1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 6:23-cv-609-JDK

ORDER GRANTING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited preliminary-injunction

discovery. Docket No. 13. Plaintiffs “seek leave to conduct narrowly targeted 

discovery” on their pending motion for a preliminary injunction—before Plaintiffs 

would otherwise be entitled to discovery. Id. at 11; Docket No. 11. Defendants 

oppose, arguing that “Plaintiffs have not established any pressing need or other good 

cause that would outweigh the burden that expedited discovery would impose” on 

them. Docket No. 20 at 2. Having considered the matter, the Court hereby GRANTS

the motion and ORDERS expedited discovery as described below.

I.

The Court’s order denying Defendants’ motions to dismiss and transfer venue 

provides a thorough factual background of this case. Docket No. 53. In short, 

Plaintiffs—two media companies and the State of Texas—are suing the State 

Department, several of its officials, and its Global Engagement Center. Docket No. 1 
2

¶¶ 11–23. Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the media 

companies’ First Amendment right to free speech. Id. ¶¶ 1–6, 272–282. Specifically, 

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “fund[] the infrastructure, development, and 

marketing and promotion of censorship technology and private censorship 

enterprises” that suppress the media companies’ free speech. Id. ¶ 1; see also id. 

¶¶ 199–221. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants’ “censorship funding and 

promotion also undermines Texas law, . . . interfer[ing] with the State of Texas’ 

sovereign interest in creating and enforcing a legal code.” Id. ¶ 5; see also id.

¶¶ 234–35.

On February 6, 2024, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, asking the 

Court to “enjoin[] Defendants and any individuals and entities acting on their behalf 

from continuing to research, assess, fund . . . and/or otherwise assist with the 

development of, or encourage the use of, technology that targets in whole, or in part, 

Americans’ speech or the American press.” Docket No. 11 at 36. Plaintiffs 

subsequently filed this motion, seeking “expedited preliminary-injunction discovery 

on a limited and expedited basis.” Docket No. 13 at 2.1 Plaintiffs argue that expedited 

discovery is necessary “to determine the full scope of Defendants’ ultra vires and 

unconstitutional censorship scheme, including to ascertain the identity of key actors 

and to learn the type and extent of Defendants’ activities which harm Plaintiffs.” 

Id. at 11.

1 Plaintiffs’ filing includes both a motion and a memorandum in support of the motion, which are 

separately paginated. To avoid confusion, the Court will use the PDF numbers generated by 

CM/ECF.
3

Defendants oppose expedited discovery on two grounds. Docket No. 20 at 3–13. 

First, they argue that there are jurisdictional matters—specifically, their motions to 

change venue and dismiss—that the Court must decide before allowing any discovery. 

Id. at 3–7. Second, they argue that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause 

for granting expedited discovery. Id. at 7–13. On April 23, 2024, the Court held oral 

argument on the motion, along with Defendants’ motions to dismiss and motion to 

transfer venue. Docket No. 47.

II.

Parties may obtain discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference when permitted 

“by court order.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(d)(1). Granting pre-conference discovery falls 

within the Court’s “wide discretion to control the course of litigation, which includes 

the authority to control the scope and pace of discovery.” In re Ramu Corp., 903 

F.2d 312, 318 (5th Cir. 1990). While the Fifth Circuit has not articulated a standard 

for exercising this discretion on expedited-discovery motions, several courts within 

the circuit—including in the Eastern District—have adopted a “good cause” standard. 

See, e.g., United States v. Abbott, 2023 WL 6532633 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2023); Uniloc 

USA, Inc v. Apple Inc., 2017 WL 3382806 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2017). 

Under that standard, the movant bears the burden of demonstrating good 

cause for expedited discovery. Uniloc, 2017 WL 3382806, at *1. The court must 

assess the motion “on the entirety of the record to date” and consider “the 

reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Id.

(quoting OrthoAccel Techs., Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics, LLC, 2016 WL 3747222, at *3 
4

(E.D. Tex. July 13, 2016)). Courts consider five factors: (1) whether a preliminary 

injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for 

requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with 

the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request 

was made. Id.; see also Missouri v. Biden, 2022 WL 2825846, at *5–8 (W.D. La. 

July 12, 2022) (applying the factors). Expedited discovery is not the norm, and is only 

granted in limited, exceptional circumstances. See Missouri v. Biden, 2022 WL 

2825846, at *5; St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metal & Additives Corp., Inc., 275 F.R.D. 236, 

240 (S.D. Tex. 2011).

III.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that good cause exists here for limited, expedited 

discovery on their preliminary injunction motion.

As an initial matter, the Court has denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and 

motion to transfer venue. Docket No. 53. Thus, Defendants’ argument that expedited 

discovery is improper while those issues are pending is moot.

In addition, most of the factors for finding good cause weigh in favor of granting 

Plaintiffs’ motion. First, Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion is pending. To be 

sure, the existence of a motion for a preliminary injunction “does not constitute per 

se good cause.” EHO360, LLC v. Opalich, 2021 WL 10428788, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 

25, 2021) (citation omitted). But it does weigh strongly in favor of granting expedited 

discovery. See, e.g., Abbott, 2023 WL 6532633, at *2 (finding that a pending 

preliminary injunction weighed in favor of granting expedited discovery); Missouri v.
5

Biden, 2022 WL 2825846, at *6 (same); FED. R. CIV. P. 26 advisory committee notes 

to 1993 amendment (stating that expedited discovery “will be appropriate in some 

cases, such as those involving requests for a preliminary injunction . . . .”).

Second, Plaintiffs’ purpose for expedited discovery is to “provide the Court with 

the details necessary to craft an injunction.” Docket No. 13 at 6. Courts often grant 

expedited discovery for this purpose. See, e.g., Missouri v. Biden, 2022 WL 2825846, 

at *6; NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, 2021 WL 7081122, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2021); 

KPM Analytics N. Am. v. Blue Sun Scientific, L.L.C., 540 F. Supp. 3d 145, 146 (D. 

Mass. 2021) (“[E]xpedited discovery would provide a more fulsome record to consider 

the preliminary injunction . . . .”). And third, the timing of the expedited discovery 

weighs in favor of Plaintiffs. The Court has already resolved Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss and motion to transfer. The parties will conduct their Rule 26(f) conference 

shortly, which means regular discovery is forthcoming. Thus, any additional burden 

on Defendants to respond to the expedited discovery—which is sought so that the 

Court can resolve the pending motion for a preliminary injunction—is slight.

Of course, not all the factors weigh in favor of Plaintiffs. The discovery sought 

by Plaintiffs is not as limited as one might expect, which also means that the burden 

on Defendants to comply with the requests is greater than a typical, limited earlydiscovery request. Nevertheless, the Court finds that these factors deserve less 

weight given the timing and stage of the proceeding. Plaintiffs are essentially 

requesting staged discovery—an initial period of discovery to support their motion for 

a preliminary injunction with a tighter-than-normal turnaround. Under the 
6

circumstances, the Court finds the request reasonable. See Missouri v. Biden, 2022 

WL 2825846, at *7 (finding plaintiffs’ “need for this information outweighs the 

burden” on defendants in similar circumstances).

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause 

for conducting limited, expedited discovery. The Court GRANTS the motion and 

ORDERS discovery on the following timeline:

(1) Within five (5) days of this order, Plaintiffs may serve on Defendants the 

interrogatories and document requests specified in Plaintiffs’ notice of proposed 

discovery. Docket No. 52. Plaintiffs may also serve no more than five subpoenas on 

third parties.

(2) Defendants and third parties shall provide responses and objections within 

thirty (30) days of service.

(3) Within ten (10) days of the receipt of the responses, objections, and the 

production of responsive documents, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith 

about any discovery dispute, after which the parties shall submit a joint statement to 

the Court identifying the nature of any unresolved dispute.

(4) Within ten (10) days of the receipt of the responses, objections, and any 

responsive documents, Plaintiffs shall notify Defendants whether they will seek 

additional third-party subpoenas or depositions pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(5) Within seven (7) days of receiving notice of the depositions and additional 

third-party subpoenas sought by Plaintiffs, the parties shall meet and confer 
7

regarding the additional discovery requests. Should the parties reach an impasse, 

they shall submit separate statements to the Court stating their positions on each 

requested subpoena and deposition.

(6) Thereafter, this Court shall determine any outstanding discovery disputes, 

after which Plaintiffs will have ten (10) days to serve any additional third-party 

subpoenas and thirty (30) days to complete any authorized depositions.

(7) Within twenty-one (21) days after all authorized depositions are taken, 

Plaintiffs may supplement their previous memoranda in support of their Motion for 

a Preliminary Injunction. The supplemental memoranda may not exceed fifteen 

pages, unless leave of court is first obtained. 

(8) Within twenty-one (21) days after Plaintiffs file their supplemental 

memorandum, Defendants may file a supplemental memorandum in response to the 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The supplemental response may not exceed 

fifteen pages, unless leave of court is first obtained.

(9) Within seven (7) days after Defendants file their supplemental 

memorandum, Plaintiffs may file a reply. The supplemental reply may not exceed 

fives pages. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7th May, 2024.