And Now, USDC Judge Paula Xinis In Maryland Just Called Noem's (And Trump's) Positions Out -- As Having Been "Taken In Bad Faith". That Means Contempt Lies Ahead.

Well -- as they say in the old Spaghetti Westerns. . . "there will be. . . blood."

And it will likely come from the stupid, gullible, and inexperienced political appointee attorneys who've stood up in court for Noem and Rubio and Trump -- and defiled their oaths of candor and good faith advocacy, before the federal judge, here. Damn. There's much more in this barbed eight page rebuke of an order tonight -- but here's the sharpest end of Judge Xinis' stick:

. . .Defendants [Trump / Noem / Rubio] -- and their counsel -- well know that the falsehood lies not in any supposed “premise,” but in their continued mischaracterization of the Supreme Court’s Order. That Order made clear that this Court “properly required the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” See Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S. –– (2025), slip op. at 2; see also Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-1404, 2025 WL 1135112, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025). Defendants’ objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations. The objection is overruled.

Defendants are therefore ordered to supplement their answers in full compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their answers must include facts responsive to the requests, not oblique and incomplete, non-specific characterizations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) (requiring that each interrogatory be answered “fully”). . . .

Equally specious, Defendants’ objections on the grounds of privilege are rejected. Defendants invoke in name only a range of protections -- attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, the state secrets privilege, and an undefined “governmental privilege” -- without providing any supporting information or analysis. As Defendants and their counsel know, the proponent of a privilege must demonstrate the legal and factual bases to invoke the protections that such privilege affords. . . . Given that this Court expressly warned Defendants and their counsel to adhere strictly to their discovery obligations, see Hr’g Tr. 11:24–12:2, Apr. 16, 2025 (“Because in fairness, Mr. Ensign, [if] you’re not going to answer the questions that the plaintiffs put within the scope of my order, then you’ll justify why. You’ll cite privilege, you’ll follow the rules, I’ll make a determination.”), their boilerplate, non-particularized objections are presumptively invalid and reflect a willful refusal to comply with this Court’s Discovery Order and governing rules. ECF No. 79. Although Defendants state now that they are willing to “meet and confer” with counsel about the production of such a log, ECF No. 98-1 at 23, their repeated refusals to meet and confer about much of anything else undermine the reliability of this assertion. ECF No. 98 at 2. The Court thus finds this offer was not made in good faith.

Nor does the Court find Defendants’ protestations regarding the abbreviated time-line persuasive. For weeks, Defendants have sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this Court’s orders. . . .

[This all] ends now. If Defendants want to preserve their privilege claims, they must support them with the required detail. Otherwise, they will lose the protections they failed to properly invoke. Accordingly, by no later than 6:00 PM [tomorrow] on April 23, 2025, Defendants shall supplement their answers and responses to provide the specific legal and factual bases for each asserted privilege and produce a privilege log that fully complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules. . . .

Given the context of this case, Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance. Defendants must supplement their answer to include all individuals involved as requested in this interrogatory. . . .

[Garcia's counsel is entitled to know] the complete factual bases for Defendants’ assertion that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, Defendants’ relevancy and scope objections are rejected. Defendants have previously articulated in their daily updates as to Abrego Garcia’s custodial status and his potential return that DHS would eventually take Abrego Garcia into custody and either remove him to another country or terminate withholding of removal because of his purported “membership in MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organization.” ECF No. 77 at 2. Defendants cannot invoke the moniker of MS-13 as responsive to the Court’s previous order, ECF No. 77 at 1–2, then object to follow-up interrogatories seeking the factual bases for the same. Defendants must supplement this answer. . . .

Stay tuned -- for fireworks, tomorrow at 6 PM EDT -- after the second day of Mr. Mazzaro's deposition. Today was the first one. Out, grinning.

नमस्ते