Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—D. Md.: USAID plaintiffs’ expedited discovery request in DOGE suit denied by district court, (May 30, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

A memo sent to USAID staff had indicated that the agency “will have been substantially transferred to [State] or otherwise wound down.”

Current or recently terminated employees and contractors of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) who sued Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and other governmental actors for alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution arising from actions to effectuate the dismantle and shutdown of USAID, were not entitled to expedited discovery in the case. The plaintiffs sought an immediate 28-day discovery period and asked a Maryland federal district court to direct the defendants to respond to 10 interrogatories and 14 requests for production of documents within the first seven days, as well as to up to six depositions. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show good cause for ordering expedited discovery and that factors weighed against granting their motion (Does 4 v. Musk , No. 25-0462-TDC (D. Md. May 27, 2025)).

USAID suit. Current or recently terminated employees and contractors of the USAID filed suit against Elon Musk, DOGE, and other governmental actors, alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution arising from the defendants’ actions to effectuate the dismantlement and shutdown of USAID. The plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which in March 2025 granted in part and denied in part a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Stay. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entered an order staying the injunction, following which the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to bring a putative class action and naming additional defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had taken additional actions to dismantle USAID, and they requested that the court enjoin the defendants from taking any further actions to reorganize, modify, or eliminate the agency without express permission from Congress, and to enjoin Musk and DOGE personnel from performing duties at USAID.

Motion for expedited discovery. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for expedited discovery, which the defendants opposed. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought an immediate 28-day discovery period and asked the district court to direct the defendants to respond to 10 interrogatories and 14 requests for production of documents within the first seven days, as well as to authorize the plaintiffs to conduct up to six depositions.

“[W]ound-down beyond repair.” The plaintiffs claimed this expedited discovery was necessary, based on a memorandum sent to all USAID personnel, which they said had indicated that the agency “will be wound-down beyond repair.”

Rule 26. The court addressed the procedural issue of expedited discovery under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which a party may not seek discovery from another party before the two have conferred. To grant a motion for expedited discovery, the court noted, the Fourth Circuit has not established a standard, but courts in the district have employed a standard that requires reasonableness and good cause, based upon the totality of circumstances and several factors.

No good cause. In this case, the court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to show good cause for obtaining expedited discovery. There was no motion for a preliminary injunction pending before the court. While the plaintiffs had limited the breadth of their proposed discovery, their proposed schedule was accelerated, and the proposed depositions of multiple officials with significant roles in government operations imposed a meaningful burden.

No full alignment with expressed need. Moreover, the court held, the requested discovery does not fully align with the expressed need for expedited discovery. Many of the interrogatories and requests for production related to the plaintiffs’ claims under the Appointments Clause regarding Musk’s role, the court explained, but the record supported the conclusion that the allegedly unauthorized actions were either authorized or ratified by a USAID official. The court also noted that the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss weighed against expedited discovery, as it raised colorable arguments in favor of potentially dismissing the claims.

The case is No. 25-0462-TDC.

Judge: Chuang, T.

Attorneys: Norman L. Eisen (State Democracy Defenders Fund) for J. Does 1-26. Garry Daniel Hartlieb, U.S. Department of Justice, for Elon Musk.

Cases: PublicEmployees EvidenceDiscovery Procedure AgencyNews DOGE FedTracker LaborEmployment MarylandNews