Jones v. United States Postal Service

Background

The plaintiffs asked the court to enforce two subpoenas before the preliminary-injunction hearing scheduled for September 16, 2020. One subpoena sought three categories of documents. The government had already produced documents responsive to one category. For the two remaining categories, the government said it would review communications related to documents already in the record but could not promise production before the hearing. It cited the volume of documents, possible coordination with the Treasury Department and the White House, and the time needed to prepare the production.

The plaintiffs also sought an order requiring Postmaster DeJoy to testify at the hearing. They argued that his testimony was relevant, including to the issue of intent. Alternatively, they asked the court to rule before the hearing that their constitutional claims did not require proof of intent. The parties jointly submitted a proposed witness list and schedule.

Court’s Analysis

For expedited discovery—discovery ordered on an unusually short schedule—the court considered whether the plaintiffs faced irreparable injury, whether they had some probability of success on the merits, whether expedited discovery was connected to avoiding that injury, and whether the plaintiffs’ potential injury outweighed the government’s burden.

The court found that denying expedited production would cost the plaintiffs only the opportunity to question witnesses about newly produced documents at the September 16 hearing. Because the court could order discovery later, and because it was unknown whether the hearing witnesses had participated in or could testify about those documents, the court considered the potential injury speculative. It concluded that the government’s burden of producing the documents by the next day outweighed the plaintiffs’ potential injury.

The court also declined to compel DeJoy’s testimony because sworn testimony concerning the issue was already available. It further declined to issue the requested advance ruling on whether intent was required.

Ruling

Judge Victor Marrero ordered that the plaintiffs’ request to enforce the two subpoenas was DENIED. The court also ordered that the parties’ joint request concerning hearing testimony was DENIED in part. Each witness would be limited to ten minutes, except that expert witnesses could make a twenty-minute presentation before questioning.