The appeal must be dismissed. On March 14, the district provided some, but not all of the materials requested. On June 25, a pre-hearing conference was held by the hearing officer, at which time it became clear that the school district would not turn over certain other materials covered by the subpoena, most importantly, prior written statements by potential witnesses on behalf of the school district. On June 28, respondent made a formal motion before the hearing officer for the production of such prior written statements, among other things. Prior to the next scheduled hearing date on November 21, petitioner commenced this appeal and requested a stay of the hearing officer's order, which application was denied on November 18, 1991.
Petitioner claims that the hearing officer had no jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena duces tecum.
Petitioner argues that some or all of the materials demanded by the subpoena are materials prepared for litigation, and are therefore shielded from disclosure. Respondent raises several defenses, including untimeliness, the alleged failure of petitioner board to authorize this appeal, and failure to state a claim. He further argues that this is an attempt to appeal an interlocutory ruling within the context of a disciplinary proceeding. The appeal is untimely. The Commissioner may excuse a failure to commence an appeal where good cause is shown in the petition.