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

Filing 205

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 198 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/13/2018. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 CALIFORNIA PARENTS FOR the EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATION MATERIALS, et al., Plaintiffs, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. Case No. 17-00635 CRB (JSC) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Re: Dkt. No. 198 Tom TORLAKSON, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiffs challenge the framework of the California public school curriculum for sixth 14 15 16 grade students addressing Hinduism (“the Framework”). Following the district court’s rulings on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 119), and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Dkt. No. 204), the sole claim remaining is Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim on the second prong of 17 the Lemon test. Now pending before the Court is a discovery dispute joint letter brief regarding 18 19 20 21 Plaintiffs’ request for certain electronic discovery. (Dkt. No. 198.) In particular, Plaintiffs seek all of Defendants’ records as to the Framework and Hinduism regardless of whether the public would have been aware of the records or their content. After carefully considering the parties’ letter brief and attached exhibits, as well as the history of this case, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request. 22 Plaintiffs have failed to show that the voluminous documents they seek tend to prove or disprove 23 the claim remaining in this lawsuit. Further, any slight relevance is outweighed by the burden of 24 production. 25 DISCUSSION 26 27 28 The issue in Plaintiffs’ remaining Establishment Clause claim is whether the government action—the Framework addressing the Hindu religion—“has the principal or primary effect of 1 advancing or inhibiting religion.” California Parents for the Equalization of Educational 2 Materials (“CAPEEM”) v. Torlakson, 267 F. Supp. 3d 1218, 1230 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “Courts 3 must analyze the primary effect from the perspective of an observer who is both informed and 4 reasonable.” Id. In the elementary school context, such as here, “the primary effect prong of the 5 Lemon test asks whether an ‘objective observer in the position of an elementary school student 6 would perceive a message of . . . disapproval [of religion].” Id. Because Plaintiffs are challenging 7 the content of the sixth grade curriculum, “the Court analyzes the second Lemon prong from the 8 perspective of a reasonable sixth grader.” Id. 9 In connection with this claim, Defendants have produced all documents that were “ever uploaded, published, publicly displayed, or otherwise made available for public observation,” 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 including audio and video recordings of the relevant public meetings. (Dkt. No. 198-9 at ¶ 3.) 12 Defendants contend that this is all an objective observer could have perceived and thus no more is 13 relevant, or at least reasonable to produce. Plaintiffs insist that Defendants must produce more. 14 Rather than identify particular documents that they believe are relevant, however, Plaintiffs appear 15 16 17 18 to contend that all documents responsive to their 14 document requests (Dkt. No. 198-1) should be produced, regardless of whether an objective observer could have been aware of the documents. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ demand. The requested documents are not relevant to the claim at issue in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For example, Request No. 4 seeks: 19 20 21 22 23 All electronically stored information relating to the Framework that includes one or more of the following terms: Hindu, Hinduism, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Jesus, New Testament, Jew, Jews, Jewish, Judaism, Moses, Exodus, King David, timeline, time line, Islam, Muslim, Muslims, Muhammad, Islamic, Sikh, Sikhs, Sikhism, Religion, Religions, Religious, Aryan, caste, AIT, AMT, Witzel, Kenoyer, Indo-European, IndoEurasian, Steve Farmer, India, Indian, Indians, South Asian, South Asians, and SAFG. 24 (Dkt. No. 198-1 at 4.) Plaintiffs offer no explanation as to how this wide swath of electronic 25 discovery tends to prove or disprove how an objective observer would perceive the Framework’s 26 discussion of Hinduism if it was never publicly available. Instead, they broadly insist that it is 27 relevant to the “history and context” of the challenged government action and therefore 28 discoverable. (Dkt. No. 198 at 2 n.4) (citing McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 862 2 1 (2005); Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011)). The “specific sequence 2 of events” referred to in McCreary, however, were “the traditional external signs that show up in 3 the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, or comparable official act.” 4 McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 Plaintiffs have the “external” signs; they seek internal information. Nothing in McCreary supports 6 their request. To the contrary, McCreary emphasized that the court’s inquiry on an Establishment 7 8 9 10 Clause claim does not involve “psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” Id. Similarly, in Trunk, the “history and setting” considered by the Ninth Circuit included the Memorial’s long history of religious use and symbolism—all publicly available facts. 629 F.3d at 1118-1120. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Jewish War Veterans of America Inc. v. Gates, 506 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. Sep. 18, 2007), fails to persuade this Court otherwise. That case was not limited to a United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Lemon test prong two Establishment Clause claim; instead, the “foremost” issue was prong one— 12 legislative purpose. Id. at 46. Here, in contrast, the district court has already ruled that the 13 14 15 16 17 18 California framework has a secular purpose as a matter of law. CAPEEM, 267 F. Supp. 3d at 1228. Thus, discovery would have necessarily been broader in Jewish War Veterans. For example, the Jewish War Veterans court addressed whether particular emails were relevant to the excessive entanglement prong of the Lemon test. 506 F. Supp. 2d at 49. The district court here has ruled that there was no excessive entanglement. CAPEEM, 267 F. Supp. 3d at 1229-30. To justify their broad document requests, Plaintiffs have identified a few issues in the 19 “history and context” of the Framework’s adoption. First, they contend Defendants told the public 20 that they would select experts through the contracting process conducted by the California 21 Department of Education, but instead chose to solicit handpicked professors who would 22 supposedly provide reports as public comment. From that history and context, Plaintiffs contend 23 that “[a] reasonable observer would question – and Plaintiffs are entitled to know – whether the 24 process of choosing and consulting with experts behind the scenes was designed to manipulate the 25 content of the Framework in a way that would deride Hinduism and not be subject to public 26 scrutiny.” (Dkt. No. 198 at 3 (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs never explain and do not cite any 27 authority as to why they “are entitled to know.” Further, regardless of whether the process was 28 subjectively designed to manipulate the Framework’s content, the impression on the objective 3 1 observer would be the same. 2 Second, Plaintiffs complain that Defendants solicited input from the South Asian Faculty 3 Group in violation of Defendants’ own deadlines and the regulations governing public comment. 4 (Id.) Plaintiffs may make this argument to the district court, but again they still do not explain 5 how reviewing documents addressing the solicitation of the Group would tend to prove or 6 disprove the Framework’s effect on an objective observer who had no access or knowledge of the 7 content of those documents. The same is true as to Plaintiffs’ emphasis that two members of the 8 South Asian Faculty Group were also associated with the California History-Social Science 9 Project, the Framework’s primary author. Plaintiffs’ inquiry is not relevant. 10 The Court is not ruling that records that were not publicly available are never discoverable United States District Court Northern District of California 11 in connection with a Lemon test prong two Establishment Clause claim. It is instead ruling that 12 Plaintiffs have not identified any such records that are relevant and should be discoverable. This 13 conclusion is further supported by the burden Plaintiffs’ request places on Defendants. (Dkt. No. 14 198-9.) It is not reasonable, nor proportional to the needs of this narrowed case, to require 15 Defendants to produce the requested documents in the hope that something useful may come up. 16 Defendants are thus similarly not required to produce privilege logs for these documents. 17 18 This Order disposes of Docket No. 198. Dated: November 13, 2018 19 20 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?