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. 

 Civil Action No. 6:23-cv-00609 (JDK) 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MEDIA PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

 Defendants oppose Media Plaintiffs’ motion for a further extension of their deadline to 

respond to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. See Motion for Extension, ECF No. 89 (“Mot.”). 

Defendants have already agreed to a 30-day extension of both Media Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff Texas’s 

response deadline—which Plaintiff Texas complied with, having served its responses and objections 

on the agreed-upon extended deadline—and Media Plaintiffs’ request for an additional 30 days, which 

would triple their allotted time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2), is not supported by 

good cause.1 

Media Plaintiffs’ threshold justification for seeking to triple the normal time for responding to 

Defendants’ interrogatories is that it would “be burdensome given the significant amount of time and 

1

 Defendants oppose Media Plaintiffs’ extension request only on the assumption that this litigation 

will proceed in the first instance. Today, Defendants filed a Notice informing the Court that, absent 

Congressional action, the Global Engagement Center (“GEC”) will terminate on December 23, 2024. 

See ECF No. 91 (citing section 1287(j) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

(22 U.S.C. § 2656 note)). As explained in Defendants’ Notice, Congress has not extended the statutory 

termination of the GEC thus far, and Defendants understand that reauthorization is unlikely to occur. 

Id. Defendants are conferring with Plaintiffs about the implications of these developments for this 

litigation. Id.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 2325
2 

manpower required to prepare and conduct [] depositions and would likely result in incomplete 

responses that would require supplementation.” See id. at 2. But Media Plaintiffs overstate the burden 

and fail to explain why they lack complete information to supply the factual basis for venue in this 

District or how Media Plaintiffs have been injured. First, the burden of responding to Defendants’ 

interrogatories is minimal. There are only ten interrogatories that require a response from Media 

Plaintiffs, one that seeks a description of the events or omissions underlying Media Plaintiffs’ claim to 

venue in this District, and nine that seek information underlying Media Plaintiffs’ allegations of their 

own injuries. See Exhibit A. Information about Media Plaintiffs’ own claims and injuries should be 

readily available to Media Plaintiffs, and they do not contend otherwise. The fact that Media Plaintiffs 

are unwilling or unable to provide this information supports the absence of jurisdiction and venue in 

this District, and it is not a justification for seeking yet more time to respond to these straightforward 

interrogatories. If no such information exists to support venue in this District or Media Plaintiffs’ 

standing to sue, there is no burden to stating so in response to Defendants’ interrogatories. Thus, the 

already-extended response timeline of 60 days is sufficient.2 

Second, Media Plaintiffs’ complaints about simultaneously responding to Defendants’ 

interrogatories while completing their affirmative expedited discovery are self-imposed and do not 

outweigh Defendants’ entitlement to timely discovery responses. Media Plaintiffs cite to no authority 

for the proposition that the burdens associated with promulgating affirmative discovery justify tripling 

their amount of time to respond to discovery. And Media Plaintiffs have identified nothing 

exceptional about the need to respond to discovery while simultaneously pursing affirmative 

discovery. When this Court granted expedited discovery over seven months ago, it stated that “[t]he 

parties will conduct their Rule 26(f) conference shortly, which means regular discovery is 

2

 Media Plaintiffs suggest that the press of work “would likely result in incomplete responses that 

would require supplementation.” Mot. at 2. Media Plaintiffs provide no explanation for why their 

responses about their own injuries and the factual basis for venue in this District would be incomplete, 

and, in any event, the fact that Media Plaintiffs may later need to supplement their responses does not 

obviate their obligation to respond with whatever information is in their possession, custody, and 

control now. 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2326
3 

forthcoming.” See Order, ECF No. 54 at 5 (“Order”). Thereafter, the parties promptly conducted a 

Rule 26(f) conference and submitted their Rule 26(f) discovery plan. See Joint Discovery Plan, ECF 

No. 60. But now, Media Plaintiffs seemingly are advancing the unsupported position that all Rule 

26(f) discovery effectively be put on hold until they conclude expedited discovery. That is inconsistent 

with what this Court has ordered. 

Furthermore, while Defendants understand the burdens imposed by expedited discovery—

and indeed have borne most of those burdens as the responding parties—the solution to Media 

Plaintiffs’ apparent workload constraints is that they approach expedited discovery in the “narrowly 

targeted” and “limited” fashion which they represented to the Court and which the Court ordered. 

See Mot. for Expedited Disc., ECF No. 13 at 3 (“Plaintiffs seek leave to conduct narrowly targeted 

discovery.”); Order at 6 (authorizing “limited, expedited discovery”). Yet Media Plaintiffs’ broad and 

all-encompassing discovery has been anything but targeted, as highlighted below. Media Plaintiffs’ 

decision to seek extensive discovery that goes well beyond that which is needed for a preliminary 

injunction is solely a problem of their own making, and it does not excuse their obligation to timely 

respond to Defendants’ interrogatories. 

For instance, one of the depositions Media Plaintiffs state they must prepare for, see Mot. at 2, 

is a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for which Media Plaintiffs noticed twenty-one topics, many of which are 

overly broad and infeasible for a witness to prepare for on the expedited timeframe, see Exhibit B.3 

Media Plaintiffs do not explain how any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, particularly one covering so many 

topics, is consistent with narrowly targeted, expedited discovery. Media Plaintiffs similarly do not 

explain why the five additional Rule 34 subpoenas they recently served—on top of the seven subpoenas 

they have already served—must be addressed in expedited discovery. See Mot. at 3. Finally, Media 

Plaintiffs point to Defendants’ agreement to re-review certain documents with privilege assertions, id.

at 2-3, but that agreement was part of a conferral process to minimize, not enlarge, the issues presented 

during expedited discovery. And Media Plaintiffs do not explain why they need still more information 

3

 Defendants reserve all rights with regard to this notice. 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 2327
4 

from Defendants to brief their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking emergency relief over a 

year after this lawsuit was filed. 

Third, Media Plaintiffs are incorrect that a further extension will not prejudice Defendants’ 

ability to respond to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. See id. at 3-4. This extension would 

prejudice Defendants by effectively requiring Defendants to confer with Media Plaintiffs over any 

issues with their interrogatory responses at the same time Defendants are preparing their opposition 

to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, and it provides insufficient time to seek any relief from 

the Court should those conferral efforts prove unsuccessful. Under Media Plaintiffs’ proposal, most 

of the time for any conferral or to seek any appropriate relief from the Court for any deficiencies in 

Media Plaintiffs’ responses would lie during Defendants’ time to prepare their preliminary injunction 

opposition, which is due by February 14, 2025. See Scheduling Order at 1, ECF No. 84. Granting 

Media Plaintiffs’ requested extension would also be inequitable, as Defendants have undertaken 

significant efforts to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests on the expedited discovery schedule, and 

Defendants are entitled to responses from Media Plaintiffs on the schedule set forth by Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2). Defendants have already extended that schedule once, and they have not 

pressed Media Plaintiffs for additional discovery responses (such as document productions, which 

Media Plaintiffs have represented to Defendants will not begin until mid-January). Media Plaintiffs 

appear to fault Defendants for “not seek[ing] expedited discovery” of their own, see Mot. at 3, but 

Defendants need not seek expedition merely to obtain discovery responses in accordance with the 

standard timelines set forth by the Federal Rules and consistent with this Court’s order granting 

expedited discovery, see Order at 5. 

Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court deny Media Plaintiffs’ motion for extension 

and require that Media Plaintiffs provide their interrogatory responses on their already-extended 

deadline of December 23, 2024. 

Dated: December 9, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 2328
5 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

JOSHUA E. GARDNER

Special Counsel 

Federal Programs Branch 

JOSEPH E. BORSON 

Assistant Director 

Federal Programs Branch 

/s/Arjun Mody 

JOSHUA M. KOLSKY (DC #993430) 

Senior Trial Counsel 

DOROTHY M. CANEVARI (NY #5989694) 

CRISTEN C. HANDLEY (MO #69114) 

ARJUN MODY (DC #90013383) 

Trial Attorneys 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

1100 L Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Tel: (202) 451-7723 

Email: arjun.a.mody@usdoj.gov 

Counsel for Defendants 

 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 2329
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 On December 9, 2024, I electronically submitted this document to the clerk of the court of 

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas using the court’s electronic case filing system. 

I certify that I have served all parties electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2). 

 /s/ Arjun Mody 

 Arjun Mody 

 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 92 Filed 12/09/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 2330