Does 1-7 v. Bossier - Anonymous Motion

Case 5:18-cv-00152-SMH-MLH Document 13 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 252
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
Plaintiffs, Civil Docket No. 5:18-cv-152
v. CHIEF JUDGE HICKS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD and
SCOTT SMITH in his official capacity
as Bossier Parish Superintendent,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO PROCEED USING

PSEUDONYMS
Plaintiffs Does 1–7, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Proceed Using
Pseudonyms, move this Court for an Order allowing Plaintiffs to proceed using
pseudonyms. Plaintiffs seek this Order pending disposition of Plaintiffs’ claims that
Defendants have violated and continue to violate the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the
States through the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs
submit the attached Memorandum in Support, the signed declarations of Plaintiffs
Doe 1, Doe 2, Doe 3, Doe 4, Doe 5, Doe 6, and Doe 7, Alison Tanner, and Richard B.
Katskee, an exhibit, and a proposed Order.
1
Respectfully submitted this 1st day of March, 2018.
s/ William P. Quigley
Richard B. Katskee, D.C. Bar No. 474250*

Eric Rothschild, D.C. Bar No. 1048877*
(Trial Attorney)
Alison Tanner, D.C. Bar No. 230504*
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE
1310 L Street NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 898-0957
Fax: (202) 898-0958
katskee@au.org
rothschild@au.org
tanner@au.org
William P. Quigley, La. Bar No. 07769

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS
7214 St. Charles Avenue
Campus Box 902
New Orleans, LA 70118
Tel: (504) 861-5591
quigley@loyno.edu
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
* Motion for admission pro hac vice forthcoming
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 1, 2018, I presented the foregoing Plaintiffs’
Motion to Proceed Using Pseudonyms to the Clerk of the Court for filing and
uploading to the CM/ECF system, and served a copy on opposing counsel via e-mail,
with opposing counsel’s consent.

Campus Box 902
Tel: (504) 861-5591
quigley@loyno.edu
3
Case 5:18-cv-00152-SMH-MLH Document 13-1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 255

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,

SCOTT SMITH in his official capacity as
Bossier Parish Superintendent,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO PROCEED USING
PSEUDONYMS
Richard B. Katskee* William P. Quigley, La. Bar No. 07769

Eric Rothschild* LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS
Alison Tanner* 7214 St. Charles Avenue
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF Campus Box 902
CHURCH AND STATE New Orleans, LA 70118
1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 (504) 861-5591
Washington, DC 20005 quigley@loyno.edu
Tel: (202) 898-0957
Fax: (202) 898-0958
katskee@au.org
*Admitted pro hac vice
Counsel for Plaintiffs

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................... ii
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Argument ....................................................................................................................... 2
I. Plaintiffs Should Be Permitted To Proceed Using Pseudonyms. ................... 2
A. Plaintiffs have a substantial need for privacy protection. ...................... 3
1. Plaintiffs have a strong interest in privacy regarding their

religious beliefs. ................................................................................. 3
2. Plaintiffs have a credible fear of retaliatory harm if their role in

this lawsuit is revealed. ..................................................................... 5
B. Pseudonyms will not unfairly prejudice Defendants. ........................... 14
C. Anonymity would serve, not hinder, the public interest in this case. .. 16
II. If Anonymity Is Denied, Plaintiffs Should Be Allowed To Choose Between

Disclosing Their Identities and Withdrawing From the Case. .................... 18
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 19
Certificate of Service.................................................................................................... 21
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Ahlquist v. City of Cranston,
840 F. Supp. 2d 507 (D.R.I. 2012) ....................................................................... 9
Bell v. Little Axe Independent School District,

766 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1985) ................................................................... 12, 13
Bossier City Medical Suite, Inc. v. City of Bossier City,

483 F. Supp. 633 (W.D. La. 1980) ..................................................................... 17
Deveney v. Board of Education,

231 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D. W. Va. 2002)............................................................ 12
Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis.,

112 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................... 1
Doe v. Eason,
No. 3:98-CV-2454, 1999 WL 33942103 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 1999) .................. 3, 5
Doe v. Frank,
951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992) ..................................................................... 3
Doe v. Hood,
No. 3:16-cv-00789-CWR-FKB, 2017 WL 2408196 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2017) .. 17
Doe v. Smith,
429 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 19
Doe v. Stegall,
653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981) .................................................................... passim
Doe ex rel. Doe v. Elmbrook School District,

658 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 1
Doe ex rel. Doe v. Harris,

No. 14-0802, 2014 WL 4207599 (W.D. La. Aug. 25, 2014) ........................... 3, 16
Glassroth v. Moore,
335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 11
ii
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,

400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) ................................................................ 10
Plaintiff B v. Francis,
631 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 14
Rose v. Beaumont Independent School District,

240 F.R.D. 264 (E.D. Tex. 2007) ....................................................................... 16
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe,

530 U.S. 290 (2000) ............................................................................... 13, 16, 17
Southern Methodist University Association of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe,
599 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1979) ............................................................................... 3
Wynne v. Town of Great Falls,

376 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................. 11
STATUTES
LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 17:91 .................................................................................... 14
LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44:1 ...................................................................................... 16
OTHER AUTHORITIES
710 KEEL News, Bossier Schools Boss Talks Protests, Prayers and More, YOUTUBE
(Oct. 11, 2017), http://bit.ly/2BcGHKq............................................................. 14
Americans United Files Lawsuit Against Bossier Parish Schools, KSLA NEWS 12
(Feb. 7, 2018, 2:03 PM EST), http://bit.ly/2C2i2sw ............................................ 6
Benjamin P. Edwards, When Fear Rules in Law’s Place: Pseudonymous

Litigation as a Response to Systematic Intimidation, 20 VIRGINIA
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL POLICY & LAW 437 (2013).......................................... passim
Zack Kopplin, Religious Rants in the Classroom, SLATE (Nov. 2, 2015),

http://slate.me/1P6y351 ............................................................................... 4, 7, 8
Mallory Simon, What Happened When a Public School Student Sued Over
Prayer, CNN (Jan. 24, 2018), http://cnn.it/2DzZCAZ......................................... 8
Charles Shumaker, Student Beaten for Prayer Suit, He Says, CHARLESTON

GAZETTE & DAILY MAIL (June 19, 2002), http://bit.ly/2zOfrTe ........................ 12
iii
INTRODUCTION
Challenges to governmental conduct under the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment often lead to powerful emotional reactions and backlash in the
affected community. Those who speak up about violations, and especially those who
sue to curtail those violations, often become victims of harassment, social ostracism,
economic injury, and even physical violence.
This lawsuit challenges the Bossier Parish School Board and Superintendent’s
official sponsorship and endorsement of pervasive religious practices in the Bossier
Parish School System, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Plaintiffs are parents
of children attending public school in the Bossier Parish School System. They seek,
among other relief, an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to sponsor
and endorse religious practices in the public schools. By this motion, Plaintiffs
request leave to proceed using pseudonyms, limiting disclosure of their and their
families’ identities to Defendants’ counsel (and to the Court as appropriate) under the
terms of an attorneys’-eyes-only agreement.
Plaintiffs’ counsel have been authorized to state that Defendants’ counsel has
no objection to the use of pseudonyms in this case. The reasons that the Court should
grant this request are as follows.
Plaintiffs have strong reason to fear that they and their families, including
their minor children—whose identities would inevitably be revealed if Plaintiffs’
identities were revealed—will suffer grave harms if they are not allowed to proceed
using pseudonyms. See Declaration of Plaintiff Doe 1 ¶¶ 5–10 (Exhibit A); Declaration
1
of Plaintiff Doe 2 ¶¶ 5–9 (Exhibit B); Declaration of Plaintiff Doe 3 ¶¶ 5–10
(Exhibit C); Declaration of Plaintiff Doe 4 ¶¶ 5–13 (Exhibit D); Declaration of Plaintiff
Doe 5 ¶¶ 5–9 (Exhibit E); Declaration of Plaintiff Doe 6 ¶¶ 5–11 (Exhibit F);
Declaration of Plaintiff Doe 7 ¶¶ 5–10 (Exhibit G). Plaintiffs’ and their families’ safety
and privacy needs far outweigh any hypothetical prejudice to Defendants or any harm
to the public interest—which is served, not inhibited, by allowing Plaintiffs to proceed
using pseudonyms. Accordingly, the Court should grant this motion and direct the
parties to prepare a proposed protective order.
ARGUMENT
I. Plaintiffs Should Be Permitted To Proceed Using Pseudonyms.
The Fifth Circuit applies a multi-factor balancing test that weighs three
competing interests to determine whether a plaintiff may proceed using pseudonyms:
(1) the plaintiffs’ demonstrated need for privacy protection; (2) fairness to the
defendant; and (3) the public’s right to open judicial proceedings. See Doe v. Stegall,
653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981). Here, Plaintiffs have substantial need for protection
against public exposure of their private religious beliefs, as well as protection against
harassment and increased ostracism of their minor children attending Bossier
Parish’s public schools. These interests greatly outweigh the minimal potential
burden that their use of pseudonyms might place on Defendants during this
litigation. And the public’s right to open judicial proceedings will not be hindered
because the public’s overwhelming interest in this suit lies in ensuring that the
School System is complying with its constitutional obligations to all Bossier Parish
students and families, not in exposing Plaintiffs and their children to harassment.
2
A. Plaintiffs have a substantial need for privacy protection.
In “cases involving matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature, real
danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would be incurred as
a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity,” the normal practice of publicly
naming parties yields to the plaintiffs’ privacy and safety interests. Doe v. Frank, 951
F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992).1 While all three factors need not be present for a court
to allow plaintiffs to proceed using pseudonyms (see Doe ex rel. Doe v. Harris, No. 14-
0802, 2014 WL 4207599, at *2 (W.D. La. Aug. 25, 2014)), all are present here.
Plaintiffs’ private religious beliefs are directly implicated by the constitutional claims
here and therefore would be revealed if Plaintiffs’ identities were disclosed. And
public disclosure would likely result in reprisals against Plaintiffs and their families,
whether from Defendants or from members of the community, and social ostracism
and greater religious coercion of their children in Bossier Parish schools.
1. Plaintiffs have a strong interest in privacy regarding their

religious beliefs.
The need for anonymity overwhelms the presumption of disclosure when
prosecution of the suit compels plaintiffs to “divulge[ ] personal information of the
utmost intimacy.” Southern Methodist Univ. Ass’n of Women Law Students v. Wynne
& Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 1979). In Doe v. Stegall, the Fifth Circuit
recognized that “religion is perhaps the quintessentially private matter.” 653 F.2d at
186. Thus, because the challenge to the practice of the Stegall plaintiffs’ public school
1 Frank relies on Fifth Circuit precedent and hence is cited extensively by courts
within this Circuit. See, e.g., Doe v. Eason, No. 3:98-CV-2454, 1999 WL 33942103, at
*2 n.4 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 1999).
3
requiring students to recite prayers and Bible verses involved “revelations about [the
plaintiffs’] personal beliefs and practices that . . . invited an opprobrium analogous to
the infamy associated with criminal behavior,” the court held that the protection of
anonymity was warranted. Id.
As in Stegall, Plaintiffs here would have their private religious beliefs revealed
as a result of prosecuting this Establishment Clause challenge to the official
promotion of religion by their children’s public schools: Plaintiffs must necessarily
reveal how their families’ religious beliefs and practices differ from those being
promoted by school officials. And these revelations will similarly invite opprobrium
upon Plaintiffs and their minor children. Some of Plaintiffs’ children try to hide their
religious identities in school because they have suffered harassment when their
religious beliefs were revealed in the past. See Doe 1 Decl. ¶ 8; Doe 2 Decl. ¶ 8; Doe 3
Decl. ¶ 6; Doe 6 ¶ 8; Doe 7 ¶ 8. And they are not alone; in Bossier Parish schools,
other students who have been identified as believers in minority faiths or no faith at
all have been subject to attacks, harassment, and ostracism by their classmates. For
example, members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes student organization at
Airline High School threw pocket Bibles at students who refused to accept them when
asked. See Zack Kopplin, Religious Rants in the Classroom, SLATE (Nov. 2, 2015),
http://slate.me/1P6y351. Plaintiffs should not have to reveal their and their families’
most personal religious beliefs—and invite opprobrium upon themselves and their
4
children—as a price for vindicating their constitutional rights. See Stegall, 653 F.2d
at 186.
2. Plaintiffs have a credible fear of retaliatory harm if their role in

this lawsuit is revealed.
Plaintiffs’ reasonable fear of harassment and violence also weighs heavily in
favor of allowing them to proceed under pseudonyms. Stegall, 653 F.2d at 182 n.6,
186. The youth of the targets of potential retaliation here is a significant factor in
that balance, especially because at least one of Plaintiffs’ children is in elementary
school. See id. at 186; Doe v. Eason, No. 3:98-CV-2454, 1999 WL 33942103, at *3 (N.D.
Tex. Aug. 4, 1999) (finding that elementary-school student was especially vulnerable).
In Establishment Clause cases, “the showing of possible threatened harm and serious
social ostracization based upon militant religious attitudes” gives children a “special
status and vulnerability” that the Fifth Circuit has recognized as especially
warranting the protection of litigation under pseudonyms. Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186.
Although Plaintiffs are not themselves minors, revealing their identities would
necessarily reveal the identities of their children attending Bossier Parish schools.
See Eason, 1999 WL 33942103, at *3 (“Revealing the Plaintiff’s identity will
necessarily reveal the identity of her daughter”).
In Stegall, the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ fear of harassment was
reasonable and sufficient to warrant proceeding anonymously after local residents
had declared at a school-board meeting that “Satan is here, working his evil on these
people filing this lawsuit” and “We have got to band together and whop this evil
thing.” 653 F.2d at 182 n.6. Unfortunately, this case has already spurred threats of
5
violent retaliation in Bossier Parish. Mere hours after the complaint was filed on
February 7, the following comments were made in response to a Facebook post by
local news channel KSLA News 12 sharing Americans United Files Lawsuit Against
Bossier Parish Schools, KSLA NEWS 12 (Feb. 7, 2018, 2:03 PM EST),
http://bit.ly/2C2i2sw:
6
See also Doe 3 Decl. ¶ 10; Doe 4 Decl. ¶ 10; Doe 5 Decl. ¶ 9; Doe 6 Decl. ¶ 11. And
previously, in response to a local news article following Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter to
the Bossier Parish School Board about prayer at Benton High School’s graduation
ceremony—a practice challenged in this case—Plaintiff Doe 3 saw a Facebook
comment threatening:
See also Doe 3 Decl. ¶ 10.
The heated debate over the proper role of religion in schools that this case has
already provoked is likely to move from the on-line world to Bossier Parish schools
themselves—as it has in the past. After the American Civil Liberties Union sent a
letter to the Bossier Parish School Board on behalf of an anonymous complainant
regarding prayers recited over the loudspeaker by the principal of Airline High
School, signs calling the principal a “Prayer Warrior” were planted in front of the high
school’s flag pole, and a “pray-in” at the school drew a large crowd of community
members, political leaders, and ministers to show their support for the principal’s
unconstitutional religious practices. See Kopplin, supra; Doe 1 Decl. ¶ 9. One
preacher who spoke at the rally announced that he needed Christians with “fingers
to fight, and hands to war.” Kopplin, supra. Students who spoke to a reporter about
7
their disagreement with Airline High School’s prayer practice insisted on anonymity
because “if there was a name revealed . . . that person would probably get attacked.”
Id.
The Court should also take notice of the events surrounding Cole v. Webster
Parish School Board, 5:17-cv-01629 (W.D. La.), also pending in this Court. Webster
Parish is east of and adjacent to Bossier Parish. On December 18, 2017, as this Court
is aware, Christy Cole filed a complaint on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor
daughter, K.C., against the Webster Parish School Board and school officials. As in
this case, Ms. Cole challenges pervasive Establishment Clause violations in her
child’s public school. Ms. Cole and her daughter have received extensive publicity as
a result of that lawsuit, and have reported the negative community reaction to it—
and to them. See, e.g., Mallory Simon, What Happened When a Public School Student
Sued Over Prayer, CNN (Jan. 28, 2018), http://cnn.it/2DzZCAZ. On her first day back
to school after the lawsuit was filed, K.C. walked the halls in fear that she would be
hissed at by her peers. Id. The Coles have been publicly urged to leave Webster Parish
because of their objections to prayer in public schools. Id. And other members of the
community have publicly threatened Ms. Cole and her daughter. See Declaration of
Alison Tanner (Exhibit H); see also Doe 4 Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10. To expect a different result
in Bossier Parish, when the verbal attacks have already begun on-line, would be to
turn a blind eye to the reality of the situation.
The hostile public reactions here and in Webster Parish are, sadly, all too
common in Establishment Clause cases: there is an alarming history of violence and
8
threats of violence against plaintiffs in cases like this one, giving further weight to
Plaintiffs’ reasonable fear here of severe retaliatory harm to their families if their
identities were revealed. For example:
 Jessica Ahlquist, a high-school student who challenged a “prayer mural”
in her school’s auditorium, was subjected to “bullying and threats at
school, on her way home from school and on-line,” and was the victim of
“a virtual on-line hate campaign via Facebook.” Ahlquist v. City of
Cranston, 840 F. Supp. 2d 507, 516 (D.R.I. 2012). At one point Ahlquist
needed a police escort to and from school; and after her address was
posted publicly on-line, Ahlquist was forced to consider transferring
schools. See Benjamin P. Edwards, When Fear Rules in Law’s Place:
Pseudonymous Litigation as a Response to Systematic Intimidation, 20
VA. J. SOC. POL’Y & L. 437, 459–60 (2013).
 In 2011, after a San Antonio family challenged student-led prayers at
the graduation ceremony of their children’s public school (Schultz v.
Medina Valley Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 5:11-cv-00422 (W.D. Tex.)), their
children received numerous on-line threats. Edwards, supra, at 462.
One person wrote: “This Agnostic shithead needs to thank God that he
graduated . . . in one piece!” Another threatened: “In my day he would
have been crying out to God while being stomped by bullies.” Id.
 Also in 2011, Damon Fowler, a then-senior at Bastrop High School in
Northwestern Louisiana, contacted officials at his school to complain
9
about scheduled prayers at his upcoming graduation ceremony. Id. at
461. After school officials leaked his name as the source of the complaint,
Fowler received death threats; other students boasted that they were
going to “jump him”; and one of Fowler’s teachers demeaned him in a
local publication as a “’student who really hasn’t contributed anything
to graduation or to [his] classmates.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting
news article).
 In 2005, parent-plaintiffs who successfully challenged the inclusion of
intelligent-design creationism in a ninth-grade biology curriculum at a
public high school in Pennsylvania were harassed and threatened. See
Declaration of Richard B. Katskee ¶ 6 (Exhibit I);2 Kitzmiller v. Dover
Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). One couple was
attacked and harassed as atheists (though they are Christian and ran
their church’s Vacation Bible School), and at least two plaintiffs received
death threats that had to be reported to the FBI and Pennsylvania State
Police. Katskee Decl. ¶ 6. Even the presiding federal district judge, the
Hon. John E. Jones III, received a barrage of death threats after issuing
his decision, causing the Federal Marshal Service to place special
protective details on him and his family. Id. The plaintiffs’ children were
2Katskee, who is counsel to Plaintiffs here, has been counsel to Establishment Clause
plaintiffs in dozens of lawsuits, including Kitzmiller, and has personal knowledge of
the incidents described here and in the accompanying Katskee Declaration
(Exhibit I).
10
harassed in school and taunted with the labels “ape boy” and “monkey
girl.” Id. One child (who was Christian and from a religious family) was
told in school that she “could no longer believe in evolution and still be
a Christian.” Id. Another child was challenged in her class about “why
her parents were causing all this trouble.” Id.
 A plaintiff who successfully challenged a prayer practice at meetings of
a town council in Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292 (4th Cir.
2004), became the target of extreme harassment and intimidation that
involved, among other things, at least ten incidents when her house was
vandalized, and the physical abuse, torture, and murder of her pets.
Katskee Decl. ¶ 9. In one incident, the plaintiff’s home was raided, her
pet parrot was beheaded, and its heart was cut out. Id. The parrot’s body
was left with a note warning, “You’re next!” Id.
 In Glassroth v. Moore, plaintiffs successfully challenged the placement
of a Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building.
335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff had her law practice
boycotted, her home, law office, and car vandalized, and the windows of
her home shot out. Katskee Decl. ¶ 8. The plaintiff ultimately received
protection from law enforcement because of threats to her and her aged,
ailing parents. Likewise, lead counsel in Glassroth (Katskee’s
predecessor as Legal Director of Americans United) received a protective
detail because of threats that the FBI found to be credible. Id.
11
 An eighteen-year-old student, Tyler Deveney, challenged his high
school’s inclusion of an invocation in its graduation ceremony. Deveney
v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D. W. Va. 2002). A month later,
he was beaten by a group of teenagers, one of whom said, “Oh, you hate
God?” and then hit Tyler in the face. See Charles Shumaker, Student
Beaten for Prayer Suit, He Says, CHARLESTON GAZETTE & DAILY MAIL
(June 19, 2002), http://bit.ly/2zOfrTe.
 After plaintiffs Joan Bell and Lucille McCord brought suit to challenge
a policy allowing religious meetings during school hours, the family was
subject to such severe harassment that the children had to change school
districts. Bell v. Little Axe Indep. Sch. Dist., 766 F.2d 1391, 1398 (10th
Cir. 1985). The family received death threats by phone and by mail, and
other students called the children “devil-worshippers.” Id. at 1397. One
of the children was subjected to “hair pulling . . . by a school employee.”
Id. And most chillingly, the Bells’ home burned down in a “suspicious”
fire. Id.
These examples of severe retaliation (and the other examples of threats and
injuries set forth in the Katskee Declaration) demonstrate the reasonableness of
Plaintiffs’ fears about retaliatory harm if their identities are revealed in this case—
retaliation that may include harassment, ostracism in the school community, and
physical violence.
12
Plaintiffs also fear that school personnel will expose Plaintiffs’ and their
children’s identities if they are allowed access to that information. In other
Establishment Clause cases, school personnel have attempted to “ferret out” the
identities of the plaintiffs, requiring court intervention. See, e.g., Santa Fe Indep. Sch.
Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 294 n.1 (2000) (school officials “’apparently neither agreed
with nor particularly respected’” district court’s protective order, necessitating
contempt warning to ensure that “’these proceedings [are] addressed on their merits,
and not on the basis of intimidation or harassment of the participants’” (quoting court
of appeals)); Katskee Decl. ¶ 12; see also Edwards, supra, at 461 (Morehouse Parish
school officials leaked identity of student who complained about graduation prayers).
And in some instances, school officials have even demeaned or attacked
schoolchildren because of their connection to Establishment Clause cases. See Bell,
766 F.2d at 1398 (school official pulled plaintiff’s child’s hair); Edwards, supra, at 461
(Morehouse Parish teacher demeaned student in local newspaper).
Plaintiffs very much appreciate that Defendants do not oppose this motion to
proceed using pseudonyms, and we do not mean to impute any bad motives to them.
Rather, attacks by community members against Plaintiffs’ children are a grave risk
here, and in addition the School System has many, many employees who will
inevitably have contact with Plaintiffs’ children and may not have the same
perspective as do Defendants themselves and their counsel. If Plaintiffs’ identities
become publicly known, it will be too late to prevent actual harm, despite the best
intentions of the parties and their counsel. Thus, Plaintiffs request that the Court
13
issue a protective order at the outset of this case that would afford defense counsel,
but not Defendants or the public, access to Plaintiffs’ identities.
As the on-line comments about this case show, community members are
already keen to discover the identity of Plaintiffs and to pressure them to drop this
suit and leave the jurisdiction, or to do worse. See also Doe 3 Decl. ¶ 10; Doe 4 Decl.
¶ 10; Doe 5 Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiffs and their children should not have to suffer the
retaliatory harms already threatened and reasonably feared in order to vindicate
their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs’ and their children’s substantial need for privacy
and safety weighs strongly in favor of allowing Plaintiffs to proceed using
pseudonyms.
B. Pseudonyms will not unfairly prejudice Defendants.
While courts must consider whether “anonymity [will] pose[] a unique threat
of fundamental unfairness to the defendant” (Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310,
1316 (11th Cir. 2011)), allowing Plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms subject to a
protective order that allows defense counsel here to conduct and make use of full
discovery will not unfairly burden Defendants’ ability to defend this action.
This case is a constitutional challenge to the official acts of Defendants and of
the schools and school officials under their control. Each allegation is, or should be,
within Defendants’ knowledge, whether because it concerns Defendants’ own acts or
the conduct of the schools and school personnel whom they direct and oversee in
accordance with their constitutional and statutory duties. See, e.g., LA. REV. STAT. §
17:91. In fact, Bossier Parish school officials have already admitted to many of the
allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint. See 710 KEEL News, Bossier Schools Boss Talks
14
Protests, Prayers and More, YOUTUBE (Oct. 11, 2017), http://bit.ly/2BcGHKq at 4:35
(radio interview with Superintendent Smith stating that Bossier Parish schools have
amplified prayers over the loudspeakers at football games for “many, many years”);
Second Am. Compl. Ex. D (Doc. No. 10-4) (e-mail from Bossier Parish teacher Carolyn
Goodwin stating, “Bossier has it’s [sic] problems but there are so many awesome
Christians from the top down. We pray at school functions and probably break the
law all the time!!”). Any allegation not already admitted to by Defendants or evident
from public records is within the knowledge of school officials, who do not need to
know Plaintiffs’ identities to tender any legal defenses to this action.
And certainly at this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs’ identities are relevant
only to establish Article III standing—i.e., to demonstrate that Plaintiffs are parents
of students in Bossier Parish schools. To the extent that any information confirming
Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding their standing is necessary, the proposed protective
order would allow Defendants’ attorneys to confirm, based on discovery from
Plaintiffs’ or school records, that Plaintiffs are indeed the parents of children
attending Bossier Parish schools with the legal right to challenge Defendants’
violations of the Establishment Clause. Nothing about that inquiry requires exposing
Plaintiffs and their families to risk of retaliatory harm.
Additionally, because Plaintiffs have named governmental officials solely in
their official capacity and have alleged only public facts, there is no threat that the
case will force public disclosure of information that Defendants have not themselves
already made public and could otherwise have kept private to protect their private
15
lives and personal reputations. Cf. Rose v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 240 F.R.D.
264, 266–67 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (denying anonymity because defendants were school
officials named in their individual capacities, whose personal fortunes and
reputations were therefore at risk). The information at issue in this case is almost
universally subject to Louisiana’s open-records laws (see LA. REV. STAT. § 44:1(A)(2)(a)
(defining “public records” as all records “used . . . in the conduct . . . of any business
. . . performed by or under the authority of the constitution or laws of [Louisiana]”)),
and many of the allegations are supported by public records already obtained by
Plaintiffs’ counsel through their November 8, 2017, public-records request. See
Exhibit J (Letter from Richard B. Katskee to Sonja Bailes, Public Relations Liaison,
Bossier Par. Sch. Sys. (Nov. 8, 2017)). Government officials are always subject to
public scrutiny, even if that sometimes means adverse publicity based on their official
actions. Defendants will not be forced to disclose information publicly that they could
otherwise have kept private.
C. Anonymity would serve, not hinder, the public interest in this case.
The presumption that parties must be named in litigation is tied to the public’s
right to open courts. See Harris, 2014 WL 4207599, at *1. But “[t]he equation linking
the public’s right to attend trials and the public’s right to know the identity of the
parties is not perfectly symmetrical.” Stegall, 653 F.2d at 185. Rather, in cases like
this one, the use of pseudonyms will “not obstruct the public’s view of the issues joined
or the court’s performance in resolving them.” Id. Thus, when, as here, suit is filed
against a governmental entity, the public interest in open proceedings is not harmed
by the plaintiffs proceeding anonymously because the public interest “pertains more
16
to [the case’s] outcome than to its individual participants.” Doe v. Hood, No. 3:16-cv-
00789-CWR-FKB, 2017 WL 2408196, at *2 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2017).
Revealing plaintiffs’ identities in cases over unconstitutional religious
promotion in public schools does nothing more than distract from addressing the
issues “’on their merits, and not on the basis of intimidation or harassment of the
participants on either side.’” Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 294 n.1 (quoting from district
court’s order enjoining school officials and others from attempting to uncover
plaintiffs’ identities in violation of protective order). As in Santa Fe, this case involves
religious practices in public schools; and the legal and factual issues do not depend
on the plaintiffs’ identities beyond confirming Plaintiffs’ ability to assert standing as
parents of students in the schools. As a result, allowing Plaintiffs to use pseudonyms
will not prevent the public from fully understanding the important constitutional
issues being litigated.
Additionally, allowing the litigation to go forward with pseudonyms here will
serve the public interest by not deterring other victims from seeking to vindicate their
constitutional rights. See Bossier City Med. Suite, Inc. v. Bossier City, 483 F. Supp.
633, 644 (W.D. La. 1980) (“The chilling effect of publicly airing so private a matter as
the decision to terminate a pregnancy may well preclude a woman from seeking
vindication of her constitutional rights in federal court.”). Intimidation and
harassment of plaintiffs in cases concerning government and religion “deter plaintiffs
from filing and thereby impede the rule of law if pseudonyms are infrequently allowed
or loosely enforced.” Edwards, supra, at 439; see also Katskee Decl. ¶ 12. “[P]laintiffs
17
bringing separation of church and state cases regularly receive nasty, vitriolic
threats,” and “named plaintiffs have had their houses firebombed and burned to the
ground, their children assaulted, and more.” Edwards, supra, at 438–39. When courts
refuse to allow plaintiffs in these sorts of cases to proceed under pseudonym, they
“effectively turn their backs on cases they would otherwise be hearing by allowing
intimidation and fear of reprisal to force plaintiffs out of court.” Id. at 439.
Here, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of their local schools’ promotion
of religion and of a particular faith. Fear that disclosure of their identities would
result in retaliatory harassment and ostracism of themselves and their children
reasonably makes Plaintiffs fear going forward with this litigation without the
protection of pseudonyms—and may make them drop out of the suit entirely rather
than subject their children to even greater risk of harm. See Doe 1 Decl. ¶ 4; Doe 2
Decl. ¶ 4; Doe 3 Decl. ¶ 4; Doe 4 Decl. ¶ 4; Doe 5 Decl. ¶¶ 4, 10; Doe 6 Decl. ¶ 4; Doe
7 Decl. ¶ 4. Disclosure would therefore chill Plaintiffs’ exercise of their constitutional
rights and deter other individuals from challenging unconstitutional practices—in
this Court’s jurisdiction and beyond. Thus, it would serve the public interest (while
disserving no one) to allow this suit to go forward with Plaintiffs proceeding under
pseudonyms.
II. If Anonymity Is Denied, Plaintiffs Should Be Allowed To Choose

Between Disclosing Their Identities and Withdrawing From the Case.
While this Court should permit Plaintiffs to proceed using pseudonyms,
Plaintiffs should be allowed to voluntarily withdraw from the case rather than reveal
their identities—and their children’s identities—if this motion is denied. Requiring
18
Plaintiffs to disclose their identities without giving them the option to withdraw from
the case would unfairly subject them to the very risks that they seek to avoid. See
Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[I]f the judge decides that
anonymous litigation is inappropriate, the plaintiff should be allowed to dismiss the
suit in lieu of revealing her name.”).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ and their children’s need to maintain the privacy of their beliefs
about religion and to avoid retaliatory harm far outweighs any potential burden on
Defendants or any public interest in this case. The Court should therefore grant
Plaintiffs leave to proceed anonymously.
Richard B. Katskee, D.C. Bar No. 474250*

Eric Rothschild, D.C. Bar No. 1048877* (Trial
Attorney)
Alison Tanner, D.C. Bar No. 230504*
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE
(202) 898-0957
katskee@au.org
rothschild@au.org
tanner@au.org

Campus Box 902
(504) 861-5591
quigley@loyno.edu
19
Counsel for Plaintiffs
*Admitted pro hac vice
20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 1, 2018, I presented the foregoing Memorandum
in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Using Pseudonyms to the Clerk of the
Court for filing and uploading to the CM/ECF system, and served a copy on opposing
counsel via e-mail, with opposing counsel’s consent.

Campus Box 902
Tel: (504) 861-5591
quigley@loyno.edu
21
EXHIBIT A

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

v.

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF DOE 1 IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO PROCEED USING PSEUDONYMS
I, Plaintiff Doe 1, declare that, if called upon, I would testify to the following:
1. I am a plaintiff in this case.
2. I am the parent of one or more children who attend school in the Bossier
Parish School System.
3. I have not disclosed my participation in this suit to any persons other
than my spouse, my closest friend, and the other plaintiffs. To my knowledge, no one
else, other than my attorneys, is aware that I am a plaintiff in this case.
4. I elected to bring this suit on the understanding that my identity would
not be disclosed. I wish to remain anonymous and to proceed using a pseudonym.
1
5. Maintaining anonymity is important to me because I fear for the
privacy, well-being, and safety of my family, and most especially of my underage child
or children, should my identity—and by extension theirs—become known.
6. I do not wish to make public my private religious beliefs, nor do I wish
to reveal the private religious beliefs of my family members.
7. Should my identity become known, I fear that my underage child or
children will suffer harassment, bullying, and verbal abuse by other students at
school that will interfere with their comfort, safety, and ability to learn.
8. I base these fears on previous instances in which my child or children
have been maliciously teased by other students during class for publicly admitting to
not attending church. Such verbal abuse has caused my child or children to suffer
serious distress and diminished their ability to learn.
9. I am aware that many community members—including school and law-
enforcement officials—support the inclusion of prayer and the promotion of religion
at school-sponsored events. I witnessed the Bossier Parish school community’s harsh
reaction to the ACLU’s letter in 2015 (Second Am. Compl. Ex. E (Doc. No. 10-5)), and
I drove past the prayer rally held on the front lawn of Airline High School on October
3, 2015, where I saw hundreds of Bossier Parish parents and students, as well as
school officials, in attendance. I fear that if my objection and involvement in this case
were known, my family would be harassed and possibly threatened with physical
violence by community members who would blame us for interfering with the schools’
2
religious activities. I fear that members of the school community would throw another
prayer rally, but this time they would hold it on my front lawn.
10. I believe that my coworkers and superiors, many of whom also send their
children to Bossier Parish schools, will strongly disapprove of my participation in this
lawsuit because of their differing religious beliefs. I fear that if my objection and
involvement in this case were known, my performance report and potential for
promotion at work would be adversely affected.
11. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 1, 2018.
s/ Plaintiff Doe 1
3
EXHIBIT B

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

v.

Defendants.

than my spouse, a close family friend, and the other plaintiffs. To my knowledge, no
one else, other than my attorneys, is aware that I am a plaintiff in this case.
1
have been maliciously teased by other students during class for publicly admitting to
not attending church. Such verbal abuse caused my child or children to suffer serious
distress and diminished their ability to participate in class.
9. I am aware that many community members—including school and law-
enforcement officials—support the inclusion of prayer and the promotion of religion
at school-sponsored events. I have already been disparaged by others in the
community when my religious beliefs were revealed; some have distanced themselves
from me when they learned that my family does not attend church; others have
declared that I “need to be saved.” I fear that if my objection and involvement in this
case were known, my family would be harassed or possibly threatened by community
members who would blame us for interfering with the schools’ religious activities.
2
s/ Plaintiff Doe 2
3
EXHIBIT C

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

v.

Defendants.

than my spouse, the clergy-member at my house of worship, another community
member who considered joining this case, and the other plaintiffs. To my knowledge,
no one else, other than my attorneys, is aware that I am a plaintiff in this case.
1
6. I do not wish to share publicly my family’s private religious beliefs. In
the past, other students and their parents have ostracized my child or children after
they learned about my family’s religious beliefs. Based on these experiences, my child
or some of my children wish to hide their real beliefs.
7. I hate when my child or children are made to feel like outsiders in their
own school. Should my identity become known, I fear that my underage child or
school and that their ability to learn will be adversely affected.
8. I believe that our family should choose for ourselves how to educate our
child or children about religion. I am aware, however, that many school officials
support the inclusion of prayer and the promotion of religion at school-sponsored
events. I fear that if my objection and involvement in this case were known, my child
or children would suffer retaliation by school teachers, faculty, and staff. I have
witnessed in the past that when parents complain to Bossier Parish school officials
about a school policy, their children are often treated unfairly thereafter.
9. I know that members of the religious majority in Bossier Parish schools
have in the past shamed, mocked, and shunned dissenters. Other members of my
religious congregation have been harassed after they complained about religion in
the schools. I have heard of other families choosing to send their children to school in
2
Shreveport to avoid continued religious harassment and coercion in Bossier Parish
Schools.
10. I believe that some in the Bossier Parish community may become violent
because of this lawsuit. After a local-news article ran about my attorneys’ letter to
the Bossier Parish School Board detailing pervasive Establishment Clause violations,
one Facebook commenter threatened: “Just tell us who in Benton complained and
we’ll handle it.” Since this case was filed, I have seen more negative comments on
social media. Some of these comments have expressed an interest in discovering my
identity in order to drive me and my family out of town or cause me and my family
physical harm. I’ve seen at least one commenter threaten to kill me and my family
because of this lawsuit. These comments have disturbed and frightened me.
s/ Plaintiff Doe 3
3
EXHIBIT D

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

v.

Defendants.

than my romantic partner, my family, and the other plaintiffs. To my knowledge, no
one else, other than my attorneys, is aware that I am a plaintiff in this case.
1
8. When my family lived in a different school district, a child of mine was
seriously harassed because of our family’s religious beliefs. My child’s classmates, in
an effort to convert my child, placed religious messages and Bible verses into my
child’s desk, locker, lunch box, and other personal belongings. These students’ actions
were encouraged not only by their church but also by the teachers at the school who
attended that church. My child was distressed by the lengths that peers and teachers
were willing to go to try to change my child’s religious beliefs. This harassment
motivated my family’s decision to move—but unfortunately, we have found ourselves
in another school system where religious coercion and proselytizing are
commonplace.
9. I am aware of the Establishment Clause lawsuit pending against
Bossier Parish’s neighboring school system—Webster Parish—and I fear that my
child or children will suffer the same ostracism as the child of the non-anonymous
plaintiff in that case. I have heard that Webster Parish community members have
2
told the plaintiff’s child that the child’s mother is a “bad person for taking God out of
the schools.”
10. I have also seen negative comments about our case on social media.
Some of these comments have expressed an interest in discovering the identities of
the plaintiffs in order to drive us out of town or cause us physical harm. I’ve seen at
least one commenter threaten to kill the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. I take these threats
seriously.
11. I have found the Bossier Parish school community to be religiously
cohesive and homogeneous. I believe that the school community will view this lawsuit
as an attack on the community, and that it will react defensively. I believe that my
child or children will be blamed and ostracized if the teachers are no longer able to
pray with the students at school. I believe that, like the plaintiff’s child in Webster
Parish, my child[ren]’s classmates will tell my child[ren] that they are going to hell
because of my participation in this lawsuit, and that other students’ parents will
forbid their children to socialize with my child or children.
12. I also fear that my participation in this lawsuit will harm my career and
my romantic partner’s career. Both of our supervisors have strongly expressed
religious beliefs that differ from our own. I know of others in the Bossier Parish
community who have been passed over for promotions because they do not attend the
same church or share the same religious beliefs as their supervisors. I believe that
my romantic partner and I would have fewer opportunities for career advancement if
my participation in this lawsuit were revealed.
3
13. Given the political climate in the Bossier Parish community and the
country generally, I fear that some community members may resort to violence to
express their disapproval of my religious beliefs or of this lawsuit.
s/ Plaintiff Doe 4
4
EXHIBIT E

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

v.

Defendants.

than my family and the other plaintiffs. To my knowledge, no one else, other than my
attorneys, is aware that I am a plaintiff in this case.
1
8. When my family lived in a different school district, a child of mine was
seriously harassed because of our family’s religious beliefs. My child’s classmates, in
an effort to convert my child, placed religious messages and Bible verses into my
child’s desk, locker, lunch box, and other personal belongings. These students’ actions
were encouraged not only by their church but also by the teachers at the school who
attended that church. My child was distressed by the lengths that peers and teachers
were willing to go to try to change my child’s religious beliefs. I believe that my child
will again be singled out—for harassment, bullying, or worse—if my participation in
the lawsuit is revealed.
9. I have seen negative comments about our case on social media. Some of
these comments have expressed an interest in discovering my identity in order to
drive me and my family out of town or cause me and my family physical harm. I’ve
seen at least one commenter threaten to kill me and my family because of this
lawsuit. I take these threats seriously.
2
10. If my identity—and by extension, my child[ren]’s identity—were
revealed in connection with this lawsuit, I would likely move my child[ren] out of
Bossier Parish.
s/ Plaintiff Doe 5
3
EXHIBIT F

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

v.

Defendants.

than my spouse. To my knowledge, no one else, other than my attorneys, is aware
that I am a plaintiff in this case.
1
to reveal the private religious beliefs of my family members. I want my child[ren] to
make their own decisions about religion—without social pressure or threats—
because I was not afforded that opportunity as a child.
have been maliciously teased and bullied by other students during class for refusing
to participate in school activities with religious elements.
9. When I was a child, I was ostracized by my peers because I did not
participate in the religious elements of school activities. While I hope that tolerance
of religious diversity in schools has increased since I was a child, I want to protect my
child[ren] from being subject to similar ostracism, or to keep it to as minimal a degree
as possible. I believe that obtaining an injunction in this case will improve my
child[ren]’s experience, but that having my identity revealed in the process would
make things unimaginably worse.
10. While I hope that my child[ren]’s teachers would remain professional, I
fear that they would retaliate against my child[ren] if my family’s religious beliefs
2
and participation in this lawsuit were publicly disclosed. In the past, Bossier Parish
teachers have discussed their religious beliefs with me, and their views are very
different from my own.
11. I believe that some in Bossier Parish will see this lawsuit as an attack
on their Christianity or on themselves, and I fear that these individuals will attack
me or my family to “defend” their beliefs. I am scared by the degree of animosity that
I have seen in public comments about this case.
s/ Plaintiff Doe 6
3
EXHIBIT G

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

v.

Defendants.

than my spouse and a close friend. To my knowledge, no one else, other than my
attorneys, is aware that I am a plaintiff in this case.
1
to reveal the private religious beliefs of my family members. I want my child[ren] to
make their own decisions about religion—without social pressure or threats—but I
do not think they are old enough to make those decisions yet.
have been maliciously teased and bullied by other students during class for refusing
to participate in school activities with religious elements.
9. It’s already hard enough for my child[ren] to make friends—I do not
want my participation in this lawsuit to make things worse. If my participation in
this lawsuit were made public, I fear that the social ostracism my child[ren] already
experience in school will carry over into activities outside of school. I fear that parents
will tell their children not to socialize with mine and that children in my
neighborhood will come to my house to bully my child[ren] or vandalize my property.
10. I believe that some in Bossier Parish will see this lawsuit as an attack
on their Christianity or on themselves, and I fear that these individuals will attack
me or my family to “defend” their beliefs.
2
s/ Plaintiff Doe 7
3
EXHIBIT H

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

v.

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF ALISON TANNER IN SUPPORT OF

I, Alison Tanner, declare that, if called upon, I would testify to the following:
1. I have served as the Steven Gey Fellow at Americans United for
Separation of Church and State since August 2017 and am counsel to Plaintiffs in
this case.
2. I directed a member of Americans United’s staff to research public
reactions to Cole v. Webster Parish School Board, 5:17-cv-01629 (W.D. La.), a
challenge to pervasive Establishment Clause violations in the parish east of and
adjacent to Bossier Parish, following the public disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity
and the resulting media coverage of the case. What follows are just a few examples
of threats made against the Cole family because of the suit:
1
a. In response to the article Louisiana Mom, ACLU Claim School
District Promoted Christianity, FOX NEWS (Dec. 19, 2017),
http://fxn.ws/2rGDmUn, the following comments were posted:
b. In response to the New Orleans Advocate’s Facebook post sharing
Louisiana Parent Files Lawsuit to Halt School’s Daily Prayers,
2
Religious Promotion, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Dec. 19, 2017),
http://bit.ly/2FhGBUv, the following comments were posted1:
c. In response to the article ACLU Files Lawsuit to Stop Prayer in
North Louisiana Public School District, WBRZ 2 (Dec. 18, 2017),
http://bit.ly/2Fk4omx, the following comment was posted:
1Madalyn Murray O’Hair (referenced by commenter Virginia Sams Riecke) was a

plaintiff in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the successful challenge to officially
composed prayer in New York public schools. Ms. O’Hair and her adopted daughter
disappeared in 1995 and their mutilated bodies were found in a shallow grave in
Texas in 2001. See Katskee Decl. ¶ 6.
3
Additionally, the following comment was posted in response to
WBRZ’s Facebook post sharing the article:
3. Sadly, on-line harassment has become so commonplace that the Court
can take judicial notice of it. There are many angry people throughout the country
who perpetrate on-line harassment of individuals with whose views they disagree.
See, e.g., Maeve Duggan, Pew Research Center, Online Harassment 2017 (July 11,
2017), http://pewrsr.ch/2u9X4aC (survey finding that “41% of Americans have been
personally subjected to harassing behavior online” and 18% “have been subjected to
particularly severe forms of harassment online, such as physical threats,
harassment over a sustained period, sexual harassment or stalking”). If their
identities were revealed in the course of this litigation, Plaintiffs and their children
would be at grave risk of vile and terrifying on-line threats.
4. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
s/ Alison Tanner
4
EXHIBIT I

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,
CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

v.

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF RICHARD B. KATSKEE IN SUPPORT OF

I, Richard B. Katskee, declare that, if called upon, I would testify to the
following:
1. I have served as Legal Director at Americans United for Separation of
Church and State since September 2015 and am counsel to Plaintiffs in this case.
2. I was Assistant Legal Director at Americans United from 2004 through
2010.
3. During my two tenures at Americans United, I have litigated
numerous cases in federal and state trial and appellate courts and in the U.S.
Supreme Court that were brought under the Religion Clauses of the First
1
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, including cases that involved claims, as here,
of Establishment Clause violations in public schools.
4. From 2012 through 2015, I was a member of the Supreme Court and
Appellate Practice at Mayer Brown LLP in Washington, DC, and at the same time I
served on Americans United’s Board of Trustees. During that period, I worked
through Mayer Brown as pro bono counsel for Americans United and other religious
and civil-rights organizations on several more church-state cases, including cases
involving claims of Establishment Clause violations in public schools.
5. As counsel, I have personal knowledge and experience of numerous
incidents of extreme harassment suffered by plaintiffs in Establishment Clause
cases. What follows are just a few representative examples:
6. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Public Schools, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D.
Pa. 2005), I represented the parent-plaintiffs who successfully challenged the
inclusion of intelligent-design creationism in the ninth-grade-biology curriculum at
a public high school in Dover, Pennsylvania. Several of the plaintiff families in
Kitzmiller—that is to say, my clients—were subjected to harassment and threats—
as was the presiding judge who ruled in their favor. Among other incidents:
 The plaintiffs’ children were harassed at school. For example, one child, who
is Catholic, was told that she “could no longer believe in evolution and still be
a Christian.” EDWARD HUMES, MONKEY GIRL: EVOLUTION, EDUCATION,
RELIGION, AND THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA’S SOUL 203 (2007). The plaintiffs’
children were branded and taunted in school with the labels “ape boy” and
2
“monkey girl.” Id. at 183, 222. One was challenged in class about “whether
she believed she came from monkeys and why her parents were causing all
this trouble.” MATTHEW CHAPMAN, 40 DAYS AND 40 NIGHTS: DARWIN,
INTELLIGENT DESIGN, GOD, OXYCONTIN AND OTHER ODDITIES ON TRIAL IN
PENNSYLVANIA 69 (2007).
 The plaintiffs were victims of harassment in the community. For example,
one couple, who both of whom are Christian and ran their church’s Vacation
Bible School, was attacked as atheists, taunted in public, and told that “we’re
not the right kind of Christians, you know, we’re not actually Christians....”
CHAPMAN, supra, at 69.
 At least two Kitzmiller plaintiffs received death threats. One particularly
disturbing threat came in the form of a note that the plaintiff received in the
mail, with no return address but a local postmark. Referring to one of the
plaintiffs in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (successfully challenging
officially composed prayer in New York public schools), the note said that
“Madalyn Murray O’Hair was murdered.” Ms. O’Hair and her adopted
daughter disappeared in 1995; their mutilated bodies were found in a shallow
grave in Texas in 2001. See LAURA LEBO, THE DEVIL IN DOVER 213 (2008). The
note to the Kitzmiller plaintiff pointed out that O’Hair “had a daughter too.”
It then warned: “I sure would hate to be in your shoes, or your daughters [sic]
shoes. God hates sin. All these young people being killed in auto wrecks look
out when your day comes…. Watch out for a bullet.” Id. at 213–14. The note
3
threatened: “What happened to [O’Hair] can happen to you.” A rifle cartridge
was included in the envelope. I personally reported this threat to the FBI and
Pennsylvania State Police.
 The presiding judge, the Honorable Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, received “a constant
barrage of death threats” after issuing his decision in the case, causing the
Federal Marshal Service to put special protective details on him and his
family. Ron Knox, Judge in Dover I.D. Case Touts Legal Independence,
LAWRENCE JOURNAL-WORLD (Sept. 27, 2006), http://tinyurl.com/r6yol; see
also, e.g., LEBO, supra, at 213; Amy Worden, Judge in Dover Case Still
Fighting: John E. Jones III Is Using the Intelligent-Design Debate to Answer
His Critics and Talk about Judicial Independence, PHILLY.COM (June 4,
2006), http://tinyurl.com/h3525te.
7. In Musgrove v. School Board, No. 6:05-cv-00747 (M.D. Fla.), I
represented a high-school student and her parents who obtained a successful
settlement of their challenge to a public-school district’s holding of graduation
ceremonies in a church. Because of her participation in the suit, the student was
harassed both in and out of school and was physically assaulted in a parking lot,
pushed to the ground, and physically injured.
8. In Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003), Americans
United represented the plaintiffs who successfully challenged the placement by
then-Chief Justice Roy Moore of a Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama
4
State Judicial Building. A plaintiff not only had her law practice boycotted and her
home, law office, and car vandalized, and the windows of her home shot out, but she
received several death threats, including one from an anonymous caller who
threatened that she should be “hog-tied and thrown in the Escambia River, like that
girl was last year”—a reference to a brutal murder in the area. See, e.g., Rob Boston,
Plucky Lindy, CHURCH & STATE 11–12 (Apr. 2004), http://tinyurl.com/h47gja2. The
plaintiffs ultimately received protection from law enforcement because of the
threats to her and her aged, ailing parents. Likewise, plaintiff’s lead counsel,
Ayesha N. Khan, former Legal Director of Americans United, received a protective
detail because of threats that the FBI found to be credible.
9. In Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2004),
Americans United represented the plaintiff who successfully challenged the prayer
practice at meetings of a town council. The plaintiff became the target of extreme
harassment and intimidation that involved, among other things, the beating and
killing of her pets and at least ten incidents when her home was vandalized. In one
incident, her home was broken into; her pet parrot was beheaded and its heart was
cut out; and its body was left with a note warning, “You’re next!” S.C. Prayer
Plaintiff Faces Wrath of Community Over Lawsuit, CHURCH & STATE 20 (Nov. 2004),
http://tinyurl.com/zka3n6r.
10. Because of instances such as these, Americans United’s clients have
successfully proceeded under pseudonyms in a number of cases, most of which have,
as here, involved claims against public schools. See, e.g., Doe ex rel. Doe v.
5
Elmbrook, 687 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2012) (challenge to practice of holding graduation
ceremonies in church); Does 1–5 v. Enfield Pub. Sch., 716 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Conn.
2010) (challenge to practice of holding graduation ceremonies in church); Does 1–7 v.
Round Rock Indep. Sch. Dist., No. A07-CA-708 (W.D. Tex.) (challenge to prayers at
graduation ceremonies); see also, e.g., University of Notre Dame v. Burwell, 786 F.3d
606 (7th Cir. 2015) (suit in which Seventh Circuit has on two separate occasions
granted leave for Notre Dame students, represented by Americans United, to act as
pseudonymous intervenor-defendants supporting contraceptive-coverage
requirement of Affordable Care Act), judgment vacated and remanded, 136 S. Ct.
2007 (2016) (vacating and remanding for supplemental briefing and possible
negotiation of settlement).
11. It is my professional judgment, based on experience with cases such as
this one, that the fears of Plaintiffs for their families, and especially for their
children who attend Bossier Parish schools, are reasonable and well-founded and
that proceeding under a pseudonym is the prudent course to protect their safety.
12. In my experience, and as reflected also in the U.S. Supreme Court’s
decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 294 n.1
(2000), pseudonymous plaintiffs in public-school cases raising Establishment Clause
issues are often victims of attempts by school officials and others to “ferret out
the[ir] identities” in order to harass and intimidate them. Hence, it is imperative
that pseudonymous status be granted at the outset of a case, rather than making
plaintiffs wait until their identities are public and actual harassment against them
6
begins before they may seek to proceed under pseudonyms and to have a protective
order put in place to protect their identities. At that point, it is simply too late to
obtain the needed protection.
13. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
s/ Richard B. Katskee
7
Exhibit J
November 8, 2017
By U.S. Mail and Email

Bossier Educational Service Center
Attn: Sonja Bailes
Public Relations Liaison
2900 Douglas Drive
Bossier City, LA 71111
Sonja.Bailes@BossierSchools.org
RE: Public-records request regarding Bossier Parish schools
Dear Ms. Bailes:
On behalf of Americans United’s Louisiana members and supporters, and in

accordance with the Louisiana public-records statute, LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44:1 et seq.,
we hereby submit a request for public records related to religion in Bossier Parish
schools.
I. Background
All children have the right to participate equally in Louisiana’s public schools. See
LA. CONST. ART. VIII Preamble. Bossier Parish schools serve children from a variety of
religious and philosophical backgrounds, including Protestants, Catholics, Muslims,
Mormons, Jews, and people of no faith, all of whom are entitled to hold their personal
beliefs and to benefit from the opportunity to develop to their full potential through public
education.
Yet beginning in May 2017, our organization became aware of public reports about
the promotion of Christian religious beliefs throughout the Bossier Parish school system,
in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s required separation of church and state, and we
began to receive complaints from the Bossier Parish community. These community
members reported that children feel ostracized by their teachers and classmates based on
their religious and philosophical views, and are confused and ashamed that their beliefs
were not treated with equal respect.
The religious activities reported by the Bossier Parish community and in the news
include: teaching elementary school students to memorize and recite Christian prayer;
coach-led prayer at sporting events; prayer over the loudspeakers at sporting events;
youth pastors for sports teams; prayers at graduation ceremonies; graduation ceremonies
held in church sanctuaries; choir events held in church sanctuaries; teaching creationism
in Biology classes; special privileges for Christian clubs; and religious displays in
classrooms and administrators’ offices.
All students and their families should feel welcome in their public schools, not
excluded. No students should ever be made to feel like second-class citizens in public
school classrooms because they practice a particular faith, or no faith at all. Accordingly,
the federal Establishment Clause prohibits religious instruction or the promotion of
religious beliefs in public schools; and students may not be compelled or pressured to take
part in religious activities. See, e.g., Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 307–
12 (2000) (prohibiting public high school from holding student-led, student-initiated
invocations at football games); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587, 592 (1992) (prohibiting
school district from having clergy lead prayer at graduation); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482
U.S. 578, 591 (1987) (striking down law requiring public schools to teach creationism
alongside evolution); Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222–26 (1963) (prohibiting
Bible-reading at beginning of school day); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 430–33
(prohibiting school officials from leadings students in classroom prayer).
Based on concerns raised by the complaints we have received, Americans United

requests public records related to reported religious activities in Bossier Parish schools
that we have been made aware of through complaints and public reports.
II. Definitions
1. Bossier Parish schools: All schools governed by the Bossier Parish School
Board, including Airline High School, Apollo Elementary School, Bellaire
Elementary School, Benton Elementary School, Benton High School, Benton
Middle School, Bossier Elementary School, Bossier High School, Bossier
Parish School for Technology & Innovative Learning, Carrie Martin
Elementary School, Central Park Elementary School, Cope Middle School,
Curtis Elementary School, Elm Grove Elementary School, Elm Grove Middle
School, Greenacres Middle School, Haughton High School, Haughton Middle
School, Kerr Elementary School, Kingston Elementary School, Legacy
Elementary School, Meadowview Elementary School, Plain Dealing
Middle/High School, Parkway High School, Plantation Park Elementary
School, Platt Elementary School, Princeton Elementary School, Rusheon
Middle School, Stockwell Place Elementary School, Sun City Elementary
School, T.L. Rodes Elementary School, W.T. Lewis Elementary School,
Waller Elementary School, and alternative schools.
2. Bossier Parish schools’ officials: All school-board members, superintendents,

principals, assistant principals, administrators, teachers, library aides, office
staff, support staff, counselors, school resource officers, coaches and other
personnel employed by Bossier Parish schools.
3. Documents and other materials: All written or electronic records, including

photographs, recordings, and e-mail communications, as defined in LA. REV.
STAT. ANN. § 44:1.
2
III. Requested Records
Americans United requests the following public records:
(a) All documents and other materials related to the teaching of evolution and
evolutionary theories in science courses, including but not limited to Biology,
at Bossier Parish schools during the 2014–2015, 2015–2016, 2016–2017, and
2017–2018 school years. This request includes, but is not limited to:
(1) copies of syllabi, lesson plans, course materials, handouts, tests,

quizzes, and
(2) e-mails or other correspondence to, from, or between Bossier

Parish schools’ officials, students’ parents, or educational
publishers regarding creationism, intelligent design, criticisms
of Darwin’s theory of evolution, or using the Bible as an
educational text.
(b) The following materials related to kindergarten, elementary-school, middle-

school, and high-school graduation ceremonies at Bossier Parish schools
during the 2014–2015, 2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2017–2018 school years:
(1) copies of graduation programs,
(2) documents identifying the location where each graduation

ceremony took place, including the room used within the facility
for the ceremony,
(3) policies, procedures, or guidelines applicable to selection of

student speakers and the content of student speeches, and

Parish schools’ officials, students’ parents, or students
regarding the selection of student speakers, the content of
student speeches, or prayer at graduation.
(c) All documents and other materials related to free speech, student speech,
Bossier Parish schools’ officials’ speech, or prayer at sporting events or
competitions hosted or participated in by Bossier Parish schools’ athletic
teams, cheerleading teams, dance-line teams, pep squads, or school bands
during the 2014–2015, 2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2017–2018 school years.
This request includes, but is not limited to:
(1) copies of sporting-event programs,
3
(2) policies, procedures, or guidelines regarding free speech,

student speech or prayer before, during, or after sporting
events,
(3) photographs or recordings of Bossier Parish schools’ students or

officials praying before, during, or after sporting events,
(4) recordings of student speeches or prayers made on a loud

speaker or public-address or intercom system before, during, or
after sporting events, and

Parish schools’ officials, students’ parents, or the opposing
teams’ coaches, school administrators, or students’ parents
regarding free speech, student speech or prayer at sporting
events.
(d) All documents, including policies, procedures, and correspondence, that

relate to sponsorship of Bossier Parish schools’ athletic teams, cheerleading
teams, dance-line teams, pep squads, or school bands, or sponsorship of
sporting events or competitions hosted by Bossier Parish schools during the
2014–2015, 2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2017–2018 school years. This
request includes, but is not limited to, rules regarding the content of
messages on advertisements displayed at Bossier Parish schools’ sporting
facilities.
(e) All documents, including policies, procedures, and correspondence, that

relate to student dress rules or requirements for class pictures at Bossier
Parish schools during the 2014–2015, 2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2017–
2018 school years. This request includes, but is not limited to, rules or
policies that allow students to select alternatives to their school uniform.
(f) All documents, including programs, that identify the location of concerts
held by choirs and bands from Bossier Parish schools during the 2014–2015,
2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2017–2018 school years, and the musical
selections performed at these concerts.
IV. Instructions
1. We ask that you respond to this request within five business days, as
required by LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44:35(A). If you anticipate a significant
delay in responding to or fulfilling this request, please notify Alison Tanner
at tanner@au.org.
2. If any documents were prepared, circulated, or submitted electronically,

please provide copies in their native electronic format by e-mail to
tanner@au.org. For documents that are too large to send by e-mail or that
4
are available only in hard copy, please transfer copies of them to a DVD or
CD and send the disk to the following address:
Alison Tanner
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
3. These records are not being requested for a commercial purpose. We agree to
pay the fee that will be due for this request under state law (LA. ADMIN.
CODE tit. 4, Pt I, § 301; LA. ADMIN. CODE tit. 43, Pt III, § 101), up to $100. If
you estimate that the total fee for this request will exceed $100, please
inform us of the amount of the estimated fee and obtain authorization before
you proceed with copying.
* * *
Thank you for your prompt attention. Please contact Alison Tanner at (202) 898-
2134 or at tanner@au.org if you have any questions about this request.
Very truly yours,
Richard B. Katskee, Legal Director

Eric Rothschild, Senior Litigation Counsel
John McGinnis, Legal Fellow
Alison Tanner, Legal Fellow*
* 2017 law-school graduate. Bar application pending.
CC:
Jon K. Guice, Esquire
Hammonds, Sills, Adkins, & Guice, LLP
1881 Hudson Circle
Monroe, LA 71201
jguice@hamsil.com
5

SHREVEPORT DIVISION
DOES 1–7,

Defendants.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Having considered Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Proceed Using
Pseudonyms and all attached memoranda, declarations, and exhibits, and good
cause appearing that the balance of (1) the plaintiffs’ demonstrated need for privacy
protections, (2) fairness to the defendants, and (3) the public’s right to open judicial
proceedings, (Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981)), weighs in favor of
Plaintiffs proceeding using pseudonyms, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion is
GRANTED.
Done and signed this ____ day of ________, 2018.
JUDGE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Does 1-7 v. Bossier - Anonymous Motion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Does 1-7 v. Bossier - Anonymous Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:18-cv-00152-SMH-MLH Document 13 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 252

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs, Civil Docket No. 5:18-cv-152

v. CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO PROCEED USING

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Proceed Using

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the

States through the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs

submit the attached Memorandum in Support, the signed declarations of Plaintiffs

Katskee, an exhibit, and a proposed Order.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of March, 2018.

Richard B. Katskee, D.C. Bar No. 474250*

William P. Quigley, La. Bar No. 07769

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

* Motion for admission pro hac vice forthcoming

I hereby certify that on March 1, 2018, I presented the foregoing Plaintiffs’

with opposing counsel’s consent.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of March, 2018.

William P. Quigley, La. Bar No. 07769

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs, Civil Docket No. 5:18-cv-152

v. CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

Richard B. Katskee* William P. Quigley, La. Bar No. 07769

*Admitted pro hac vice

Counsel for Plaintiffs

I. Plaintiffs Should Be Permitted To Proceed Using Pseudonyms. ................... 2

A. Plaintiffs have a substantial need for privacy protection. ...................... 3

1. Plaintiffs have a strong interest in privacy regarding their

2. Plaintiffs have a credible fear of retaliatory harm if their role in

B. Pseudonyms will not unfairly prejudice Defendants. ........................... 14

II. If Anonymity Is Denied, Plaintiffs Should Be Allowed To Choose Between

Bell v. Little Axe Independent School District,

Bossier City Medical Suite, Inc. v. City of Bossier City,

Deveney v. Board of Education,

Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis.,

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Elmbrook School District,

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Harris,

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,

Rose v. Beaumont Independent School District,

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe,

Wynne v. Town of Great Falls,

LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 17:91 .................................................................................... 14

LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44:1 ...................................................................................... 16

Benjamin P. Edwards, When Fear Rules in Law’s Place: Pseudonymous

Zack Kopplin, Religious Rants in the Classroom, SLATE (Nov. 2, 2015),

Charles Shumaker, Student Beaten for Prayer Suit, He Says, CHARLESTON

Challenges to governmental conduct under the Establishment Clause of the

economic injury, and even physical violence.

official sponsorship and endorsement of pervasive religious practices in the Bossier

among other relief, an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to sponsor

terms of an attorneys’-eyes-only agreement.

grant this request are as follows.

their minor children—whose identities would inevitably be revealed if Plaintiffs’

of Plaintiff Doe 2 ¶¶ 5–9 (Exhibit B); Declaration of Plaintiff Doe 3 ¶¶ 5–10

to the public interest—which is served, not inhibited, by allowing Plaintiffs to proceed

parties to prepare a proposed protective order.

I. Plaintiffs Should Be Permitted To Proceed Using Pseudonyms.

competing interests to determine whether a plaintiff may proceed using pseudonyms:

harassment and increased ostracism of their minor children attending Bossier

A. Plaintiffs have a substantial need for privacy protection.

In “cases involving matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature, real