California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials et al v. Torlakson et al

Filing 184

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 180 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

CALIFORNIA PARENTS FOR THE
EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL
MATERIALS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.

Case No.17-cv-00635-CRB (JSC)
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 180

TOM TORLAKSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (“CAPEEM”)

14

and several individually-named parents of public school students (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring

15

this action against officials at the California Department of Education and members of the State

16

Board of Education (collectively, “State Defendants”), as well as four California School Districts,

17

alleging discrimination against Hinduism in the California public school curriculum. (See

18

generally Dkt. No. 1.) Now pending before the Court is nonparty Jonathan Kenoyer’s (“Prof.

19

Kenoyer”) administrative motion to file under seal. (Dkt. No. 180.) As set forth below, the Court

20

DENIES the motion because it fails to comply with the instructions given by the Court in its

21

August 16, 2018 Order, (Dkt. No. 171).

22

In its August 2018 Order, the Court denied Prof. Kenoyer’s administrative motion to seal,

23

(Dkt. No. 145), because it failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). (See Dkt. No. 171 at

24

15.) The Court also denied Plaintiffs’ administrative motions to seal, (Dkt. Nos. 147, 153, 156),

25

because Prof. Kenoyer failed to file a supporting declaration as required under Civil Local Rule

26

79-5(e)(1). The Court provided Prof. Kenoyer with an opportunity to correct these procedural

27

defects pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), and issued the following instructions:

28

The Court finds that delaying the public docketing is warranted

1

because the material sought to be sealed is the same material at issue
in Prof. Kenoyer’s underlying motion to maintain confidential
designation, and Prof. Kenoyer has shown good cause for why those
documents should retain their confidential designation. Prof.
Kenoyer shall submit an administrative motion to seal within 10
days of this Order that fully complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)
and identifies all documents, or portions thereof, that he seeks to
have filed under seal—including portions of Plaintiffs’ filings and
portions of this Order, if any. Accordingly, Docket Nos. 145, 147,
153, and 156 are held in abeyance.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(Dkt. No. 171 at 17.) Prof. Kenoyer’s instant motion fails to comply with the Court’s instructions.
First, Prof. Kenoyer’s motion does not specify the portions of Plaintiffs’ filings identified
in Plaintiff’s administrative motions to seal, (Dkt. Nos. 147, 153, 156), that Prof. Kenoyer seeks to
file under seal. For example, Plaintiffs filed their entire opposition to Prof. Kenoyer’s motion

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

under seal. Prof. Kenoyer must identify what portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition should remain

12

sealed, identified by page and line, and a declaration that supports the sealing of those specific

13

portions. To simply state that the Court ruled that certain documents may be maintained as

14

confidential is insufficient.

15

Second, Prof. Kenoyer’s declaration in support of the instant motion states that “[a]ttached

16

hereto as Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of the documents entitled to retain confidential

17

designation as identified in [a previous paragraph],” but no such exhibit is attached. (See Dkt. No.

18

182 at ¶ 9.)

19

Given the amount of time and money expended on this aspect of the litigation, and good

20

cause having been shown for why the documents should retain their confidential designation, the

21

Court will give Prof. Kenoyer one last chance to correct these deficiencies and fully comply with

22

the Court’s clear instructions. Prof. Kenoyer must file a further administrative motion to seal by

23

August 31, 2018.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2018

26
27
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
ACQUE
C UELINE SCOTT
Y
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2