## Facts

- Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. (FFRF) and four individual plaintiffs—two parents (John Doe and Jane Doe) and their two elementary-school children (Jesse Doe and Jamie Doe)—filed a federal civil-rights suit in the Southern District of Georgia.
- The defendants were the Emanuel County School System and several school officials and employees, including the superintendent, a primary-school principal, and two teachers at Swainsboro Primary School.
- Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Establishment Clause by endorsing and organizing prayer in a public elementary-school classroom.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
- Soon after filing suit, the individual plaintiffs moved to proceed under pseudonyms (the “Doe” names) rather than their real names, citing fear of reprisals in the community.
- In declarations supporting anonymity, the parents stated that their children had been bullied and singled out for not participating in classroom prayer.
- The declarations also stated that teacher-defendants pressured the children to disregard their parents’ wishes and join the prayers, and that the children were ostracized when they refused.
- Several defendants opposed allowing the Does to litigate anonymously.
- The court also addressed a protective-order framework for sharing the Does’ real identities with defense counsel for litigation needs while keeping those identities out of the public record.

## Issues

1. Whether the Doe parents and their minor children could proceed under pseudonyms in a § 1983 Establishment Clause suit challenging public-school prayer, despite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) and the general presumption of open judicial proceedings.
2. Whether, and on what terms, a protective order should limit disclosure and use of the Doe plaintiffs’ identities while allowing defendants to prepare their defense.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion allowing the individual plaintiffs (the parents and their minor children) to proceed under pseudonyms.
- The court found that the request fit the exception to Rule 10(a)’s naming requirement because the plaintiffs showed a substantial privacy interest and a credible risk of harm if publicly identified.
- The court entered a protective order, with changes, to keep the Does’ identities confidential in public filings while permitting disclosure to defense counsel and support staff for case preparation.
- The court allowed disclosure of the plaintiffs’ identities to defense counsel and relevant personnel within counsel’s firms, subject to the protective order’s limits.
- The court removed language from the proposed order that would have automatically excused the Doe plaintiffs from appearing at open-court hearings; any request for courtroom-related protections could be renewed if a hearing or trial were scheduled.
- The ruling addressed anonymity and confidentiality only and did not resolve the Establishment Clause claims on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) reflects a strong presumption that parties must be named, tied to the customary and constitutional preference for open judicial proceedings.
- A court may allow a party to proceed anonymously in exceptional circumstances when a substantial privacy right outweighs the presumption of openness.
- In evaluating anonymity requests, courts commonly consider whether the case challenges government conduct, the risk of harassment or retaliation, and whether public identification could harm minor children.
- Claims involving young students and alleged retaliation connected to religious practices at school can support anonymity where declarations show specific, non-speculative risks.
- A court may reduce unfairness to defendants by requiring confidential disclosure of plaintiffs’ real identities to defense counsel under a protective order, while keeping those identities out of the public docket.
- Requests affecting public access to courtroom proceedings (such as blanket permission to avoid open hearings) are handled separately and may be deferred until a concrete need arises.

## Conclusion

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Emanuel County School System, the court permitted the Doe parents and their elementary-school children to litigate under pseudonyms and entered a modified protective order, concluding that the record showed a substantial privacy interest and a credible risk of retaliation that outweighed the normal requirement that litigants be publicly identified, while still allowing defendants to obtain the plaintiffs’ identities through counsel for purposes of defending the case.


Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Emanuel County School System, 109 F.Supp.3d 1353 (2015)