[Seizethecarp]

Because it was drafted by Obama’s lawyers to limit discovery but contains the discovery loophole (”except for”) allowing Orly to motion for discovery to defend against the MTD, I suspect that the language is virtually required or they wouldn’t have put it in. If the language of the motion is that routine then I would expect the magistrate to sign it. If you are willing to stipulate that, do you have any other comments about what I posted?

[Truth Exists]

Seizethecarp, I like the way you think. But I believe iontheball above has it correct in that the only evidence allowed would have to relate to the jurisdictional arguments of the motion to dismiss, not the evidence relating to Obama as a NBC. Clearly Obama’s attorneys do not want the things he’s been hiding to be revealed.
However, Orly still has the Lavender BC on the table, so to speak (and presumably the Smith BC). Magistrate Judge Nakazato will rule on that, and Orly has grossly insulted him. Still, Carter will probably have a say behind closed doors. So, for those, it could go either way. This is a rather unique situation, and in my experience courts do what they want and justify it after the fact.