Fauci Emails
Fauci Emails
Fauci Emails
This Court granted [Doc. No. 34] Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Preliminary
Injunction-Related Discovery [Doc. No. 17] and set an expedited discovery schedule. The
discovery schedule required the parties to meet and confer in good faith about discovery disputes
and to submit a joint statement to the Court detailing the nature of the remaining disputes.1 The
parties have done so and have submitted the pending Joint Statement on Discovery Disputes
I. BACKGROUND
Defendants.3 In the Complaint and Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 45], Plaintiffs allege
Government Defendants have colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress
disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content
1
[Doc. No. 34, p. 14]
2
Plaintiffs consist of the State of Missouri, the State of Louisiana, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Jim
Hoft, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Jill Hines.
3
Government Defendants consist of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Vivek H. Murthy, Xavier Becerra, Department of Health
and Human Services, Dr. Anthony Fauci, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease
Control & Prevention, Alejandro Mayorkas, Department of Homeland Security, Jen Easterly, Cybersecurity &
Infrastructure Security Agency, and Nina Jankowicz, Karine Jean-Pierre, Carol Y. Crawford, Jennifer Shopkorn,
U.S. Census Bureau, U. S. Department of Commerce, Robert Silvers, Samantha Vinograd
and, Gina McCarthy,
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 72 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 3050
disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and contents constitutes government action and violates
Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
The parties have made a great deal of progress regarding discovery; however, the
Complaint adding as defendants newly identified federal officials and agencies, and obtain
and agencies they know of outside of their own agencies who have or are engaged in
against Plaintiffs;
4. Whether the White House Defendants, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-
Pierre (“Jean-Pierre”), and Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci (“Dr. Fauci”) should be
5. Whether Dr. Fauci, in his capacity as National Institute of Allergy & Infectious
2
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 72 Filed 09/06/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3051
Plaintiffs allege they have, through expedited discovery, obtained information that federal
officials and agencies not named in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Amended Complaint, have also
and censorship of disfavored speech. These allegedly include the State Department, the Food
and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Census Bureau, the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”).
Because none of these agencies or pertinent employees have been named as defendants in
this proceeding, Plaintiffs ask this Court to expand its provisions order to allow Plaintiffs to add
these agencies and employees and to allow expedited preliminary-injunction discovery as to the
new parties.
defendants and allowing additional expedited discovery would be incompatible with the
compressed discovery schedule that already exists. Additionally, Government Defendants argue
that the additional defendants and discovery would exceed the specific, targeted, narrow
discovery that Plaintiffs had asked for when requesting expedited, preliminary-injunction
discovery. Government Defendants maintain they have currently provided over 15,000 pages of
documents.
Expedited discovery is not the norm. Courts only allow it in limited circumstances.
Wilson v. Samson Contour Energy E&P, LLC, 2014 WL 2949457 at 2 (W.D. La. 2014). The
“good cause” analysis this Court used in allowing expedited discovery takes into consideration
such factors as the breadth of discovery requests, the purpose for requesting expedited discovery,
the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests, and how far in advance of the typical
3
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 72 Filed 09/06/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 3052
discovery process the request was made. GHX Industrial, LLC v. Servco Hose and Supply, LLC,
This is an expedited discovery request for the purpose of gaining the necessary
information to address the preliminary injunction. This Court is aware of the burden it has put
on all parties in this proceeding with the expedited discovery schedule. To add additional
This Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiffs’ request. This Court
GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to add additional parties to this lawsuit, however, this Court will
newly added defendants. However, this ruling only addresses expedited preliminary-injunction
Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint adding additional agencies and/or
and/or provide information about federal officials “at other federal agencies” of whom they are
aware who engage in communications with social-media platforms about misinformation and
censorship. Interrogatory No. 1 asks Government Defendants to identify every officer, official,
employee, staff member, personnel, contractor, or agent of Defendants “or any other federal
official or agency” who has communicated or is communicating with any Social-Media Platform
officials or agencies, arguing that the request is overbroad and not narrowly tailored to expedited
4
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 72 Filed 09/06/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 3053
injunction request, under a compressed discovery schedule, this request would be unduly
discovery request and is without prejudice to any potential request for merits-based discovery.4
C. Reciprocal Discovery
Government Defendants request that, should this Court authorize any additional
injunction related discovery as to Plaintiffs. Government Defendants have not pointed to any
justifiable relevance of such discovery. Neither have Government Defendants set forth any legal
Should Government Defendants wish to pursue expedited discovery against the Plaintiffs,
Government Defendants, should file a motion, with reasons, for that request.
interrogatories and document requests upon White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre5
4
In the event merits discovery is ordered.
5
Substituted for former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
5
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 72 Filed 09/06/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 3054
and upon Dr. Anthony Fauci in his capacity as Chief Medical Advisor to the President.
documents,6 maintaining that these would be internal communications that would implicate
serious separation of powers concerns, that Plaintiffs are required to exhaust other avenues for
the discovery first, and that it would be unduly burdensome and disproportional to the needs of
the case.
Plaintiffs maintain they have not served interrogatories, and document requests upon
President Biden and do not seek internal communications – only external communications that
Dr. Fauci and Jean-Pierre sent to the relevant social media platforms.
First, the requested information is obviously very relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Dr.
suppression of speech relating to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin, and to alleged
suppression of speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns. Jean-Pierre’s
communications as White House Press Secretary could be relevant to all of Plaintiffs’ examples.7
media platforms by Dr. Fauci, and Jean-Pierre based upon executive privilege and presidential
communications privilege. Plaintiffs concede they are not asking for any internal White House
communications, but only external communications between Dr. Fauci and/or Jean-Pierre and
This Court believes Plaintiffs are entitled to external communications by Jean-Pierre and
Dr. Fauci in their capacities as White House Press Secretary and Chief Medical Advisor to the
6
[Doc. No. 71-1, pp. 14, 20, 23, 25, 36, 45, 47-48, 49, 65, 70-71, and 72-73].
7
The Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election, speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-
19’s origin; speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; and speech about election integrity
and security of voting by mail.
6
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 72 Filed 09/06/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 3055
President to third-party social media platforms. The White House has waived its claim of
privilege in relation to specific documents that it voluntarily revealed to third parties outside the
White House. Center for Effective Government v. U.S. Department of State, 7 F. Supp. 3d 16,
25, 27 (D.D.C. 2013); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 741-42 (D.C. Cir. 1997); and United
Healthcare Ins. Co. v. Azar, 316 F. Supp 3d 339, 349 (D.C.C. 2018).
Government Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs must seek discovery from other sources
also fails. This is expedited preliminary-injunction related discovery. This discovery was
opposed by Government Defendants. This is the only chance Plaintiffs will have to get this
information prior to addressing the preliminary injunction. This discovery was tailored to the
facts alleged in this case. There was no requirement in this Court’s order for the Plaintiffs to get
Additionally, Plaintiffs have also submitted interrogatories and production requests to the
third party social medical platforms. As far as the burden to the White House, it is no more a
burden than the other discovery requests Government Defendants have already answered.
Therefore, Government Defendants Jean-Pierre and Dr. Fauci shall provide answers to
the Plaintiff’s interrogatories and document requests within twenty-one (21) days from the date
of this order.
In addition to being named in his capacity as White House Chief Medical Advisor, Dr.
Fauci is also named in his capacity as Director of the NIAID. Interrogatories and document
7
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 72 Filed 09/06/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 3056
Government Defendants argue they have agreed to provide answers on behalf of Dr.
Fauci, as NIAID Director to Additional Interrogatory No. 5, Additional Interrogatory No. 6, and
to Common Interrogatories 2, 3, & 4 (but not Common Interrogatories 1 and 5). Government
Defendants maintain they are amending Additional interrogatory No. 6 in lieu of Common
Interrogatory No. 1 and that Common Interrogatory No. 5 seeks the result of searches already
produced.
Plaintiffs also served interrogatories and document requests on HHS.8 Plaintiffs allege
that HHS effectively exempted itself from discovery responses by only providing information
from its agencies, the Surgeon General’s office, NIAID and the CDC. Plaintiffs further alleged
that Meta (one of the third-party social media platforms) disclosed several senior officials,
outside of the CDC, the Office of Surgeon General, and NIAID, that likely engaged in
responsive communications with Meta, including HHS’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public
Engagement, the head of HHS’s Digital Engagement Team, the Deputy Director of the Office of
Communications in HRSA, and HHS’s Deputy Digital Director. Plaintiffs allege none of these
requests.9
As to the HHS discovery, Government Defendants assert they identified custodians likely
to have relevant information, and that they are not required to conduct a search of all 80,000
i. HHS
This Court agrees that conducting a search of all 80,000 HHS employees would be overly
burdensome. However, Plaintiffs have identified several employees of HHS which have been
8
NIAID is an agency under HHS.
9
[Doc. No. 71-13]; Doc. No. 71-1 p. 40-42]
8
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 72 Filed 09/06/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 3057
identified by Meta as likely engaged in responsive communications with Meta. These are HHS’s
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Engagement, the head of HHS’s Digital Engagement
Team, the Deputy Director of the office of Communications in HRSA, and HHS’s Deputy
Digital Director. It would not be unduly burdensome for Government Defendants to provide
discovery requests as to the above HHS employees within twenty-one (21) days of the date of
this order.
All other discovery requests not specifically addressed herein are DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, IT IS ORDERED that the discovery issues contained in
the Joint Statement of Discovery Disputes [Doc. No. 71], are GRANTED IN PART and
discovery [Doc. No. 34 p. 13-15], within ten (10) days after the production of any objected-to
9
Case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM Document 72 Filed 09/06/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 3058
responses, Plaintiffs shall notify Government Defendants of any depositions the Plaintiffs wish
to take.
______________________________
TERRY A. DOUGHTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10