Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—D.C. Circuit grants emergency stay of district court’s discovery order in state AGs’ suit against Musk and DOGE, (Mar 27, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

“In particular,” the order states, “petitioners have shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the district court was required to decide their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery.”

Last week, Elon Musk and U.S. DOGE petitioned the D.C. Circuit for a writ of mandamus quashing a federal district court’s discovery order issued on March 12, 2025, against U.S. DOGE (USDS) in a lawsuit brought by a group of 14 states against the department and him. Musk et al. also filed an “emergency motion” to stay the district court’s discovery order.

Discovery order. The March 12 district court order, signed by Judge Chutkan, who also issued a written opinion explaining the reasons the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion, denied the states’ request to notice two depositions and also clarified, among other things, that the discovery requests should not apply to the President and that they “shall be limited to information and materials regarding agencies, employees, contracts, grants, federal funding, legal agreements, databases, or data management systems that involve or engage with Plaintiff States, including entities and institutions operated or funded by Plaintiff States.” It gave the defendants 21 days to produce the requested documents and respond to interrogatories and requests for admissions, as amended.

In last week’s petition to the Court of Appeals, Musk had argued that the discovery order is “broadly phrased and premature” and also “raises grievous separation-of-powers concerns.” The petition argued that the order requires the government to produce information regarding an organization within the Executive Office of the President, as well as a “close presidential advisor.” The district court order, the petition complains “requires the White House to provide detailed information regarding the substance of the advice USDS and Mr. Musk have provided and the process through which that advice has been formulated and communicated within the Executive Branch.” It cites Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C. and contends: “This unusual and highly invasive order threatens “the Executive’s interests in maintaining the autonomy of its office and safeguarding the confidentiality of its communications” and fails to accord the “‘high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive’” in the conduct of litigation.”

Stay granted. In the D.C. Circuit’s per curiam order, issued yesterday, the court briefly explained that it had considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the emergency motion for stay, and responses, and reached the conclusion that the district court’s March 12, 2025, order should be “stayed pending further order of this court” and that the petitioners had “satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay.”

“In particular,” the order states, “petitioners have shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the district court was required to decide their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery.” It directs the parties to “promptly notify this court upon the district court’s disposition of petitioners’ motion to dismiss” and it ordered, by its own motion, that this appeals case “be held in abeyance pending further order of this court.”

The cases are No. 25-5072 and No. 25-cv-429 (TSC).

News: LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews Layoffs EvidenceDiscovery WhiteHouseNews DOGE FedTracker LaborEmployment