This portends to be another busy day in the courts around the nation: first stop — Maryland. No surprise, but Kristi Noem’s insolence will be the subject of an afternoon hearing.

Later today we may see the Colorado ACLU’s TRO. And on and on — and, as our erstwhile commenter points out… we’ve held Earth Days for 55 years, but it is taking less than three months for Trump to try to undo most of that very tangible progress. Ugh.

In any event, here’s the latest — out of Maryland:

…On the eve of the first Court-ordered deposition concerning the Government’s failure to comply with this Court’s orders, the Government responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests by producing nothing of substance. Its document production consists entirely of public filings from the dockets, copies of Plaintiffs’ own discovery requests and correspondence, and two nonsubstantive cover emails transmitting declarations filed in this case. Its interrogatory responses are similarly non-responsive.

This Court granted expedited discovery “to ascertain what, if anything, the Defendants have done to ‘facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’” Order at 6-7 (quoting Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), slip op. at 2). The Court specifically stated that “Plaintiffs are entitled to explore the lawful basis — if any — for Abrego Garcia’s continued detention in CECOT, including who authorized his initial placement there and who presently authorizes his continued confinement.” Order at 6 n.3. The discovery responses Defendants served this afternoon establish that the Government intends to prevent Plaintiffs from developing the discovery ordered by this Court. . . .

First, the Government artificially narrows the Court’s Order to avoid complying with its obligations. For example, the Government refuses to respond to interrogatories it claims are “based on the false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador,” Ex. A at 3 (Interrogatory Responses), despite the Supreme Court’s clear holding that “[t]he [O]rder properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.” Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.—, slip op. at 2 (emphasis added). Likewise, the Government refuses to provide any information predating April 4, Ex. B at 2 (Responses to Document Requests), even though this Court held Plaintiffs “are entitled to explore. . . who authorized” Abrego Garcia’s “initial placement” in El Salvador, which began on March 15. Order at 6 n.3. The Government refuses to provide any documents “concerning the legal basis for Abrego Garcia’s confinement.” Ex. B at 6. And the Government maintains that any information regarding the agreement between the United States and El Salvador to detain individuals in El Salvador is “irrelevant,” id. at 7, despite this Court’s finding that Plaintiffs “are entitled to explore the lawful basis—if any—for Abrego Garcia’s continued detention.” Order at 6 n.3. The Governments’ rights under any agreement governing Abrego Garcia’s transfer and detention in El Salvador are, without question, directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ ability to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody. Finally, the Government refuses to provide any information about the purported “diplomatic discussions with El Salvador regarding Abrego Garcia” in which it claims to have engaged (Ex. A), despite the Supreme Court’s direction that it must be prepared to explain the “steps it has taken.” Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.____, slip op. at 2.

Second, the Government refuses to answer several interrogatories or provide documents based on categorical assertions of privilege—including deliberative process privilege, state secret privilege, and “governmental privilege” — without any foundation for doing so. Indeed, despite invoking “state secret” privilege 13 times in response to Plaintiffs’ 15 interrogatories, the Government has not submitted a “formal claim of privilege” or otherwise identified the particular bases for its assertion of privilege. United States v. Zubaydah, 595 U.S. 195, 205 (2022); see also Rein v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 553 F.3d 353, 369 (4th Cir. 2009) (requiring the Government to provide sufficient “information by which the district court can independently assess the asserted privilege”). Plaintiffs met and conferred with the Government about Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on April 19, at which time the Government stated it had no issues to raise with respect to the substance of the discovery, and the parties scheduled depositions to occur on April 22 and 23, starting at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiffs invited the Government to meet and confer several times thereafter regarding the scope of discovery, including by describing the specific topics Plaintiffs intend to investigate in depositions, so as to identify and resolve any disputes in advance of the discovery deadline and depositions.

Defendants declined. Defendants also rejected Plaintiffs’ proposed ESI protocol, refused to disclose their search parameters, refused to provide any documents or even “commit to a timeline” for doing so before the Court’s deadline of 5 p.m. today, and now — on the eve of depositions — have served incomplete and deficient responses. At Plaintiffs’ request, the parties met and conferred at 7 p.m. tonight, at which time the Government stood on its currently deficient discovery responses.

Third, Mr. Mazzara will be deposed Tuesday [tomorrow morning] at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court hold a conference after his deposition, at approximately 1 p.m. or at the Court’s convenience thereafter, at which time Plaintiffs can address the discovery deficiencies and address any categorical issues that arose at Mr. Mazzara’s deposition….

We will keep you apprised. Onward. What tools these jamokes all are.

नमस्ते