IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division E.K. and S.K., minors, by and through their ) parent and next friend Lindsey Keeley, etal., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-637 (PTG/IDD) ) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ) ACTIVITY, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER This matter comes before this Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s June 3, 2025 Order for Defendants to produce a list of library books currently under review within the Department of Defense. Dkt. 41. First, Defendants contend that the preliminary injunction posture constrains the Court’s review to only the necessary factual record, rather than any additional facts “neither party has identified to be necessary to resolving the pending motion.” Dkt. 42 at 4-6. Second, Defendants assert that the deliberative process privilege shields disclosure of the list because it is both pre-decisional and deliberative. Jd. at 7-12. Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion. Dkt. 44. To aid its review of the motion, the Court granted Defendants’ request to file the list of removed books ex parte for the Court’s in camera review. Having considered the parties’ submissions and reviewed the list in camera, the Court finds that privilege does not shield disclosure of Defendants’ list of books. Furthermore, the Court finds that the list is appropriately part of the factual record for the motion for preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.
Background Plaintiffs are twelve students of military families at five Department of Defense Education Activity (‘DoDEA”) schools who bring First Amendment claims against Defendants DoDEA, Dr. Beth Schiavano-Narvaez, Director of DoDEA, and Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, in connection with their changes to curricular material and removal of library books at DoDEA schools. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”) §§ 4, 10-15. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ actions—done in implementation of various Presidential Executive Orders allegedly targeting gender ideology, “discriminatory equity ideology,” and anti-American sentiments in the federal government— violate their Free Speech rights. /d. J] 51, 83-101. On May 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin “Defendants from enforcing Executive Order Nos. 14168, 14185, and 14190 and related memoranda, directives, and guidance in DoDEA schools.” Dkt. 10 at 25. The motion further requests the Court to order the Government to “return[] all books and curriculum already quarantined or removed based on potential violation of the Executive Orders to their preexisting shelves, classrooms, and instructional units.” /d. at 26. The parties completed briefing on the matter. See Dkts. 10, 29, 36. On June 3, 2025, this Court held a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction. In both their briefing and at the hearing, Plaintiffs have repeatedly stated that they have requested the list of books removed from DoDEA libraries to no avail and instead have “compiled the current reported list of books removed . . . through their own observation.” Dkt. 10 at 8; see also Dkt. 47 (“Tr.”) at 7:24-8:1, 14:12-13, 16:19-25. Consequently, the Court ordered that Defendants submit information available regarding the centralized list of removed books to the Court and to Plaintiffs. Tr. at 32:17-33:3. On June 6, 2025, Defendants moved for a six-day extension to produce the list of library books, which the Court subsequently granted. Dkts. 38, 40. On June 11, 2025,
Defendants filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. 41. Defendants proposed that, in the alternative, the Court could conduct an in camera review of the list ex parte to adjudicate the privilege issues or “stay its order to produce the list until the motion for reconsideration has been resolved.” Dkt. 42 at 12. On June 16, 2025, the Court issued an order permitting Defendants to produce the list of books ex parte for in camera review. Dkt. 45. Defendants filed the list ex parte that same day. Legal Standard While Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) govern motions for reconsideration of final judgments, Rule 54(b) applies to reconsideration of interlocutory orders. Fayetteville Invs.
v. Comm. Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469-70 (4th Cir. 1991); Nicholas v. Wyndham Intern., Inc., 373 F.3d 537, 541 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Discovery orders are ‘inherently interlocutory.” (quoting McCook Metals LLC v. Alcoa, Inc.,249 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2001))). “Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are not subject to the strict standards applicable to motions for reconsideration of a final judgment.” Am. Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514 (4th Cir. 2003). Rather, a district court retains discretion to “reconsider and modify its interlocutory judgments . . . at any time prior to final judgment.” /d. at 514-15; see also Fayetteville Invs., 936 F.2d at 1469.! To guide their discretion over Rule 54(b) motions, courts in the Fourth Circuit look to the legal framework for Rule 59 and Rule 60 motions for reconsideration. Am. Canoe Ass'n, 326 F.3d at 515; Orbcomm Inc. v. Calamp Corp., 215 F. Supp. 3d 499, 503 (E.D. Va. 2016) (relying on the
| The Fourth Circuit has held that “a district court’s otherwise broad discretion to reconsider interlocutory orders is narrowed in the context of motions to reconsider issues going to the court’s Article III subject matter jurisdiction.” Am. Canoe Ass’n, 326 F.3d at 515. However, no Article III jurisdictional questions are raised here.
standards of Rule 59 and 60 even though “the Fourth Circuit has declined to ‘thoroughly express [its] views on the interplay of Rules 60, 59 and 54.’” (quoting Am. Canoe Ass'n, 326 F.3d at 515)). Therefore, even with Rule 54(b) motions for reconsideration, courts generally “do not depart from a previous ruling unless ‘(1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.” Orbcomm Inc., 215 F. Supp. 3d at 503 (quoting Am. Canoe Ass’n, 326 F.3d at 515). Generally, “[a]bsent a significant change in the law or the facts,” a court will grant a motion for reconsideration only where it “has patently misunderstood a party,” “made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Evans v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 148 F. Supp. 3d 542, 544 (E.D. Va. 2015) (quoting United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 975, 977 (E.D. Va. 1997)). Discussion Defendants contend that reconsideration of the Court’s Order for the list of removed books is warranted for two reasons. Dkt. 42 at 1. First, Defendants assert that “this Court cannot enlarge the factual record” to consider the list of books at the preliminary injunction phase. Jd. at 4. Second, Defendants invoke the deliberative process privilege over the list of books, which they claim is pre-decisional and deliberative and therefore protected from disclosure. /d. at 6. The Court takes up the privilege issue first and finds that the deliberative process privilege does not apply to the list of books. Furthermore, the Court finds that the list is properly part of the factual record for preliminary injunction.
A. Deliberative Process Privilege The deliberative process privilege “protects from disclosure documents generated during an agency’s deliberations about a policy, as opposed to documents that embody or explain a policy that the agency adopts.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc., 592 U.S. 261, 263 (2021). The privilege arises from the common law and covers “recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency.”? City of Va. Beach v. U.S. Dep't. of Com., 995 F.2d 1247, 1253 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't. of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). It “rests on the notion that ‘officials will not communicate candidly among themselves if each remark is a potential item of discovery and front page news, and its object is to enhance “the quality of agency decisions” by protecting open and frank discussion among those who make them within the Government.’” Harrison v. Shanahan, No. 1:18-cv-641, 2019 WL 2216474, at *4 (E.D. Va. 2019) (quoting Dep ’t of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8-9 (2001)). Information protected by the deliberative process privilege must be “predecisonal and deliberative in nature.” Jd. at *4. To determine whether information is the agency’s “settled position, courts must consider whether the agency treats the document as its final view on the matter.” Sierra Club, 592 U.S. at 268. A document reflects an agency’s “settled position” when
2 While the privilege is often discussed in the context of Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Exemption 5 is rooted in the common law privilege. Sierra Club, 592 U.S. at 263 (“Exemption 5 incorporates the privileges available to Government agencies in civil litigation, such as the deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege, and attorney work- product privilege.”); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (stating that the deliberative process exemption in FOIA “originated as a common law privilege.”); Est. of LeRoux v. Montgomery Cnty., 2024 WL 1703939, at *3 (D. Md. Apr. 19, 2024) (“When a case is in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, federal common law governs assertions of executive privilege.”).
“the deliberative ‘process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated’ will have concluded, and the document will have ‘real operative effect.’"” /d. (quoting NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421U.S. 132, 150, 160 (1975)). Furthermore, whether a document is “deliberative” rests on whether “disclosure of the materials would expose an agency’s decision- making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and, thereby, undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions.” Harrison, 2019 WL 2216474, at *6n.14 (quoting Moye, O’Brien, O'Rourke, Hogan & Pickert v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 376 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir. 2004)). The Fourth Circuit has deemed documents to be deliberative when they “reflect[] the give-and-take of the consultative process.” City of Va. Beach, 995 F.2d at 1253 (quoting Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866); see also Jones v. Murphy, 256 F.R.D. 510, 518 (D. Md. 2008), aff’d, 2009 WL 604937 (D. Md. Feb. 23, 2009) (“The Fourth Circuit has adopted the give- and-take test to determine whether documents are deliberative; thus, the deliberative-process privilege protects conversational documents—those intended to fuel a dialogue[.]”). Once the privilege applies, it is not absolute. Courts may compel disclosure of “predecisional and deliberative” documents in limited circumstances. Harrison, 2019 WL 2216474, at *4. The privilege “does not shield statements about a policy after the policy has been finalized, and it ‘does not protect purely factual information, unless it is inextricably intertwined with deliberative material.’” Jd. (quoting Stone v. Trump, 356 F. Supp. 3d 505, 514 (D. Md. 2018)). Moreover, “[w]hen a party . . . seeks agency materials, the validity of the privilege ‘depends . . . upon a balancing of the public interest in nondisclosure with the need for the information as evidence.’” /d. (alteration in original) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 1987 WL 36515, at *2 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 1987) (per curiam)). The Court considers several factors: “(1) the relevance of the evidence to the lawsuit; (2) the availability of alternative evidence on the same
matters; (3) the government’s role (if any) in the litigation; and (4) ‘the extent to which disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion regarding contemplated policies and decisions.’” Cipollone, 1987 WL 36515, at *2 (quoting FTC v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984)). The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proof and must articulate “snecific facts” as opposed to a “conclusory assertion of privilege.” Harrison, 2019 WL 2216474, at *5 (first quoting RLJ Ins. Co. v. Conseco, Inc., 477 F. Supp. 2d 741, 751 (E.D. Va. 2007); and then quoting Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 114 F. Supp. 3d 323, 344 (E.D. Va. 2015)). The document submitted to the Court for in camera review reveals several issues with Defendants’ assertion of privilege. First, Defendants contend that the list is pre-decisional because no final decision on which books will be permanently removed has been made. Dkt. 42 at 7. Because the list “leaves agency decisionmakers free to change their minds,” Defendants argue that it cannot “reflect the agency’s final decision.” Jd. (quoting Sierra Club, 592 US. at 269). Furthermore, Defendants find dispositive that the final decisionmaker on this matter, Timothy D. Dill, had not seen any iteration of this list or any recommendations from his staff prior to this disclosure to “let alone make any final determinations of disposition.” Jd. at 7-8. Second, Defendants argue that the list is deliberative because it is “comprised of ‘opinions that [are] subject to change.”” /d. at 10 (alteration in original) (quoting Sierra Club, 592 U.S. at 269). Defendants describe an “iterative” and “dynamic” process whereby stakeholders at all levels of DoDEA continue to develop the list and make recommendations for Mr. Dill’s final decision. /d. at 10-11. Per Defendants, “the release of the document at this pre-decisional stage will have a chilling effect”
on the stakeholders’ candor with recommendations. Jd. at 11. Conversely, Plaintiffs aver that the deliberative process privilege does not apply here because the document in question concerns
factual information, about “events that have already happened,” in a case where “the plaintiff's cause of action is directed at the government’s intent.” Dkt. 44 at 2-3. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the deliberative process privilege does not apply in the first instance. First, the submitted list of books does not include anything remotely deliberative. “One of the rudimentary black letter rules is that while the privilege covers ‘opinions’ it does not cover ‘facts.’” Cipollone, 1987 WL 36515, at *2. Here, the list is purely factual because it comprises a spreadsheet of over 500 book titles and authors with no stated opinions. Through the submitted list, the Court cannot find any indicia of “the manner in which the agency evaluates possible alternative policies or outcomes,” a reflection of “the personal opinions of the writer,” or the agency “give-and-take”—all relevant factors in determining the “deliberative” nature of a document. City of Va. Beach, 995 F.2d at 1253; see also Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press
v. FBI, 3 F.4th 350, 366 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (stating a document is deliberative when it “call[s] for judgment or the candid exchange of ideas.”). The Fourth Circuit made clear in Cipollone that the privilege protects, in part, “against confusing the issues and misleading the public by dissemination of documents suggesting reasons and rationales for a course of action which were not in fact the ultimate reasons for the agency’s action.” Cipollone, 1987 WL 36515, at *1 (quoting Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866). No such concern exists with the submitted list of books. Rather, the Court finds that the submitted list is squarely the type of “purely factual material” that falls outside of the deliberative process privilege. EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S, 73, 88 (1973). Second, while the Court acknowledges that the submitted list may not be the final decision of Mr. Dill, it finds dispositive that the list has nevertheless already had a “real operative effect.” Sierra Club, 592 U.S. at 268. As Mr. Dill’s declaration acknowledges, the submitted list reflects “(t]he list of books removed from the shelves.” Dkt. 42, Ex. 1 (“Second Dill Decl.”) 4. Thus,
the list is of legal consequence. See Sierra Club, 592 U.S. at 271 (stating that a “decision’s ‘real operative effect’ as an indication of its finality . . . [refers] . . . to the legal, not practical, consequences that flow from an agency’s action.”). That the list is “iterative” does not mitigate the fact that it reflects an implemented action. Indeed, courts have routinely distinguished between drafts of documents that reflect an “agency’s ongoing internal work to settle on a substantive policy approach” from “documents that would simply describe an already-adopted policy.” Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 3 F.4th at 363; see also Cipollone, 1987 WL 36515, at *1 (stating the privilege “protect[s] against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they have been finally formulated or adopted.”) (emphasis added) (alteration in original) (quoting Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866). That the Government stamped “pre-decisional” on the document is also not dispositive. “[D]etermining whether an agency’s position is final for purposes of the deliberative process privilege is a functional rather than formal inquiry.” Sierra Club, 592 U.S. at 272-73. Third, courts have established that the deliberative process privilege “does not apply where ‘the plaintiff's cause of action is directed at the government’s intent.” Est, of LeRoux, 2024 WL 1703939, at *4 (quoting Jn re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 145 F.3d 1422, 1424 (D.C. Cir.)); Bethune-Hill, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 339 (“Unlike other cases, where the deliberative process privilege ... may be employed to ‘prevent [the government’s] decision- making process from being swept up unnecessarily into the public domain,’ this is a case where the decisionmaking process ‘is the case.’” (quoting Comm. for a Fair & Balanced Map v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 2011 WL 4837508, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2011))); see also Jones v. City of Coll. Park, 237 F.R.D. 517, 521 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (“[T]he privilege is simply inapplicable, because government intent is at the heart of the issue in this case.”); United States v. Lake Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 233 F.R.D. 523, 527 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (“[T]he deliberative process privilege does not
apply when the government’s intent is at issue.”). The deliberative process privilege was “fashioned in cases where the governmental decisionmaking process is collateral to the plaintiff's suit. In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Off: of Comptroller of Currency, 145 F.3d at 1424. Here, the heart of Plaintiffs’ suit challenges the Government’s underlying intent in removing books from DoDEA libraries. Accordingly, where Plaintiffs’ “cause of action is directed at the government’s intent .. . it makes no sense to permit the government to use the privilege as a shield.” Jd. For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the deliberative process privilege does not apply to Defendants’ submitted list of removed books. Even if the privilege applied, the Cipollone factors would heavily weigh in favor of disclosure. The list of removed books comprises critical evidence to Plaintiffs’ allegations of First Amendment violations. In fact, Plaintiffs have attempted several times to access the list of removed books with no success, illustrating that no viable alternative means for acquiring such evidence exists. See Dkt. 10 at 8; Tr. at 7:24-8:1, 14:12-13, 16:19-25. Furthermore, “[t]he government is no stranger to this litigation; rather, all of the named defendants are governmental officers or agencies, and plaintiffs’ claims go directly to the constitutionality and legality of those agencies’ policies.” Harrison, 2019 WL 2216474, at *8. Finally, the Court does not find that “disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion regarding contemplated policies and decisions” so as to outweigh disclosure. Cipollone, 1987 WL 36515, at *2 (“While the last factor obviously requires a consideration of the policies underlying the privilege, it does so expressly in the context of weighing the public interest in nondisclosure of the particular materials at issue.”) (alteration in original). Therefore, the material is not privileged and must be publicly disclosed, and the Court finds no basis for reconsideration.
B. Factual Record in the Preliminary Injunction Phase Defendants’ second basis for reconsideration posits that the Court may not “enlarge the factual record beyond what the parties have concluded is necessary for resolution of the motion” at the preliminary injunction phase. Dkt. 42 at 4. As a preliminary matter, Defendants do not cite a single source of authority barring the Court from ordering the submission of additional evidence to resolve a motion for preliminary injunction. Nor have the parties stipulated to a factual record that excludes the list of removed books. Rather, Plaintiffs have repeatedly sought to make this list of removed books part of the factual record but had limited access to it prior to this Court’s Order. See Dkt. 44 at 1; see also Dkt. 10-23 (“Keeley Decl.”) 9 24-26, 33-34; Dkt. 10-24 (“Henninger Decl.”) J 18; Dkt. 10-25 (“Young Decl.”) 7 12; Dkt. 10-26 (“Kenkel Decl.”) 20. More importantly, the Court finds that list of removed books is necessary to resolve the preliminary injunction. Here, the Court is persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that “the fact that the list is expanding so rapidly” speaks to the ongoing nature of the alleged First Amendment harms. Dkt. 44 at 2; see Second Dill Decl. { 4 (stating “[b]ooks continue to be added for a number of reasons[.]”). Defendants even contend that “the Court’s universe of consideration is limited to non-privileged factual matters and legal issues that are germane to resolve whether Plaintiffs are entitled to emergency relief.” Dkt. 42 at 5 (emphasis added). It would be absurd to deem the list of removed books as not germane to a suit about alleged First Amendment harms from removing said books. Accordingly, the Court finds that the list of books is appropriately part of the factual record for preliminary injunction.
Conclusion For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Order, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 41) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the list of books (as submitted to the Court) is deemed filed on the public docket and included as Attachment A to this Memorandum Order.
Entered this WP Gay of July, 2025. sammy —— Alexandria, Virginia Patricia Totiver Giles United States District Judge
ATTACHMENT A
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
Bronski, Michael "You can tell just by looking” : and 20 other myths about LGBT life and people Pellegrini, Ann Michael 2 3 Marcus 5 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ queers who changed the world: acelebraionofLGBIQ+ icons 7 Prager, Sarah A child's introduction to pride : the inspirational history and culture of the LGBTQLA+ community g}O'Dwyer, Caitlin 9 10 Innosanto SA ip fornctivist 12 Michael A queer history of the United States Tristan Shellene 16 17/Callen, Rock 18 19 20 ActCool □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ atidetes : when sport and polifesmix SSCS Phil ‘(Afterglow □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□ 23 Airlock 24 Alexeaswell a5 26|Meredith, Samantha 27 James 29[Mitchell, Soundm —SSCS~—“—™CSCAMM. ($< Ss COCCOCOCCCSCSC 30 Dana Alison Bran □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Edward □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 34 35 36 37 38 Tobias SSSSSS~=*«d Anything but fine □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 40 Fox 42|Dunbar, Robert E 43 Markee 44 E. 45|Chambers, Hannah 46 a7 Bre □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 49 50 sa S2[Nutt,AmyEllis Skylar
55|Marciniak, Kristin
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW 56 Joseph, Frederick Better than we found it ; conversations to help save the world Joseph, Porsche 57]/Richardson, Taylor Denise □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ = 59 6a 61 62 63 4 65 Frederick Black friend: onbeingabetterwhiteperson 67 68 69 70
73[Pinkney Barlow, Chamelle
7s 76|McDonagh, Leo 77/McDonagh, Leo 78|McDonagh, Leo Gaku, Keito Boys run the riot. 4 McDonagh, Leo 79|Padgett, Rose 80/Peitzmeier, Sarah Whitesides, Shanti a2 83|Roem, Danica —SSSSSSCSCSCSCSC«~@ rm the page: a true story of torching doubts. blazing trails, andignitingchange a Luciano Ford, Ronald Martin Calvin Ford, Vanessa Kayla □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Ba
□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 91 92 93 24 95 96 97 98 99) 100[Lce, □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ His □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 101/Kim, Janet Youngran___ (Click, Vo.S □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ VOL 104 105 106 107[Man, □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 108
110 aut
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW Beattie, Michael Counselling skills for working with gender diversity and identity Lenihan, Penny Dundas, Robin 112|Sanderson, Cristiane 113 116 1s 116 117[Stele, Hamish SSSSSC*DeadEndia I. Thewaicherstest Hamish —SSSSSCS*S*~*di □□□ ndin. 2, The brokenhlo = Hamish_ «sD eadEndia 3, Thedivineorder, 120 121 122 Seep 123/Kobli, Svabhu 124 125 126 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ forall’: safeguarding students 128|Langwith, Jacqueline □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ = 129 130 131 Meridth McKean □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ MasonCoumty 134 135 Ben □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ EM Campbell wins their weekend = 137] 138 139[Adams, Sabrina ——=—=S=S=S*S™S~wd Equity, soca justice, andowrfutre 140 141 142 143}Solomen, Andrew aaa 145 Cooper, Brittney C Feminist AF ; a guide to crushing girlhood Tanner, Chanel Craft Susana M Meem, Deborah T Finding out : an introduction to LGBT studies Gibson, Michelle 147|Alexander, Jonathan Ann SCS~—SCSC~SR ight te pein Francesca 150) Mary Wollstonecraft 152 1s3[Rorby,Ginny ——=—=—=S=S~iRrecing Finch CSCC Lamar □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 155 Thom, Kai Cheng From the stars in the sky to the fish in the sea 156/Ching, Kai Yun 157 158 Jaime □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Gay characters in theater, movies, and television: new rates. new attitudes 160|Andryszewski, Tricia ——=S=~=~—“;~*~*dG iS Rose □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ CS NickiPeter_______|Genderidentity SCC 163|Comell, Alexis 164 165 166|Gringi, Noah 167
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW 168 See 169] Watker. tda 170|Henneberg, Susan □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Phoebe 172 173 M-E irdmansup 175 176 177 178 Rebecca Kate 181 Gumballs ed 182 183 Christopher 185 fHeartstopper. Volume 33
187 188[Burch, Christian Mitthe road, Manny Theo Ssmecbody Ryan SSSC*oneys Naomi 192 Brooke SSCs □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Herihel, Jessica Jam Jazz! Jennings, Jazz 195|McNicholas, Shelag ce Leticia 197 198[Murphy, Mannie ——=S=SSSS~S~«*di never promised youarosegarden 199 wasbomforthis, Mason SSSSCSC*diP wish yourallthe best, 201 202 Elizabeth □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ politics, 204 ifleanpiveyoutht 2os[Russo, Meredith ——SSSSCS~*dC wasyurgin) = Grimm, Gavin If you're a kid like Gavin 207 208 Johnson, Chelsea Intersection atlies : we make room for all Council, LaToya Smith, Ashley
2111MacPherson, Dougal Mychal Denzel___———_| Invisible man, got the whole world watching young black man’seducation 213 a Mil, Ten 216
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
Holl Sarah Jacob's new dress Hoffman, Jan Chris Sarah Jacob's room to choose Hoffinan, tan Chris 221 Ellen SSCSC*C*~S*~*éiez Jenmiings: voice for LGBTQyouth —OC—“—SOS—SCSCOC“(‘ CS 223 224 225 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ world = 227 228 229 230|Mapua Jeff sama Wachowski Olivia Daisy 232 Stevenson, Noelle Lefiadoras. Un plan terrible Shannon Ellis, Grace Nowak, Caralyn Brittney Aimee Matthew 235 236 237 238|Marcinink, Kristin Eva SSSSSSCSCSCSCSC*dLGS TQ) families: theultimate tcenguide
Susan rights 242} Lundin, Martha 243] Wheeler, Jill C 244 SS™~™~™CCC#ULGT history book, David Lee Virginia, □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 2ag Donna ——SSS~S™~—sSCSCS lynn Dunkin’ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 250 Rachel SSSSSCdiLving with penderdysphona □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Landi) SC‘; Eric □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ OSE □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 254 Rory _|Laokingforgroup □□□ 256 Mette SSSCSCS™*~*~i sve □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 258 2s9 Stevenson, Noelle Lumberjanes, |, Bewans the kitten holy Ellis, Grace Alten, Brooklyn 260| Watters, Shannon 262 Stevenson, Noelle Lumberjanes. 3, A terrible plan Watters, Shannon Ellis, Grace Nowak, Carolyn Williams, Briuney 262/Fleck, Aimee 263 264
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW 265 266 Watters, Shannon Lumberjanes. Volume 8, Stone cold Leyh, Kat Corey 268 269 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ boy :agraphicnovel, Volumef □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ boy: apraphic novel, Volume2 DuchessDeal, Heidi □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ NN NN □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ DeAnn
276 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Emery □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Meet Cte Diy □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 279 Blair □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ HERtory: stories of womten and nonbinary people rewriting history Gillian 282 Adam ——~—=—S~S~S~SC—Sw More nappy thant 284|Malenfant, Isabelle Jane 286 2871Tobacco, Violet Ja Suzanne Neal, DeShanna My rainbow Neal, Trinity 290/Twink, Ant 292 Linus . 293 29a Willow 296 WW 298] Yangni, Kah 299 300 303 302 Okay.Cupid □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Katie 304 305
306|Monster, Sfé R 307 308) 309) Elliot |Pugeboy:amemo) SSCS 311 312{Comejo, Xochitl Gillian 314 aas[Emezi, □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW Wilson-Trudeau, Marty Phoenix gets greater Wilson, Phoenix 316/Kyak-Monteith, Megan Finch, Michelle Phoenix goes to schoo! : a story to support transgender and gender diverse children Finch, Phoenix Sharon 318/Blais, Mykacll of Victory 320 321 322\Johnston, Lauri Marke Shelby |Quserasall get out 10 people who've inspiredme □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Tanut-Jones, Sarah 208 More 327|Knapp, Jennifer 328/Zuckerberg, J. R Julia QUIVercamovel □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 330/Oster, KC 331/Flint, Gillian 332 Peggy} Erickson, Leigh Ann Kelisa 335 Meghan SS □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 337 338|Papworth, Sarah □□ «*(Rinbow village □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 340 Alisa 342 343/Schrag, Ariel Alex RK 345 346 cee Pe Wednesday 343) 34g 350 351 Iris □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ender: azn illusisated guide toidentityandexpression 353/Fitzzerald, F. Scott 354/Smyth, Fiona HilaryW SSSSSCSCSC*«dSXUty an genderidentity Robyn □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ He they mee: for the sisters, misters, and binaryresisters 387 ag Tash □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 361 362[Symes-Smith, Esme □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Callie andthe dragon’soost 363
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW 364 365 SkatingonMars 366 367 368) Joshua 370\Jumes,Rory □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Nd, SS 371 Someihinglikegravity April □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ OCS 373|Mola, Maria 374 SSSCSpinwithme 376 Cherry-Paul, Sonja Stamped (for kids) : racism, antiracism, and you Kendi, Ibram X Jason Rachelle Ibram X ibram X 380|Kendi, Ibm ~SS~«d Stamped from the beginning; the definitive history ofracist ideasin America 381 382|Walton JessicaAska «Starsintheireyes Toby C*d(Stayrgold stylo 385 387|Kaye, Julia ————S—S~SCSC*d Super Inte bloomer. mvecarlydaysintransition:anupandoulcollection Teshika 389 390 □□ SSSSSS«*T tinevitable Victorian thing Jasper □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 393[Slater, □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□□ Edith 395|Miles, Nicole 396/Nozari, Roza 397 398) 399 400 401 Molly Knox ——————=«d(Thedeepdak □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 403 Bre 405/Grigni, Noah 406 407 Hanneh - 409|Merreil, Bill Eric □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 41i[Wind, Lee Testa, Rylan Jay The gender quest workbook : a guide for teens & young adults exploring gender identity Jayme Alex □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ OO 414 415
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW 416 houscthat whispers □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 418 Douglas The madness ofcrowds: gender, raceandidentity □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 420 421 (TRC NeWueerconscience □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 423 424 425 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ TW pas pret □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 427) 428 Jen «The princennddressmaker 430 431|Gripni, Noah Thorpe, Christopher The sociology book Yuill, Chris Hobbs, Mitchell Todd, Mepan Tomley, Sarah 432|Weeks, Marcus 433 434 435 436 Cea Cheryl Willis 439/Grove,Bmma _SSSS~* TR Rind person Rachel 442 443 The witchking 445 446/Durand, Aure?lia Spike 448 449|Litten, Kristyna 450 Nicole 452 YoonHa Cfigerhomor 454 Sarah «| Tomorrow will be different: tove, loss. the fightfortransequality 456 457 Fox Karen 460 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 462 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 464 465 466 Johnson, Nick Shelle
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
Juana —SSSSSSCS™C™C~™~———C [Twelfth OCC“ 471 472|Acho.Emmanuel 473 474 475|Gagne, Tammy Understanding pender dysphoria 476 ss SSSCS™~—~—CUpsnged 478iMcLemore, Elliott 479 480|Thom, Matt 481|Thom, Matt 482/Thom, Rachel 483/Thorn, Matt Matt 485|Thom, Rachel 486 Hemandez, Jasmin We are here : visionaries of color transforming the art world Swizz Beatz 487} Leerasanthanah, Sunn’ 488 489 490 491) Berke, Lauren Simkin Ame Kelisa Kelisa 495|Copeland, Grezory
497| Wing, Kelisa 498 Linda 500|/Musray, Jake Sara 502 $03 soa Kaylani 506 507 508 508 |Whiteprivilege 511 512 $13|Bardoff, Naomi 54 SSS™*™*~™”~”C””_] With honor and integrity : transzender troops intheirawnwords $16/Benbassat, Julic 517
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW Holmes, Melisa You-ology : a puberty guide for every body Hutchison, Trish Kathryn Patrick 520 $21 Jasper The (unjpopularvole 523 $24 Browne, Mahogany L Woke : 9 young poet's call to justice Taylor, Theodore Acevedo, Elizabeth 525|Gatwaod. Olivia $26 Bi
529 530|Green,SimonJame ss CGycluby 531 532 Onetmewish 533 Michacl_ [Long time coming : reckoning with race im □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 535 Younpran CCK □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ sa7|Lee, Youngran Chick □□ 538 538 Worth, Richard Life at school and in the community AS Rem 540 541 542 Virgina [Racialjustice, 544 545 S46|Rourke, Mooney, Beck [WeareMayhem 547 548 Devlin sso 551 552 553 st 555 556 557|McEntarffes, Robert □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ psychology preppius, 2020-202). 559 Kristin 561 Robert 563 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ CSCOC‘C‘C CS 565 566 567 568 Talia SS (Misformonster 570 571 572 573\Crespo, Alex □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ SSCS tHe water 575
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL FILED EX PARTE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
576] Vulchi, Priva 577 What's diversity? 578 Drew zi Prejudice Elizabeth (| You calll this democracy? ; how to fix our government and deliver powertothe people 582 Watters, Shannon Lumberjanes. Volume cleven, Time after crime Leyh, Kat Carey Leyh, Kat 584/Pietsch, Car Leyh, Kat $85|Pietsch, Care 586 587 588 589 590 Simone «Gay □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 593 594 595 WhatstheT? 596