No text available

• The people who sued (the plaintiffs) asked the court to keep a version of their request to obtain information (called a “Motion to Compel”) and some supporting documents private, not public.
• These papers include confidential materials that the defendants gave to the plaintiffs during discovery (the pretrial sharing of evidence). The defendants marked those materials as confidential under a separate confidentiality agreement (Stipulated Order Regarding Confidentiality of Discovery Material).
• The judge decided that the plaintiffs’ request to seal those papers is granted, so the unredacted parts won’t be public.

• The case is J. Doe 4 et al. vs Elon Musk and others. The plaintiffs (the people suing) asked the court to compel something, which means they want the court to order the other side to do or turn over something they’re not giving.

• The parties agreed on a joint schedule for replying to that request. They say: the defendants must file their written opposition by August 6, 2026. An opposition is the defendants’ formal argument against the request.

• The plaintiffs must then file their reply by August 17, 2026. A reply is the plaintiffs’ counter-argument to what the defendants said.

• This schedule follows the court’s earlier May 22, 2026 order that told them to propose a joint briefing plan if there’s a motion to compel.

• The plaintiffs (J. Doe 4 and others) filed a request to the court asking for an order to force the defendants to provide information or documents (this is called a “Motion to Compel”).
• The court previously asked the parties to agree on a briefing schedule if a motion to compel is filed, and now the parties propose the following dates.
• Defendants must submit their full written opposition (their side of the argument explaining why the court should not grant the motion) by August 6, 2026.
• Plaintiffs must submit their reply (their final short reply after seeing the defendants’ opposition) by August 17, 2026.
• The plaintiffs' lawyers are from Democracy Defenders Fund and several other law firms; the filing was dated July 29, 2026.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

• What happened: The plaintiffs asked the court for more time to gather information from the defendants. The request is not opposed by the defendants (they agree).
• What they want: Move the deadline for discovery (fact-finding) from June 30, 2026 to September 30, 2026.
• Why they want it: They say a three-month extension is enough to finish some remaining documents and responses, take certain big-deal depositions (like Elon Musk and a few others if the court lets), and allow the plaintiffs to ask a few more written questions.
• What the court will decide: The judges will decide if this extension is allowed.
• Key fact: The filing is by the plaintiffs in the case against Elon Musk and others, across multiple law firms.

• What happened: The plaintiffs asked the court for more time to gather evidence. They want the discovery deadline moved from June 30, 2026 to September 30, 2026. Discovery is the phase where parties collect information from each other.
• Who asked: The plaintiffs (the people suing) filed the request.
• Who agreed: The defendants (Elon Musk and others) said yes, they are not objecting.
• Why they want more time: They say three more months is needed to finish some remaining discovery, to take depositions (formal interviews) of Elon Musk and several other named people if the judge allows it, and to send a small number of extra questions (interrogatories) to the other side.
• What is not being opposed: Everyone agrees the extension won’t harm anyone.
• When it was filed: June 29, 2026.
• Who represents the plaintiffs: A group of lawyers from Democracy Defenders Fund, Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

• This is a court filing from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in a case where the plaintiffs are listed as J. Doe 4 and others, and the defendants are Elon Musk and others.
• The document is an order. It says the judge granted the plaintiffs’ request for more time.
• The plaintiffs asked for extra time to file a reply in support of their request for permission to depose (sworn testimony from) Kenneth Jackson and Steve Davis.
• The judge approved this request. The plaintiffs must file their reply by Monday, June 15, 2026.
• In simple terms: the plaintiffs now have extra time to argue why the court should allow them to question Kenneth Jackson and Steve Davis under oath.

• A third-party witness, Luke Farritor, asked the court for a protective order to stop the plaintiffs from seeing his video deposition.
• The defendants opposed his request.
• The court looked at the papers and said Farritor did not show a good reason to change the standard rules for depositions.
• Under standard rules, a party can videotape a deposition and keep a copy of the video for use in the case.
• The court told everyone to talk with each other and agree on reasonable limits for how the deposition video can be used, especially outside this case.
• The court granted Farritor’s request for a protective order denial, so the motion is denied.
• Date on the order is June 2026 (specific day not shown).

No text available

• What happened: Luke Farritor, a non-party who works with the DOGE team at USAID, asked the court for a protective order to stop videotaping his deposition, which was set for June 2, 2026. The filing argues the request should be denied.

• How the process went:
• Plaintiffs tried six times to serve Farritor with a subpoena for testimony and documents; they later used an alternative service method allowed by the court.
• The court allowed that alternative service in March 2026.
• Farritor was served with a subpoena for May 5, 2026, but his counsel asked to move the deposition to late May or early June.
• After some back-and-forth, the deposition was set for June 2, 2026, in Washington, DC, and both sides talked about whether to videotape the session.
• Plaintiffs insisted on videotaping (they felt it had been the standard practice in other depositions); Farritor preferred no video or a different location and asked for a delay and a protective order about posting the video online.
• Attempts to reschedule occurred, but the deposition was kept for June 2, with a plan to not share the video publicly until the motion was decided.
• Around the same time, Plaintiffs filed a separate request to depose two other people (Kenneth Jackson and Steve Davis). Some exhibits attached to that filing hadn’t been properly redacted under a protective order, and the parties quickly moved to fix that.
• On June 1, 2026, Farritor asked for a protective order again, and the plaintiffs agreed to pause sharing the video until the court decides the motion.

• What the court considered (the key points of the argument):
• A protective order can be granted only for good cause. Farritor did not show specific, concrete harm that would happen without the order.
• The particular transcript in question (a few lines with an address and some phone numbers) was designated confidential by the other side after the deposition, and the inadvertent unredacted filing isn’t treated as proof of wrongdoing or a reason to stop videotaping.
• There’s no clear link between accidentally posting unredacted material and any harm to Farritor from videotaping the deposition.
• Stopping videotaping or delaying the deposition isn’t necessary or tailored to fix the issue. The plan was to proceed with the videotaped deposition and address any protective measures later.

• Bottom line: The plaintiffs argue Farritor’s emergency request should be denied, and the court should allow the deposition to be videotaped as planned, with other protective steps handled through separate motions if needed.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

Here’s what this document says, in plain language:

• A lawyer named Nicole Rubin asks the court to allow Lucas Issacharoff to help in this case, as a temporary lawyer just for this case (this is called “admission pro hac vice,” which means a lawyer who is not licensed in Maryland can help in this Maryland case for this time).
• The case is in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, and the case number is 8:25-cv-0462-TDC. The lawsuit is J. Does 1-26 vs. Musk and others.
• What Nicole Rubin is asking for: to let Lucas Issacharoff act as counsel for J. Doe 1-26 in this case.
• Facts about Lucas Issacharoff:
• He is not a Maryland lawyer and does not have a law office in Maryland.
• He is a good standing lawyer in New York (admitted in New York in 2015) and in several other federal courts listed in Attachment A.
• In the past year, he has not been admitted pro hac vice in this Maryland court (0 times).
• He has never been disbarred, suspended, or denied admission in any jurisdiction.
• He is familiar with Maryland and federal court rules and understands he would be under this court’s disciplinary authority.
• This temporary admission is only for this case and does not make him a permanent member of the Maryland bar.
• The people signing:
• Nicole Rubin is the moving attorney who is asking the court to admit Lucas Issacharoff.
• They both are with the law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.
• A $100 fee is included with the motion.
• They certify under penalty of perjury that the statements are true.
• There is also an Attachment A that lists the other courts where Lucas Issacharoff is admitted:
• Michigan Eastern District Court (admitted 11/27/2017)
• Michigan Western District Court (02/24/2026)
• New York Eastern District Court (01/06/2017)
• New York Southern Bankruptcy Court (10/02/2019)
• New York Southern District Court (12/08/2016)
• United States Court of International Trade (01/20/2026)
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (09/27/2019)

In short: one lawyer asks the court to allow another lawyer, who isn’t licensed in Maryland, to help with this case for now.

• This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for Maryland in a case where a group of plaintiffs (identified as J. Does 4, 7, 22, 27, 28, and 29) sues Elon Musk and several U.S. government offices and officials.

• The judge is saying what the parties must do next after a Case Management Conference on May 21, 2026.

• The plaintiffs are allowed to file the motion they referenced in filing number 219. They must file it by May 28, 2026 to be considered timely.

• The defendants must file their opposition brief by June 4, 2026.

• The plaintiffs may file a reply brief (their response to the defendants’ opposition) by June 11, 2026.

• The parties must meet and talk to narrow down the issues described in filing number 221. They may file a motion to compel if needed, and if they do, they must also submit a joint notice with a proposed schedule for briefing that motion.

• The order is dated May 28, 2026, and signed by Judge Theodore D. Chang.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

• What this is: A letter from the plaintiffs in Doe v. Musk to Judge Chuang asking to discuss two discovery problems at the upcoming Case Management Conference.

• Problem 1: The defendants are giving incomplete or salty-sounding answers to discovery requests. Notably, they did not clearly identify who actually decided to shut down USAID’s website around February 1, 2025, even though they said someone named Gavin Kliger acted with others. The plaintiffs say the response names people who helped carry out the action but does not name the true decision-maker. They also say other requests (for production of things like C-CURE access logs) were ignored or treated as outside the scope. They’ve already tried to fix this with letters and meetings but nothing was resolved.

• Problem 2: The defendants are asserting various legal privileges to withhold information (things like deliberative process privilege and presidential communications privilege). The plaintiffs think these claims are too broad, lack enough detail to show the privilege applies, and some redacted documents aren’t properly logged. The plaintiffs want to see the material because it’s important to the case, and they’re unsure about the correct procedure for invoking the privileges.

• What the plaintiffs want next: They plan to ask the court to order the production of certain testimony and documents, or to limit or resolve the privilege issues, so they can continue with discovery before they depose Elon Musk and two other executives.

• Why this matters: The plaintiffs want to know who actually made major decisions (like shutting down USAID and moving operations) and to obtain key information before speaking with top officials. They’re asking the judge to help settle these disputes at the May 21 conference or allow them to file a motion to compel.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

• What happened: In a lawsuit called Doe v. Musk, the parties asked the judge for a meeting to talk about discovery issues (how to gather evidence).
• Quick timeline:
• Defendants tried to stop depositions of Elon Musk and two others. The judge said no.
• The defendants then asked a higher court (the Fourth Circuit) to intervene, and that court granted their request.
• The judge then allowed the plaintiffs to take more depositions to try to get the same evidence in other ways, after the Fourth Circuit told them to.
• What depositions are happening now: Since then, the plaintiffs have taken three more depositions, including official 30(b)(6) depositions from USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development) and the State Department. Two more depositions are planned in May 2026.
• Who the plaintiffs want to depose next: Steve Davis, who used to lead a U.S. government service, and Kenneth Jackson, a political appointee at USAID who has duties similar to deputy administrator.
• The big question: Do these two people count as “apex employees” (very high-level officials) who can be shielded from these depositions under a rule called the apex doctrine? The plaintiffs say they do not count as apex employees, so they should be allowed to be deposed unless the defendants file a protective order.
• The defendants dispute this. They say the same rule that the Fourth Circuit used against Musk and the others should also block these two depositions. If the plaintiffs want to depose them, the defendants say the plaintiffs must first ask the court for permission and prove they have tried every other way to get the information.
• What’s asked of the judge: The parties want a Case Management Conference to agree on how to brief (present) these issues and set a schedule for doing so.
• Who representatives signed the filing: Lawyers for the plaintiffs (Democracy Defenders Fund and allied groups) and lawyers for the federal defendants (U.S. Department of Justice) signed the document.

• This is a joint request (consent motion) to change the court schedule in a Maryland federal case called J. Doe 4 et al. v. Elon Musk et al. The case number is 8:25-cv-00462-TDC.
• The reason: the court already extended the deadline to finish discovery to June 30, 2026, and the parties want to adjust all the other scheduling deadlines to match that new date.
• What they want: the court to issue a new scheduling order that lines up all deadlines with the new discovery deadline.
• The current dates and the proposed new dates are shown side by side. Examples:
• March 9, 2026: deadline for supplementing disclosures and responses (they want this moved to June 9, 2026)
• March 31, 2026: completion of discovery and post-discovery report (they want this moved to June 30, 2026, since discovery is extended)
• April 7, 2026: requests for admission (moved to July 7, 2026)
• April 14, 2026: notice of intent to file a pretrial dispositive motion (moved to July 14, 2026)
• In short, both sides (the plaintiffs and the defendants) agree to shift several deadlines so everything lines up with the new June 30, 2026 discovery deadline, and they ask the judge to approve this change. The filing is signed by lawyers for both sides and mentions the judge on the case.