1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA PARENTS FOR THE 

EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL 

MATERIALS, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

TOM TORLAKSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.17-cv-00635-CRB (JSC) 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 180

Plaintiffs California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (“CAPEEM”) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court finds that delaying the public docketing is warranted 
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

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. 

(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 

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

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

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

confidential is insufficient. 

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

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

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

182 at ¶ 9.) 

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

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

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

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

August 31, 2018. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

United States Magistrate Judge 

August 28, 2018

ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY