1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION 

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS, 

V. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL., 

DEFENDANTS. 

CASE NO. 6:23-CV-00609-JDK

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUBPOENAS

Plaintiffs seek leave to serve two third-party subpoenas to obtain discovery of materials 

previously sought as part of expedited discovery from third-party subpoena recipient Park Capital 

Investment Group, LLC (“Park Capital”). While Plaintiffs do not understand such leave to be 

needed for “ordinary” Rule 26/45 subpoenas and while Defendants do not oppose the issuance 

of the subpoenas, because these subpoenas seek information originally sought pursuant to the 

Court’s Order Granting Expedited Discovery (ECF 54) and potentially subject to the Preliminary 

Injunction Scheduling Order (ECF 62), in an abundance of caution Plaintiffs seek leave here.

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs state the following:

1. On December 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case alleging that 

Defendants’ funding, promotion, and utilization of tools and technologies that rate media outlets 

with an aim to reduce circulation of those deemed “unreliable,” including media Plaintiffs, 

violated their First Amendment rights. The Complaint further alleged that Defendants lacked the 

authority, statutory or otherwise, to use government funds for this program (ECF No. 1).

2. Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction on the same grounds on February 6, 2024 

(ECF 11) and moved for expedited discovery the following day (ECF 13).

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 77 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 2202
2

3. On May 7, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery (ECF 

54), holding “[w]ithin 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.”

4. This Court further ruled “Defendants and third parties shall provide responses and 

objections within thirty (30) days of service” and then “[w]ithin seven (7) 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.” 

5. “Should the parties reach an impasse, they shall submit separate statements to 

the Court stating their positions on each requested subpoena and deposition,” the Order further 

declared.

6. On June 13, 2024, the Court denied the preliminary injunction motion without 

prejudice and with leave to refile upon conclusion of expedited discovery (ECF 61).

7. On June 13, 2024, the Court also entered a Preliminary Injunction Scheduling 

Order, which the Court held “supersedes and replaces any dates or deadlines in the Court’s 

previous Order Granting Expedited Discovery (ECF 54).” (ECF 62).

8. The Court’s Preliminary Injunction Scheduling Order required that, by October 10, 

2024, “Plaintiffs provide Defendants notice of intent to seek depositions or additional third-party 

subpoenas for preliminary injunction.” 

9. The Preliminary Scheduling Order further set October 17, 2024 as the “[d]eadline 

to file any motions concerning Plaintiffs’ notice of intent to seek depositions or additional thirdparty subpoenas for preliminary injunction,” and October 21, 2024 as the due date “for responses 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 77 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2203
3

to any motions concerning Plaintiffs’ notice of intent to seek depositions or additional third-party 

subpoenas for preliminary injunction.”

10. Then, by November 15, 2024, the Preliminary Scheduling Order required Plaintiffs 

to “serve additional third-party subpoenas, if needed.”

11. Consistent with this Court’s May 7, 2024, Order granting Plaintiffs expedited 

discovery (ECF 54), Plaintiffs served five third-party subpoenas, including a subpoena on Park 

Capital Investment Group, LLC, on May 17, 2024.

12. Plaintiffs have not yet served any additional subpoenas as part of general 

discovery, although Plaintiffs interpret the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Scheduling Order to 

allow for the service of such subpoenas.

13. As noted above, Park Capital was one of the third parties Plaintiffs subpoenaed as 

part of expedited discovery.

14. During conferral, Park Capital explained it no longer had access to its email system 

or the DisinfoCloud.com webpage, with both hosted by third parties with whom Park Capital 

ended its contractual relationship after Park Capital’s contract with Defendants expired.

15. Accordingly, to obtain access to relevant Park Capital emails and the material 

hosted on DisinfoCloud.com, Plaintiffs seek to serve subpoenas on the third-party hosting 

companies.

16. Plaintiffs interpret this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Scheduling Order as 

permitting Plaintiffs to serve additional third-party subpoenas for purposes of expedited 

discovery without leave of court, so long as Defendants do not object.

17. While Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs serving the two requested subpoenas, 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 77 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 2204
4

Defendants interpret this Court’s Order as requiring leave of court to serve even agreed to 

additional third-party subpoenas to be used for preliminary injunction purposes.

18. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution and to ensure compliance with this 

Court’s Orders, Plaintiffs seek leave to serve two additional third-party subpoenas as part of the 

preliminary injunction discovery.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court enter the attached proposed order 

granting them leave to serve additional third-party subpoenas.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 77 Filed 09/10/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 2205
5 

Date: September 10, 2024

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General

BRENT WEBSTER

First Assistant Attorney General

RALPH MOLINA

Deputy First Assistant Attorney General 

AUSTIN KINGHORN

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy

CHARLES K. ELDRED

Chief, Legal Strategy

RYAN D. WALTERS

Chief, Special Litigation Division 

/s/ David Bryant

DAVID BRYANT

Senior Special Counsel

Texas Bar No. 03281500

SUSANNA DOKUPIL

Attorney in Charge

Special Counsel

Texas Bar No. 24034419

MUNERA AL-FUHAID

Special Counsel

Texas Bar No. 24094501

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Special Litigation Division

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Tel.: (512) 463-2100

Susanna.dokupil@oag.texas.gov

David.bryant@oag.texas.gov

Munera.al-fuhaid@oag.texas.gov

COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

Respectfully submitted.

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland 

MARGOT J. CLEVELAND

Michigan Bar No. 83564

margot.cleveland@ncla.legal

JENIN YOUNES

Lead Attorney

NY Bar No. 5020847

jenin.younes@ncla.legal

ZHONETTE M. BROWN

D.C. Bar No. 5772199

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE

4250 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22203

(202) 869-5210

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

The Daily Wire Entertainment LLC and 

FDRLST Media LLC

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 77 Filed 09/10/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 2206
6 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that counsel for the parties have conferred regarding this motion and the 

motion is unopposed.

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland 

MARGOT J. CLEVELAND

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically 

(via CM/ECF) on September 10, 2024 and that all counsel of record were served by CM/ECF.

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland 

MARGOT J. CLEVELAND

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 77 Filed 09/10/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 2207