ECF 105 may be for the transcript from the mentioned proceeding today. Presumably it’s sealed in though.
April 30, 2025 at 10:00 PM
ECF 105 may be for the transcript from the mentioned proceeding today. Presumably it’s sealed in though.
Seems like a more reasonable case of obstruction than this framing
April 26, 2025 at 6:04 PM
Seems like a more reasonable case of obstruction than this framing
Seems like a more reasonable case of obstruction than this framing
April 26, 2025 at 6:03 PM
Seems like a more reasonable case of obstruction than this framing
A bit more complicated than that
April 26, 2025 at 6:02 PM
A bit more complicated than that
Agreed—but I don’t think anything short of promising would be significant enough to justify pausing discovery.
April 24, 2025 at 3:55 AM
Agreed—but I don’t think anything short of promising would be significant enough to justify pausing discovery.
The government must have promised to get him back
April 24, 2025 at 3:54 AM
The government must have promised to get him back
Agreed. It’s the only reasonable explanation for Xinis to pause discovery. The government could still be playing them, but that’s a whole new level of defiance, and that’s saying something.
April 24, 2025 at 3:52 AM
Agreed. It’s the only reasonable explanation for Xinis to pause discovery. The government could still be playing them, but that’s a whole new level of defiance, and that’s saying something.
The government must have promised to bring him back
April 24, 2025 at 3:51 AM
The government must have promised to bring him back
I don’t think there is any other reasonable explanation
April 24, 2025 at 3:50 AM
I don’t think there is any other reasonable explanation
The government probably has promised to bring Abrego Garcia back
April 24, 2025 at 3:50 AM
The government probably has promised to bring Abrego Garcia back
Agreed—and I don’t think anything short of credibly promising to bring him back would be meaningful enough to pause discovery
April 24, 2025 at 3:49 AM
Agreed—and I don’t think anything short of credibly promising to bring him back would be meaningful enough to pause discovery
The government probably promised to bring him back
April 24, 2025 at 3:48 AM
The government probably promised to bring him back
She hasn’t issued any sealed orders
April 24, 2025 at 3:47 AM
She hasn’t issued any sealed orders
She would need to issue an order to act on the motion. I supposed her order could also be sealed but it wouldn’t have to be—but she hasn’t issued an order.
April 23, 2025 at 10:56 PM
She would need to issue an order to act on the motion. I supposed her order could also be sealed but it wouldn’t have to be—but she hasn’t issued an order.
They filed a motion under seal. But she hasn’t granted it. So they are still obligated to meet the existing deadlines.
April 23, 2025 at 10:51 PM
They filed a motion under seal. But she hasn’t granted it. So they are still obligated to meet the existing deadlines.
Ahh good catch. Also wouldn’t apply to motions then.
April 23, 2025 at 4:19 PM
Ahh good catch. Also wouldn’t apply to motions then.
Blackman is obviously obsessed and quite obviously not thinking clearly
April 23, 2025 at 4:08 PM
Blackman is obviously obsessed and quite obviously not thinking clearly
Blackman is obsessed and not thinking clearly
April 23, 2025 at 4:07 PM
Blackman is obsessed and not thinking clearly
It may reflect an actual softening or pivoting of the administration’s approach in the court (and include actually sensitive details to support this).
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
April 23, 2025 at 4:06 PM
It may reflect an actual softening or pivoting of the administration’s approach in the court (and include actually sensitive details to support this).
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
This may reflect an actual softening or pivoting of the administration’s approach in the court (and include actually sensitive details to support this).
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
April 23, 2025 at 4:05 PM
This may reflect an actual softening or pivoting of the administration’s approach in the court (and include actually sensitive details to support this).
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
It may reflect an actual softening or pivoting of the administration’s approach in the court (and include actually sensitive details to support this).
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
April 23, 2025 at 4:04 PM
It may reflect an actual softening or pivoting of the administration’s approach in the court (and include actually sensitive details to support this).
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
Or it may just be more gamesmanship—an effort to avoid PR about the motion via a bogus confidentiality claim.
This is the doc governing confidentiality in this case: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com
April 23, 2025 at 4:04 PM
This is the doc governing confidentiality in this case: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...