Opinion
No. CV 04 0527004 S
July 14, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
The moving party, Felipe Mulero is currently under investigation by the State of Connecticut Department of Education concerning his suitability for continued teacher certificate pursuant to the provisions of § 10-145b(m)(1) of the Regulation of Connecticut Agencies.
On or about April 8, 2004, The Department of Education served a subpoena duces tecum on Central Connecticut State University. The subpoena is entitled "INVESTIGATORY SUBPOENA pursuant to Section 10-145d-612(d) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM." It orders the Counsel to the President of the Central Connecticut State University to produce "Any and all records and documents regarding or referencing Felipe Mulero in the possession of Central Connecticut State University or any of its agents or assigns, to be used in an investigation pursuant to Section 10-445d-612(d) of the Regulation of Connecticut State Agencies."
On April 23, 2003, Mr. Mulero filed the instant motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum that was served upon him by the State of Connecticut Department of Education. The movant asserts in pertinent part that there is no "just cause" for the release of the information and that information sought by the State is protected under the Family Rights and Privacy Act.
Section 10-145d-612 of the Regulation of Connecticut State Agencies concerns the revocation of teaching certificates. Subsection 10-145d-612(d) provides that:
Investigation. If, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the request to revoke does contain factual information in reasonable detail sufficient to commence an investigation, the Commissioner shall cause an investigation to be made. Investigatory subpoenas may be issued. CT Page 10769
The applicant asserts that the subject subpoena should be quashed because:
See Applicant's Affidavit dated April 26, 2004.
1. The release of [his] student files/records will produce irreversible harm to [him]/slander [his] reputation.
2. The University has no right to release [his] student files/records which are protected under the Family Rights and Privacy Act.
3. [He has] not committed or violated any laws on Central Connecticut State University Campus to warrant [the] release of any of [his] student records/files.
This Court has heard and considered the arguments at hearing concerning the instant motion as well as those arguments presented in the papers this Court concludes that the applicant has failed to meet his burden of proof as to any of the three reasons cited in support of the motion to quash the subpoena. Furthermore the movant has failed to show that the subpoena was unreasonable or oppressive. In light of the foregoing the motion to quash is denied.
Subsection 13-28(e) of the Connecticut Practice Book concerns persons who have been served a subpoena. This section provides that:
The court in which the cause is pending, or, if the cause is pending in a foreign court, the court in the judicial district wherein the subpoenaed person resides, may, upon motion made promptly and, in any event at or before the time for compliance specified in a subpoena authorized by subsection (b) of this section, (1) quash or modify subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive or if it seeks the production of materials not subject to production under the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, or (2) condition denial of the motion upon the advancement by the party who requested the subpoena of the reasonable cost of producing the materials being sought.
Richard A. Robinson, J.