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)
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?