be challenged as—and found to be—overly broad.
Common Themes
Although the subpoenas span almost a decade, the language and asks are similar. They make requests for private evaluations and therapy records; inquire about educational programs the parent believes are appropriate; demand communications (emails, meeting notes, and transcripts); request financial records tied to reimbursement claims; and focus on services not previously provided to the school district.
These themes are common in special education disputes in which parents allege that the school district failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), as required under 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A).
Examples of Overly Broad Requests
Request #9 of the 2020 Subpoena states:
“All reports, drafts, correspondence, notes, emails, progress reports and other documents created and/or received by or concerning any private services provided to [Student], including any medical, psychiatric, psychological, educational, counseling, and therapy services or assessments (including but not limited to speech/language, assistive technology, vision, occupational, auditory/audiological), which were not previously provided by you to FCPS, that [Student] is receiving, has received or participated in the past three (3) years, and/or that you are seeking or may seek to have him participate in.”
This request covers any document from any provider, without a date range or specific relevance. It could require gathering thousands of pages from doctors, therapists, tutors, and more—even though they aren’t relevant to the complaint. Just think about all the reasons kids see pediatricians through the years. Under this demand, a parent would have to provide documentation related to ear infections; annual, camp, and sports physicals; vaccinations; a stuffy nose, and for anything else the child visited the doctor—even though none of the visits relate to the complaint at hand.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that courts should not enforce subpoenas that are vague, excessive, and/or unreasonable (McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017)):
“If the charge is proper and the material requested is relevant, the district court should enforce the subpoena unless the employer establishes that the subpoena is “too indefinite,” has been issued for an “illegitimate purpose,” or is unduly burdensome.”
Though this is not a special education case, McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is an example of case law that is applicable to special education. Ultimately, a decision related to a subpoena can be applied to a due process hearing, even if the case in which it was decided has nothing to do with special education.