IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC; 

FDRLST MEDIA, LLC; and

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its 

Attorney General, Ken Paxton, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER;

ANTONY BLINKEN, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of State;

LEAH BRAY, in her official capacity as Deputy 

Coordinator of the State Department’s Global 

Engagement Center;

JAMES P. RUBIN, in his official capacity as 

Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center of the 

State Department;

DANIEL KIMMAGE, in his official capacity as the 

Principal Deputy Coordinator for the Global 

Engagement Center at the State Department;

ALEXIS FRISBIE, in her official capacity as Senior 

Technical Advisor of the Technology Engagement 

Team for the Global Engagement Center at the State 

Department;

PATRICIA WATTS, in her official capacity as the 

Director of the Technology Engagement Team at the 

Global Engagement Center at the State Department,

Defendants. 

Civil Action No.: 6:23-cv-00609

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Filing

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 1 of 42 PageID #: 1773
1

Pursuant to the Court’s request, Plaintiffs now file herewith the expedited discovery

requests that Plaintiffs seek leave of Court to file on Defendants, namely Requests for Production 

of Documents & Other Tangible Items, Interrogatories, and Addendum A, which provides 

Definitions and Instructions for the discovery requests. Plaintiffs also file the proposed order which 

provides their requested expedited discovery schedule.

Dated: May 2, 2024

KEN PAXTON 

Attorney General of Texas 

BRENT WEBSTER 

First Assistant Attorney General of Texas

RALPH MOLINA 

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy 

RYAN D. WALTERS 

Chief, Special Litigation Division 

/s/ Susanna Dokupil 

SUSANNA DOKUPIL 

Lead Attorney Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24032801 

MUNERA AL-FUHAID

Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24094501

JACOB E. PRZADA 

Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24125371 

Office of the Attorney General of Texas 

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 009) 

Austin, TX 78711-2548 

Phone: (512) 936-3754

Attorneys for Plaintiff the State of Texas

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Margaret A. Little 

Margaret A. Little 

Lead Attorney 

Senior Litigation Counsel 

Connecticut Bar No. 303494 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

1225 19th Street NW, Suite 450 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 869-5210 

Facsimile: (202) 869-5238 

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland 

Margot J. Cleveland 

Of Counsel 

Michigan Bar No. 83564 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

Margot.Cleveland@ncla.legal 

/s/ Casey Norman 

Casey Norman 

Litigation Counsel 

New York Bar No. 5772199 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

Casey.Norman@ncla.legal 

Counsel for Plaintiffs The Daily Wire 

Entertainment LLC and FDRLST Media LLC

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 2 of 42 PageID #: 1774
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on May 2, 2024, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

notice to be filed by the Court’s electronic filing system, to be served by operation of the Court’s 

electronic filing system on counsel for all parties who have entered in the case.

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland

 Margot J. Cleveland

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 3 of 42 PageID #: 1775
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC;

FDRLST MEDIA, LLC; and

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its Attorney 

General, Ken Paxton,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER;

ANTONY BLINKEN, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of State;

LEAH BRAY, in her official capacity as Deputy 

Coordinator of the State Department’s Global 

Engagement Center;

JAMES P. RUBIN, in his official capacity as 

Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center of the 

State Department;

DANIEL KIMMAGE, in his official capacity as the 

Principal Deputy Coordinator for the Global 

Engagement Center at the State Department;

ALEXIS FRISBIE, in her official capacity as Senior 

Technical Advisor of the Technology Engagement 

Team for the Global Engagement Center at the State 

Department;

Civil Action No.: 6:23-cv-00609

Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests 

for Production of Documents & 

Other Tangible Items to 

Defendants

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 4 of 42 PageID #: 1776
2

PATRICIA WATTS, in her official capacity as the 

Director of the Technology Engagement Team at the 

Global Engagement Center at the State Department,

 Defendants.

 Plaintiffs The Daily Wire, LLC, FDRLST Media, LLC, and the State of Texas, by counsel 

and pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby request that Defendants 

Department of State, Global Engagement Center, Antony Blinken, Leah Bray, James P. Rubin,

Daniel Kimmage, Alexis Frisbie, and Patricia Watts produce for inspection to the undersigned 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 5 of 42 PageID #: 1777
3

counsel all documents and electronically stored information requested below within the time 

required by order of the Court. ECF . Definitions and Instructions are contained in an 

Addendum to the Discovery Requests. See Addendum A.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Request for Production No. 1:

Park Advisors & Becera:

 You state that GEC issued a grant to Park Advisors to administer GEC’s “Testbed 

initiative and International Tech Challenges,” and that Park Advisors also “launched the nowretired Disinfo Cloud” platform, “established a weekly newsletter, Disinfo Cloud Digest,” and 

“created a Twitter account for Disinfo Cloud.” ECF33 at 10-11. You further state that “GEC’s 

use of Disinfo Cloud ended in December 2021, and GEC no longer has access to it” and,

likewise, that “GEC no longer has access to” its Twitter account. Id. at 11. Additionally, You 

state that “GEC’s contract with Park Advisors ended, the Testbeds and International Tech 

Challenges initiatives continued, first through a subcontract with the consultancy company 

Becera, and now directly under GEC.” Id. at 11 n.3.

1. Provide all Communications, Documents, and Information related to Becera and Park 

Advisors’ duties, responsibilities, rights, and any agreements that Defendants entered into with 

Becera and Park Advisors, from 2019 to present, including, but not limited to, all draft contracts, 

contracts in final form, amendments, Documents reflecting users (whether added or deleted) who 

have or had access to or control over platforms, materials, and social media accounts, any 

statements of work, including any deliverables, invoices, or payments that can currently be 

accessed by or which Defendants retain control over which were originally created with State 

Department funds.

Response:

Request for Production No. 2:

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 6 of 42 PageID #: 1778
4

 The Technology Engagement Team states that it “identifies technologies with potential 

application in countering propaganda and disinformation (CPD).”1 The Administrator of Disinfo 

Cloud stated that Disinfo Cloud assessed various CPD Tools and Technologies, initially by 

completing open-source research to learn about the tool, its manufacturer, and the technology 

involved.2 The team would next summarize the research in a one-to-three-page summary.3

Disinfo Cloud would subsequently conduct more probing research of these censorship tools and 

technologies, contacting the tools’ creators, requesting a remote demonstration, and obtaining 

more intricate technical details.4 Disinfo Cloud would then compile a ten-to-twelve-page report 

on the technology. Id. Disinfo Cloud “identified and assessed over 365 tools and technologies.”5

2. Provide all Communications, Documents, and Information from 2019 to the present, that can 

be currently accessed by, or which Defendants retain control over, which were originally created 

with State Department funds that refer to, or relate to CPD Tools and Technologies assessed by, 

or on behalf of, the State Department, which, at the time assessed by, or on behalf of, the State 

Department, were coded or designed and/or capable of monitoring, impacting, or otherwise 

affecting, in whole or part, Americans’ speech or the American press, wherever developed,

published, or disseminated.

Response:

Request for Production No. 3:

Testbed Initiative:

 According to the State Department, one of the Technology Engagement Division’s 

programs is its “Tech Testbed,” which the State Department has described as follows: “The GEC 

solicits real challenges of the U.S. government (USG) to counter foreign propaganda and 

disinformation, and tests specific tools or technologies against a submitted proposal. Tests can 

combine existing capabilities or implement novel tech solutions for a rapid assessment of 

technologies that are employed against real operational challenges. The tests usually run six to 

eight weeks.”6 You maintain that GEC previously contracted with Park Advisors, and then 

1 https://www.state.gov/technology-engagement-division/technology-solutions/. 2 Mad Scientist: Weaponized Information Virtual Conference, July 21, 2020, at 15:45, available at 2.09 MadSci 

Weaponized Information: Technology Engagement Team & Disinfo Cloud - Ms. Frisbie & Nemr – YouTube,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoeHq5gX0dA

3 Id. 4 Id. 5 https://www.state.gov/technology-engagement-division/technology-solutions/ 6 https://www.state.gov/programs-technology-engagement-division/.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 7 of 42 PageID #: 1779
5

Becera, “to run the testbed initiative, but that GEC now handles that initiative directly.” Id. at 11 

n.3. Further, while You characterize the testbed initiative as focused on tools and technology 

used to combat foreign disinformation, evidence shows the testbed has tested tools and 

technologies that reach Americans’ speech and the American press. ECF11-24 at 3; ECF41-53 at 

6; ECF41-35; ECF11-24. Further, evidence suggests that NewsGuard licensed its “nutrition 

ratings” and other technology that reaches the American press and Americans to the government. 

ECF11-24; ECF11-42, ECF 11-43.

3. Provide all Communications, Documents, and Information from 2019 to the present that 

can be currently accessed by, or which Defendants retain control over, which were originally 

created with State Department funds, that refer to, or relate, to the testbed initiative and/or “Tech 

Testbed,”7 including any proposals, tests, criteria, specifications, statement of work, licenses, 

agreements, evaluations, results, findings, and assessments, or the like, where at the time tested 

by, or on behalf of, the State Department, the tools or technologies were coded or designed and/or 

capable of monitoring, impacting, or otherwise affecting, in whole or part, Americans’ speech or 

the American press, wherever developed, published, or disseminated.

Response:

Request for Production No. 4:

Counter-Disinfo Resources:

 GEC currently highlights on its .gov webpage several organizations and resources that the 

State Department represents as “counter-disinfo resources” that “offer commercial, non-profit, 

think tank, and academic technology solutions, dashboards, and research,” including “the Alliance 

for Security (sic) Democracy, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, the 

CredCatalog, Fighting Disinformation Online, MediaWell, and Misinformation Review.”8

7 https://www.state.gov/programs-technology-engagement-division/. 8 https://www.state.gov/resources-technology-engagement-division/.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 8 of 42 PageID #: 1780
6

4. Provide all Communications, Documents, and Information from 2019 to the present

referring or relating to the decision(s) to feature those above-referenced organizations and 

resources on the State Department’s webpage.

Response:

Request for Production No. 5:

Tech Challenges Initiative:

 According to the Technology Engagement Team (TET), the GEC conducts “intensive 

workshops,” consisting of “one or two-day Tech Challenges.”9 According to TET, GEC’s “Tech 

Challenges are focused primarily on supporting foreign technologists. GEC and its foreign partners 

invite foreign-based technologists to demonstrate their capabilities in real time during the Tech 

Challenge. At the end of the Tech Challenges, selected promising technologies are awarded grants 

. . . .”10 The GEC also co-sponsored the NSIN Challenge—Countering COVID19 Disinformation 

tech challenge.

11 Evidence establishes the technology entered in the Tech and NSIN Challenges 

reached Americans’ speech. ECF41-15.

5. Provide all Documents, Communications, and Information from 2019 to the present that 

can be currently accessed by, or which Defendants retain control over, which were originally 

created with State Department funds that refer or relate to any tools or technologies evaluated as 

part of the Tech, NSIN, or other Challenges, where at the time evaluated, by, or on behalf of, the 

State Department the tools or technologies were coded or designed and/or capable of monitoring, 

impacting, or otherwise affecting, in whole or part, Americans’ speech or the American press,

wherever developed, published, or disseminated.

9 https://www.state.gov/programs-technology-engagement-division/. 10 https://www.state.gov/programs-technology-engagement-division/. 11 https://www.nsin.mil/events/disinfo-challenge/.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 9 of 42 PageID #: 1781
7

Response:

Request for Production No. 6:

Private Sector Engagement

 Defendants maintain that “[t]he GEC’s private sector engagement portfolio entails 

engagement to facilitate knowledge-sharing between the U.S. government and the tech sector, 

academia, and the research community on the topic of foreign information manipulation overseas.” 

ECF28-1 at 7. However, evidence indicates that Defendants’ private sector engagement was not 

limited to “the topic of foreign information manipulation overseas.” ECF41-55, CISA, Cyber 

Summit 2020: Day Four (Defending our Democracy), Combating Misinformation and 

Disinformation, YouTube, at 3:24:17, available at 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDtstiYHRNc; ECF41-48, Declaration of Leah Bray at 8, 

¶18, Exhibit, Missouri v. Biden, No. 22-cv-01213, ECF266-6, Apr. 27, 2023; ECF41-49 at 3 

(exhibit in Missouri v. Biden, No. 22-cv-01213 showing GEC targeting domestic post); ECF41-25 

at 8-10 Mad Scientist: Weaponized Information Virtual Conference, July 21, 2020, at 33:58, 34:10, 

2.09 MadSci Weaponized Information: Technology Engagement Team & Disinfo Cloud – Ms. 

Frisbie & Nemr – YouTube, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoeHq5gX0dA

(explaining GEC “is regularly looking to engage with, you know, private industry and looking to 

have conversations to ensure that there is discussion occurring so I think that, you know, those are 

in terms of interaction that’s talking about at a domestic level”).

6. Provide all Communications, Documents, and Information that GEC or TET, or any Person

acting on behalf of GEC or TET, sent to, received from, copied to, or exchanged with individuals 

in Academia, the Private Sector, and Tech Vendors, or Technology Platforms, from December 

2019 to the Present, that can currently be accessed by, or which Defendants retain control over, 

and were originally created with State Department funds, that refer or relate to MDM, CPD Tools 

or Technology, Content Modulation, or Media Literacy, when at the time of the creation of the 

Communication, Document, and Information, the coding and/or testing specifications for the tools 

or technologies discussed did reach or could reach Americans’ speech or the American press,

wherever developed, published, or disseminated.

Response:

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 10 of 42 PageID #: 1782
8

Request for Production Nos. 7-8:

Awards

 The State Department awarded a $30,000 grant to Media Literacy Now, Inc., a 

Massachusetts-based corporation “devoted to advancing media literacy in the United States.”12

The grant award represented that the funds were to “advance the quality of media literacy 

education in Germany.” ECF 41-17, Media Literacy Now Grant Summary, USASpending at 3 

(describing purpose of grant). However, still-available recordings of the State-Department-funded 

seminars and the Final Report establish the grant was used to train American teachers on tools and 

technologies that target Americans’ speech, including Ad Fontes’s “Media Bias Chart” and 

NewsGuard. ECF41-16, Final Report, Medialogue on Propaganda, in passim (summarizing 

participation of American teachers). Videos and Slides, Medialogue on Propaganda, available at 

https://www.medialogues.de/videos (videos of State-Department-funded training sessions for 

American teachers).

7. For any award(s) You made for all or part of fiscal year 2023 to the present, related to MDM, 

Content Modulation, or Media Literacy, provide all Communications, Documents, and 

Information, including but not limited to applications, awards, assessments, statements of work, 

evaluations, deliverables, or reports.

Response:

8. For any award(s) You made from 2019 to all or part of 2022, related to MDM, Content 

Modulation, or Media Literacy, where materials developed as part of that award remain publicly 

available, or that can be currently accessed by, or which Defendants retain control over, which 

were originally created with State Department funds, provide all Communications, Documents, 

and Information, including but not limited to applications, awards, assessments, statements of 

work, evaluations, deliverables, and reports.

12 ECF41-16, Final Report, Medialogue on Propaganda at 29 (detailing use of grant to Media Literacy Now which 

describes that entity as a non-profit seeking to advance “media literacy in the United States”).

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 11 of 42 PageID #: 1783
9

Response:

Request for Production No. 9:

Tech-Driven Operations:

 The State Department asserts that one of its programs is “Tech-Driven Operations,” but the 

State Department’s website’s description of that program merely states: “Information available 

upon request.”13

9. Provide all Communications, Documents, or Information referring to or related to the TechDriven Operations, including, but not limited to, the “information” available and to be provided 

upon request.

Response:

Request for Production No. 10:

10. Provide all Communications, Documents, and Information from 2019 to the present that were

sent to, submitted to, copied to, received from, exchanged with, or gathered by or for, GEC or 

TET, or Persons acting on behalf of GEC or TEC, which contain any of the Search Terms.

Response:

Request for Production No. 11:

A GEC response to a Freedom of Information Act request referenced an internal document titled, 

“2023.02.14 GEC-GDI-BLACKLIST.docx.”14

13 https://www.state.gov/programs-technology-engagement-division/ 14 Gabe Kaminsky, Biden Administration in Hot Seat for Sending Congress ‘Incomplete’ Records for Censorship 

Investigation, available at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2789357/biden-administration-gopincomplete-records-censorship-investigation/.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 12 of 42 PageID #: 1784
10

11. Provide a copy of the GEC internal file named “2023.02.14 GEC-GDIBLACKLIST.docx,” any drafts of this Document, and any Documents or Communications related 

to the creation or editing of this Document, including the metadata.

Response:

Request for Production No. 12:

GEC stated that it developed a research agenda in Spring 2022,15 based on research 

priorities that included assessing: “How can governments and civil society build resilience to 

disinformation by (re)building trust in democratic institutions (government, media, public health, 

etc.)? How can civil society build resilience to disinformation through a whole of society 

approach?” The GEC further stated that “U.S. representatives” to GEC’s working group, “also 

identified the following research priorities: How can governments and civil society work most 

effectively with technology companies to counter disinformation? How can governments and 

civil society raise the cost on disinformation disseminators? How can governments and civil 

society work most effectively with media companies to counter disinformation? How can 

governments use improved governance-related solutions to counter disinformation?”

12. Provide all Communications, Documents, and Information related to the above research 

agenda, including its development, the involvement the U.S. representatives to the working group,

and discussion of how this research agenda applies or relates to the United States or to Americans’ 

speech or the American press, wherever developed, published, or disseminated.

Response:

15 INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-DISINFORMATION RESEARCH AGENDA, available at 

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/International-Counter-Disinformation-Research-Agenda508.pdf.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 13 of 42 PageID #: 1785
11

Request for Production No. 13:

13. Provide all Communications, Documents, and Information from 2019 to the present, that can 

be currently accessed by, or which Defendants retain control over, which were originally created 

with State Department funds and that refer or relate to Americans’ speech and MDM, CPD Tools 

or Technology, Content Modulation, or Media Literacy that GEC or TET, or persons acting on 

GEC or TET’s behalf, sent to, submitted to, copied to, received from, exchanged with, or gathered 

by or for foreign partners.

Response:

Request for Production No. 14:

14. Provide all Communications, Documents, and Information that GEC or TET, or Persons 

acting on GEC or TET’s behalf, provided its interagency partners from 2019 to the present, that 

can be currently accessed by, or which Defendants retain control over, which were originally 

created with State Department funds and that refer or relate to Americans’ speech, or CPD Tools 

or Technology, Content Modulation, or Media Literacy when, at the time of the communication, 

the coding and/or testing specifications of the CPD Tools or Technology, Content Modulation, or 

Media Literacy initiative reached or could reach Americans’ speech or the American press,

wherever developed, published, or disseminated.

Dated: May 2, 2024

KEN PAXTON 

Attorney General of Texas 

BRENT WEBSTER 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Margaret A. Little 

Margaret A. Little 

Lead Attorney 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 14 of 42 PageID #: 1786
12

First Assistant Attorney General of Texas

RALPH MOLINA 

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy 

RYAN D. WALTERS 

Chief, Special Litigation Division 

/s/ Susanna Dokupil 

SUSANNA DOKUPIL 

Lead Attorney Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24032801 

MUNERA AL-FUHAID

Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24094501

JACOB E. PRZADA 

Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24125371 

Office of the Attorney General of Texas 

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 009) 

Austin, TX 78711-2548 

Phone: (512) 936-3754 

Attorneys for Plaintiff the State of Texas

Senior Litigation Counsel 

Connecticut Bar No. 303494 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

1225 19th Street NW, Suite 450 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 869-5210 

Facsimile: (202) 869-5238 

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland 

Margot J. Cleveland 

Of Counsel 

Michigan Bar No. 83564 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

Margot.Cleveland@ncla.legal 

/s/ Casey Norman 

Casey Norman 

Litigation Counsel 

New York Bar No. 5772199 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

Casey.Norman@ncla.legal 

Counsel for Plaintiffs The Daily Wire 

Entertainment LLC and FDRLST Media LLC

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 15 of 42 PageID #: 1787
13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on May 2, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ First 

Set of Requests for Production of Documents & Tangible Things to Defendants with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland

Margot J. Cleveland

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 16 of 42 PageID #: 1788
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC;

FDRLST MEDIA, LLC; and

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its Attorney 

General, Ken Paxton,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER;

ANTONY BLINKEN, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of State;

LEAH BRAY, in her official capacity as Deputy 

Coordinator of the State Department’s Global 

Engagement Center;

JAMES P. RUBIN, in his official capacity as 

Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center of the 

State Department;

DANIEL KIMMAGE, in his official capacity as the 

Principal Deputy Coordinator for the Global 

Engagement Center at the State Department;

ALEXIS FRISBIE, in her official capacity as Senior 

Technical Advisor of the Technology Engagement 

Team for the Global Engagement Center at the State 

Department;

PATRICIA WATTS, in her official capacity as the 

Director of the Technology Engagement Team at the 

Global Engagement Center at the State Department,

 Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 6:23-cv-00609

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES TO 

DEFENDANT 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 17 of 42 PageID #: 1789
1

Plaintiffs Daily Wire, LLC, FDRLST Media, LLC, and State of Texas, through counsel 

and pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, submit the following 

interrogatories to be answered by Defendants, as ordered by the Court. ECF . Definitions 

and Instructions are contained in an Addendum to the Discovery and Interrogatory Requests. See 

Addendum A.

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory 1

Identify any CPD Tool or Technology that GEC or TET, or Persons acting on behalf of 

GEC or TET, discussed with federal agencies or State Governments since 2019, where at the time 

discussed, the CPD Tool or Technology was coded or designed and/or capable of monitoring, 

impacting, or otherwise affecting, in whole or part, Americans’ Speech or the American press, 

wherever developed, published, or disseminated. If you maintain that the conduct or initiative is 

no longer taking place, state when the program ended and the factual basis for your claim that it is 

no longer affecting American speech or the American press.

Response:

Interrogatory 2

Identify any CPD Tool or Technology that GEC or TET, or Persons acting on behalf of 

GEC or TET, have discussed with Academia, the Private Sector, Tech Vendors, or Technology 

Platforms, from 2019 to the present, where, at the time discussed, the CPD Tool or Technology 

was coded or designed and/or capable of monitoring, impacting, or otherwise affecting, in whole 

or in part, Americans’ Speech or the American press, wherever developed, published, or 

disseminated. If you maintain that the conduct or initiative is no longer taking place, state when 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 18 of 42 PageID #: 1790
2

the program ended and the factual basis for your claim that it is no longer affecting American 

speech or the American press.

Response:

Interrogatory 3

Identify any CPD Tool or Technology that GEC or TET, or Persons acting on behalf of 

GEC or TET, have discussed with foreign partners from 2019 to the present, where at the time 

discussed, the CPD Tool or Technology was coded or designed and/or capable of monitoring, 

impacting, or otherwise affecting, in whole or part, Americans’ Speech or the American press,

wherever developed, published, or disseminated. If you maintain that the conduct or initiative is 

no longer taking place, state when the program ended and the factual basis for your claim that it is 

no longer affecting American speech or the American press.

Response:

Interrogatory 4

Identify any tools, technologies, data, platforms, or other material that Park Advisors or 

Becera prepared for Defendants, which can currently be accessed by Defendants or which they

retain control over. If you maintain that the conduct or initiative is no longer taking place, state 

when the program ended and the factual basis for your claim that it is no longer affecting American 

speech or the American press.

Response:

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 19 of 42 PageID #: 1791
3

Interrogatory 5

Identify any CPD Tool or Technology maintained or referenced on the Tech Testbed, 

which are currently coded or designed and/or capable of monitoring, impacting, or otherwise 

affecting, in whole or part, Americans’ Speech or the American press, wherever developed,

published, or disseminated. If you maintain that the conduct or initiative is no longer taking place, 

state when the program ended and the factual basis for your claim that it is no longer affecting 

American speech or the American press.

Response:

Interrogatory 6

Identify any licenses granted, or data provided, to Defendants, that can currently be

accessed by, or which Defendants retain control over, originally obtained with State Department 

funds, which provide Defendants, federal agencies, State Governments, or foreign partners the 

ability to monitor, review, track, flag, or otherwise assess or affect, in whole or part, Americans’

Speech or the American press, wherever developed, published, or disseminated. If you maintain 

that the conduct or initiative is no longer taking place, state when the program ended and the factual 

basis for your claim that it is no longer affecting American speech or the American press.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 20 of 42 PageID #: 1792
4

Response:

Interrogatory 7

Identify any Awards made by Defendants from 2019 to present that were used in 

connection with MDM, CPD Tools or Technology, Content Modulation, or Media Literacy that

involved, discussed, or affected, in whole or part, Americans’ Speech or the American press, 

wherever developed, published, or disseminated, where the subject matter of the Awards can 

currently be accessed by Defendants or which they retain control over. If you maintain that the 

conduct or initiative is no longer taking place, state when the program ended and the factual basis 

for your claim that it is no longer affecting American speech or the American press.

Context for Interrogatory 8

The State Department stated on its web page: “All good things must come to an end: with

the start of the new year, the GEC’s Disinfo Cloud platform and the Disinfo Cloud Digest have been

retired as GEC-sponsored efforts. However, the GEC’s work to elevate technology solutions to

disinformation challenges continues with new projects designed to adapt to the current environment.

Stay tuned for more information on the next iteration of this program!”1

Interrogatory 8

Identify what project or projects have replaced, or will replace, the Disinfo Cloud platform, 

Disinfo Cloud Digest, and the Tech Testbed, along with any individuals or entities involved in the 

“next iteration” of the Disinfo Cloud platform, Disinfo Cloud Digest, and the Tech Testbed, and/or 

“the new projects designed to adapt to the current environment,” or with whom you have

communicated about the next iteration of Disinfo Cloud or the aforementioned new projects. If 

1 https://www.state.gov/defeat-disinfo/

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 21 of 42 PageID #: 1793
5

you maintain that the conduct or initiative is no longer taking place, state when the program ended 

and the factual basis for your claim that it is no longer affecting American speech or the American 

press.

Response:

Dated: May 1, 2024

KEN PAXTON 

Attorney General of Texas 

BRENT WEBSTER 

First Assistant Attorney General of Texas

RALPH MOLINA 

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy 

RYAN D. WALTERS 

Chief, Special Litigation Division 

/s/ Susanna Dokupil 

SUSANNA DOKUPIL 

Lead Attorney Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24032801 

MUNERA AL-FUHAID

Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24094501

JACOB E. PRZADA 

Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24125371

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Margaret A. Little 

Margaret A. Little 

Lead Attorney 

Senior Litigation Counsel 

Connecticut Bar No. 303494 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

1225 19th Street NW, Suite 450 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 869-5210 

Facsimile: (202) 869-5238 

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland 

Margot J. Cleveland 

Of Counsel 

Michigan Bar No. 83564 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

Margot.Cleveland@ncla.legal 

/s/ Casey Norman 

Casey Norman 

Litigation Counsel 

New York Bar No. 5772199 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 22 of 42 PageID #: 1794
6

Office of the Attorney General of Texas 

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 009) 

Austin, TX 78711-2548 

Phone: (512) 936-3754 

Attorneys for Plaintiff the State of Texas

Casey.Norman@ncla.legal 

Counsel for Plaintiffs The Daily Wire 

Entertainment LLC and FDRLST Media LLC

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 23 of 42 PageID #: 1795
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 2, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ First 

Set of Interrogatories with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent 

notification of such filing to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland

Margot J. Cleveland

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 24 of 42 PageID #: 1796
ADDENDUM A

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 25 of 42 PageID #: 1797
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC;

FDRLST MEDIA, LLC; and

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its Attorney 

General, Ken Paxton,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER;

ANTONY BLINKEN, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of State;

LEAH BRAY, in her official capacity as Deputy 

Coordinator of the State Department’s Global 

Engagement Center;

JAMES P. RUBIN, in his official capacity as 

Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center of the 

State Department;

DANIEL KIMMAGE, in his official capacity as the 

Principal Deputy Coordinator for the Global 

Engagement Center at the State Department;

ALEXIS FRISBIE, in her official capacity as Senior 

Technical Advisor of the Technology Engagement 

Team for the Global Engagement Center at the State 

Department;

PATRICIA WATTS, in her official capacity as the 

Director of the Technology Engagement Team at the 

Global Engagement Center at the State Department,

 Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 6:23-cv-00609

Definitions and Instructions for 

Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests 

for Production of Documents & 

Other Tangible Items to 

Defendants and Plaintiffs’ First 

Set of Interrogatories to 

Defendants

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 26 of 42 PageID #: 1798
1

DEFINITIONS

A. “Academia, the Private Sector, or Tech Vendors” has the meaning given that phrase by 

Defendants in identifying users of Disinfo Cloud and Testbed.1

B. “And,” “or,” and “and/or” and any other conjunctions or disjunctions used herein shall 

be read both conjunctively and disjunctively so as to require the production of all Communications, 

Documents, and/or Information responsive to all or any part of each particular request.

C. “Any,” “each,” “every,” and “all” shall be read to be inclusive and to require the 

production of each and every Document and/or Communication (hereinafter defined) responsive 

to the particular request.

D. “Award” means any monetary or in-kind transfer directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, 

from the Defendants, or another Person (as defined below at “T”) acting on their behalf, whether 

referred to as an award, grant, contract, prize, or otherwise.

E. “Content Modulation” means any action taken by any Technology Platform to limit, 

restrict, constrict, or eliminate the distribution of speech or content, regardless of form, deemed to 

be MDM (as defined below at “S”), or to sanction a speaker or author for speech or content deemed 

to be MDM. “Content Modulation” includes any form of restriction on access to, censorship, 

suppression, or modulation of speakers, authors, viewpoints, speech, and/or content by any 

Technology Platform (as defined below at “Z”), including any reference to or discussion of any 

speech or content considered to be MDM, or any speaker considered by the Technology Platform, 

Defendants, or a State Government to be a purveyor of MDM. “Content Modulation” includes any 

form of blocking, deterring, deleting, suspending, suppressing, reducing the exposure of, and/or 

restricting or limiting access to, any speech, content, author, or speaker on Technology Platforms, 

1 https://2017-2021.state.gov/disinfo-cloud-launch/.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 27 of 42 PageID #: 1799
2

including, but not limited to: termination of account(s) or channel(s), permanent or temporary 

suspension of account(s) or channel(s), removal of content or posting(s), issuing strike(s) or 

warning(s) against account(s) or speaker(s), suppression of content, de-boosting, de-emphasizing, 

de-monetizing, deindexing, downlisting, downranking, shadow-banning, limiting number(s) of 

followers or subscribers, affixing advisory label(s) or warning label(s) to content, preventing the 

amplification of content, requiring additional click(s) to access content, and/or reducing, 

constricting, or restricting the distribution of content in any way. “Content Modulation” also 

includes, but is not limited to, the use or adjustment of algorithm(s) to achieve any of the foregoing.

F. “Communications” means any oral, written, or electronic dialogue between two or more 

Persons, including but not limited to letters, notes, emails, voicemail messages, faxes, instant 

messages, direct messages, private messages, encrypted messages, and SMS text messages, as well 

as all letters, memoranda, telegrams, cables, notes, and other writings or Documents reflecting 

those Communications. Communications to any Person include, without limitation, emails and 

memoranda in which such Person’s name or email address is in the “to,” “cc,” or “bcc” field.

G. “Content” means any material, including but not limited to posts, messages, videos, 

photographs, and audio files, publicly or privately posted or sent to another user or users by any 

user on Technology Platforms.

H. “Countering Propaganda and Disinformation Tools or Technologies,” “CPD Tools or 

Technologies,” or a “CPD Tool or Technology” has the meaning given that phrase by 

Defendants. CPD Tools or Technologies include all tools or technologies with potential application 

in countering MDM,

2 as well as any method, algorithm, approach, platform, application, software, 

program, tool, or technology that can be used to counter, rebut, silence, suppress, or otherwise 

2 https://www.state.gov/upcoming-events-technology-engagement-division/.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 28 of 42 PageID #: 1800
3

limit the reach or monetization of speech or publications in any form, including but not limited to 

tools previously branded by Defendants as CPD Tools or Technologies: Social Listening Tools, 

AdTech Tools, Natural Language Processing, Manipulated Information Assessment Tools, Dark 

Web Monitoring Tools, Blockchain-Based Media Authentication Tools, Fact-Checking Tools, 

Gamified Education Tools, Internet Freedom Tools, Crowd-Sourced Content Assessments and 

Web Annotation Tools, Blacklists, and Whitelists.3

I. “Defendants,” “You,” or “Your” means the Department of State; Global Engagement 

Center; Antony Blinken, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; Leah Bray, in her official 

capacity as Deputy Coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center; James P. 

Rubin, in his official capacity as Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center of the State 

Department; Daniel Kimmage, in his official capacity as the Principal Deputy Coordinator for the 

Global Engagement Center at the State Department; Alexis Frisbie, in her official capacity as the 

Senior Technical Advisor of the Technology Engagement Team for the Global Engagement Center 

at the State Department; and Patricia Watts, in her official capacity as the Director of the 

Technology Engagement Team at the Global Engagement Center at the State Department.

J. “Department of State” or “State Department” means the United States Department of 

State and any Person or Persons working on its behalf, including, but not limited to, the Secretary, 

employees, consultants, contractors, detailees, fellows, or interns, whether they are paid or unpaid 

by the Department individually, collectively, or in any combination.

K. “Document” means without limitation, any written, recorded, graphic, or other material, 

however produced or reproduced, whether or not claimed to be privileged against discovery on 

any grounds, including, but not limited to, material in the form of reports, statements, records 

3 https://www.state.gov/technology-engagement-division/technology-solutions/.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 29 of 42 PageID #: 1801
4

(including any workflow software record), agreements, lists, memoranda, correspondence, sound 

and/or video recordings (or transcripts of recordings), appointment calendars, appointment 

invitations and responses, worksheets, emails, computer files, including the metadata of the file, 

or any other documents or Communications of any kind whatsoever, irrespective of form, 

including any and all metadata. All attachments or enclosures to a Document are deemed to be part 

of such Document.

L. “Global Engagement Center” or “GEC” means the interagency center housed within 

and funded by Department of State.

M. “Identify” requires identification of (a) natural Persons by name, title, present business or 

governmental affiliation, present business or governmental address, telephone number, and email 

address or, if a present business or governmental address is not known, the last known business or 

governmental or home addresses; and (b) businesses, governmental, or other organizations by 

name, address, and the identities of your contact Persons at the business or governmental or other 

organization.

N. “Including” means including, but not limited to.

O. “Information” means data, documents, communications, writings, drawings, graphs, 

charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, records generated by individuals or machines, or 

the compilation of any of the foregoing stored in any medium, including electronically stored

information.

P. “Interagency” has the meaning given that phrase by Defendants in identifying users of 

Disinfo Cloud and Testbed, including, but not limited to, “[t]he Census Bureau, U.S. Congress, 

Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of 

State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Global Affairs, Office of the Director of National 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 30 of 42 PageID #: 1802
5

Intelligence, Department of the Treasury, U.S. Agency for Global Media, and the Department of 

Agriculture.”4

Q. “Media Literacy” means the ability to access, analyze, and evaluate the media.

R. “Meeting” includes gatherings conducted in Person, by telephone, or virtually.

S. “MDM,” which stands for Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation, means, 

no matter what it is called, any form of speech, expression, writing, or other communication or 

content considered to be potentially or actually incorrect, mistaken, false, misleading, lacking 

proper context, disfavored, having the tendency to deceive or mislead, or otherwise objectionable 

on similar grounds, including, but not limited to, any content or speech considered by any federal 

official or employee to be: “misinformation” or the inadvertent sharing of false information that is 

not intended to cause harm; “disinformation,” or the purposeful dissemination of information that 

may be true, but is intended to mislead, harm, or manipulate; “malinformation,” or information 

based on fact which seeks to mislead, harm, or manipulate, or “propaganda,” or any 

communication or expression intends to, prevail upon, indoctrinate, convert, induce or in any other 

way influences another individual.

T. “Person” means a natural Person, an organization, or other legal entity, including a federal 

government agency or entity, state government entity, county government entity, municipal 

government entity, tribal government entity, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, limited 

liability company, association, cooperative, or any group or combination acting as an entity.

U. “Plaintiffs” refers to the plaintiffs in this action: The Daily Wire, LLC, FDRLST Media, 

LLC, and the State of Texas. “Media Plaintiffs” refer to the Daily Wire and FDRLST Media.

4 https://2017-2021.state.gov/disinfo-cloud-launch/

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 31 of 42 PageID #: 1803
6

V. “Relates to,” “relating to,” “refers to,” or “referring to” means involving, discussing, 

identifying, referring to, concerning or in any way touching upon the matter sought.

W. “Search Terms” mean the following terms, deemed to be case-neutral and thus inclusive 

of both uppercase and lowercase letters, and deemed so that singular includes plural and vice versa: 

“Ad Fontes” “Albany Associates” “Alliance for Securing Democracy” “Amy Westfeldt” “Andrew 

Klavan” “ASD” “Becera” “Ben Domenech” “Ben Shapiro” “Bentkey” “biolabs” “Brett Cooper” 

“Brian Murphy” “Brill” “Candace Owens” “COVID” “CPD” “CredCatalog” “Crovitz” “Daily 

Wire” “Denise DiStephan” “DFRL” “Digital Forensic Research Lab” “disinfo” “Disinfo Cloud” 

“disinformation” “Disinformation Index” “DW” “DW+” “FDRLST” “Federalist” “Fighting 

Disinformation Online” “Frisbie” “Full Fact” “GARM” “GDI” “GEC” “Global Alliance for 

Responsible Media” “Global Disinformation Index” “Global Engagement Center” “IFCN” 

“International Fact-Checking Network” “Jack Brewster” “Jain” “Jeremy Boreing” “John Gregory” 

“Jordan Peterson” “Journalism Trust Initiative” “JTI” “Kevin Gross” “Lead Stories” “Logically” 

“Logically.AI” “Lyric” “malinfo” “malinformation” “Matt Walsh” “MDM” “Media Literacy” 

“MediaWell” “MediaWise” “Media Wire” “Melford” “Michael Knowles” “misinfo” 

“misinformation” “Misinformation Review” “Mollie Hemingway” “Mollie Hemmingway” 

“Molly Hemingway” “Molly Hemmingway” “Moonshot” “National Democratic Institute” “NDI” 

“Nemr” “NewsGuard” “Omelas” “Ondrak” “Park Advisors” “Park Capital” “Peak Metrics”

“Politifact” “Public Editor” “Sean Davis” “Skibinski” “Stewart” “TCM” “TE” “Technology 

Engagement” “TED” “Testbed” “TET” “The Critical Mass” “The Daily Wire” “The Federalist” 

“ThunderCat” “Valerie Pavilonis” “WFA” “What is a Woman” “World Federation of Advertisers” 

“Zack Fishman” “@FDRLST” “@RealDailyWire”.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 32 of 42 PageID #: 1804
7

X. “Speech” means any communication in any form, including, but not limited to,

communication expressed orally, in writing, or visually.

Y. “State Government” means any branch of the State government, including any agency, 

instrumentality, or political subdivision of a State, including, but not limited to, any officers, 

department, division, bureau, board, or commission.

Z. “Technology Platforms” means any organization that provides a service for public users 

to disseminate or receive speech, expression, information, or other content (typically content that 

includes messages, videos, photographs, and/or sound files). “Technology Platforms” include both 

the organizations and any of their officers, agents, employees, contractors, or any other Person

employed by or acting on behalf of the Technology Platforms, as well subcontractors or entities 

used to conduct fact-checking or any other activities relating to Content Modulation. “Technology 

Platforms” include but are not limited to: Alphabet (Google and YouTube), Meta (Facebook, 

Facebook Messenger, Threads, and Instagram), X (f/k/a Twitter), Snapchat, Tik Tok, NextDoor, 

LinkedIn, Reddit, WeChat, Weibo, Wikipedia, and Pinterest.

AA. “Tech Challenge” means any workshops convened by GEC to understand, assess, and find 

ways to implement effective tech solutions to MDM.

5

BB. “Tech Testbed” means any program Defendants run to test specific tools or technologies 

against a submitted proposal to determine existing capabilities or implement novel tech solutions 

for a rapid assessment of technologies, whether the program was run as part of the Disinfo Cloud 

testbed or another platform.6

5 https://www.state.gov/programs-technology-engagement-division/. 6 Id.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 33 of 42 PageID #: 1805
8

CC. “Tech-Driven Operation” will be used according to the meaning Defendants gave the 

program of the same name.7

DD. “Technology Engagement Division” and “Technology Engagement Team” means the 

division of the same name within Global Engagement Center, whether referred to as the 

Technology Engagement Division, TED, the Technology Engagement Team, TET, or TE. This 

definition includes any Person or Persons working on behalf of any of those divisions, including, 

but not limited to, employees, consultants, contractors, detailees, interns, or fellows, whether they 

are paid or unpaid by the Department individually, collectively, or in any combination. This 

includes, but is not limited to, Alexis Frisbie, in her official capacity as the Senior Technical 

Advisor of the Technology Engagement Team for the Global Engagement Center at the State 

Department; Patricia Watts, in her official capacity as the Director of the Technology Engagement 

Team at the Global Engagement Center at the State Department.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

A. Applicable Time Period: Unless otherwise specified, the time period covered by these 

Requests shall not be limited, and You should provide all Communications, Documents, and 

Information requested, regardless of dates or time periods involved.

B. Scope of Search: These Requests cover Communications, Documents, and Information in 

the actual or constructive possession, custody, or control of You, Your attorneys, employees, 

consultants, contractors, detailees, interns, or fellows, whether they are paid or unpaid by the State 

Department, as well as any entities from which You have access to Communications, Documents, 

and Information related to these Requests, and any other Person from whom You can obtain such 

7 Id.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 34 of 42 PageID #: 1806
9

Communications, Documents, and Information, by request or from whom You have a right to bring 

such Communications, Documents, and Information within Your possession by demand.

C. Ongoing Duty to Supplement: These Requests are ongoing in nature. Responsive 

Documents obtained or discovered after Your initial response and production must be produced 

promptly through the completion of this action.

D. Rules of Construction: Wherever used herein, the singular shall be deemed to include the 

plural, and the plural shall be deemed to include the singular; the use of the past, present, or future 

tense of any word shall be deemed to include the other tenses; “including” means “including, but 

not limited to”; the disjunctive (“or”) shall be deemed to include the conjunctive (“and”), and the 

conjunctive shall be deemed to include the disjunctive; each of the functional words “each,” 

“every,” “any,” and “all” shall be deemed to include each of the other functional words; “between” 

and “among” shall be deemed to include each other; and “referring to” or “relating to” mean 

discussing, describing, reflecting, containing, analyzing, studying, reporting, commenting, 

evidencing, constituting, setting forth, considering, recommending, concerning, or pertaining to—

in whole or in part.

E. Objections: If You object to any part of a request, You shall produce Documents and 

Communications that are responsive to all parts of such Request to which You do not object. 

Furthermore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), You must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of such objection.

F. Previously Supplied Materials: If You have previously supplied to Plaintiffs any 

Communications, Documents, or Information responsive to a Request, You may, in lieu of resubmitting those materials, identify the materials.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 35 of 42 PageID #: 1807
10

G. Production Requirements: In producing Communications, Documents, and Information 

consisting of electronically stored information in response to any document request, provide such 

data in a form that does not require specialized or proprietary hardware or software. Organize and 

label them to correspond to the categories in the request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).

H. Sensitive Information: If any material called for by these requests contains sensitive, 

personally identifiable information or sensitive health information of any individual, please contact 

the undersigned counsel before sending those materials to discuss ways to protect such information 

during the course of discovery production. For purposes of these requests, sensitive personally 

identifiable information includes: an individual’s Social Security number alone; an individual’s 

name or address or phone number in combination with one or more of the following: date of birth; 

Social Security number; driver’s license number or other state identification number or a foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; credit card number; or debit card 

number. Sensitive health information includes medical records and other individually identifiable 

health information relating to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or conditions of 

an individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment 

for the provision of health care to an individual.

I. Undefined Terms: To the extent that terms are not defined, please use the term’s everyday 

meaning.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR INTERROGATORIES

A. Unless otherwise specified, the time period covered by these Interrogatories shall not be 

limited. 

B. Each Interrogatory and part thereof shall be answered separately and completely, without 

reference to an answer to any other Interrogatory.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 36 of 42 PageID #: 1808
11

C. If you learn that in some material respect your response to any of the following 

Interrogatories is incomplete or incorrect, and the additional or corrective information has not 

otherwise been made available to Plaintiff during the discovery process or in writing, then you 

must supplement your response as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

D. These Interrogatories shall be deemed continuing, and the responses shall be reasonably 

amended or supplemented as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

E. With respect to information as to which you claim privilege or otherwise object, you must 

state the grounds for each objection with specificity, as set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(c), you must state whether any responsive materials are being 

withheld on the basis of your objection. 

F. Where a claim of privilege is asserted in objecting to any of the Interrogatories, identify 

the nature of the privilege (including work product) that is being claimed. Provide the following 

information in the objection unless divulgence of the information would cause disclosure of the 

allegedly privileged information:

a. For documents: (1) the type of document (e.g., letter or memorandum); (2) the 

general subject matter of the document; (3) the date of the document; (4) the document’s 

author, addressees, and other recipients; and (5) where not apparent, the relationship of the 

author, addressees, and recipients to one another;

b. For oral communications: (1) the name of the Person making the communication 

and the names of Persons present when the communication was made and, where not 

apparent, the relationship of the author, addressees, and recipients to each other; (2) the 

date and place of the communication; and (3) the general subject matter of the 

communication.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 37 of 42 PageID #: 1809
12

c. For claims of deliberative process privilege, an affidavit or declaration: (1) 

establishing that the agency head, or duly appointed delegee, has personally considered the 

Document or Information; (2) identifying and describing the Document(s) or Information 

sought to be protected with particularity; and (3) providing precise and certain reasons for 

maintaining the confidentiality of the Document(s) or information.

G. In the event that the answer to an Interrogatory is “do not know,” “unknown,” “that 

information is unavailable,” or the like, explain in detail the efforts made to obtain information to 

answer the Interrogatory.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 38 of 42 PageID #: 1810
13

Dated: May 2, 2024

KEN PAXTON 

Attorney General of Texas 

BRENT WEBSTER 

First Assistant Attorney General of Texas 

RALPH MOLINA 

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy 

RYAN D. WALTERS 

Chief, Special Litigation Division 

/s/ Susanna Dokupil 

SUSANNA DOKUPIL 

Lead Attorney Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24032801 

MUNERA AL-FUHAID

Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24094501

JACOB E. PRZADA 

Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24125371 

Office of the Attorney General of Texas 

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 009) 

Austin, TX 78711-2548 

Phone: (512) 936-3754 

Attorneys for Plaintiff the State of Texas

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Margaret A. Little 

Margaret A. Little 

Lead Attorney 

Senior Litigation Counsel 

Connecticut Bar No. 303494 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

1225 19th Street NW, Suite 450 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 869-5210 

Facsimile: (202) 869-5238 

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland 

Margot J. Cleveland 

Of Counsel 

Michigan Bar No. 83564 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

Margot.Cleveland@ncla.legal 

/s/ Casey Norman 

Casey Norman 

Litigation Counsel 

New York Bar No. 5772199 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 

Casey.Norman@ncla.legal 

Counsel for Plaintiffs The Daily Wire 

Entertainment LLC and FDRLST Media LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 2, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing Addendum with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all 

counsel of record. 

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland

Margot J. Cleveland

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 39 of 42 PageID #: 1811
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC; 

FDRLST MEDIA, LLC; and

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its 

Attorney General, Ken Paxton, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER;

ANTONY BLINKEN, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of State;

LEAH BRAY, in her official capacity as Deputy 

Coordinator of the State Department’s Global 

Engagement Center;

JAMES P. RUBIN, in his official capacity as 

Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center of the 

State Department;

DANIEL KIMMAGE, in his official capacity as the 

Principal Deputy Coordinator for the Global 

Engagement Center at the State Department;

ALEXIS FRISBIE, in her official capacity as Senior 

Technical Advisor of the Technology Engagement 

Team for the Global Engagement Center at the State 

Department;

PATRICIA WATTS, in her official capacity as the 

Director of the Technology Engagement Team at the 

Global Engagement Center at the State Department,

Defendants. 

Civil Action No.: 6:23-cv-00609

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 40 of 42 PageID #: 1812 Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 13-1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 604
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiffs, The Daily Wire, LLC, FDRLST Media, LLC,

and the State of Texas, for Expedited Preliminary-Injunction-Related Discovery. After 

considering the Motion, the Court finds good cause supports Plaintiffs’ request for limited 

Preliminary-Injunction-Related Expedited Discovery and therefore the Motion is hereby 

GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Within five business days of this Court’s ruling on this Motion, Plaintiffs may serve 

interrogatories and document requests on Defendants and may serve no more than five 

subpoenas on third parties. 

2. Defendants and third parties shall provide responses and objections within thirty days 

of service.

3. Within ten 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 days of the receipt of the responses, objections, and any responsive 

documents, Plaintiffs shall notify Defendants whether they will seek additional thirdparty subpoenas or depositions pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

5. Within seven days of receiving notice of the depositions and additional third-party 

subpoenas sought by Plaintiffs, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the 

additional discovery requests. Should the parties reach an impasse, they shall submit 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 41 of 42 PageID #: 1813 Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 13-1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 605
3

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 days to serve any additional third-party subpoenas and thirty 

days to complete any authorized depositions.

7. Within twenty days after all authorized depositions are taken, Plaintiffs may 

supplement their previous memoranda in support of their Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction.

8. Within twenty days after Plaintiffs file their supplemental memorandum, Defendants 

may file a supplemental memorandum in response to the Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction.

9. Within ten days after Defendants file their supplemental memorandum, Plaintiffs may 

file a reply.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this_____ day of ___________, 2024.

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 50 Filed 05/02/24 Page 42 of 42 PageID #: 1814 Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 13-1 Filed 02/07/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 606