Where, in the Federal Rules, is it the Court's responsibility to grant discovery to appellants for the purpose of authenticating documents introduced as evidence?
Please cite the rule.
You meant plaintiff, of course, but that is what court ordered discovery is. But you don't get discovery without standing, which Carter didn't grant.
If the court finds that a plaintiff meets the requirements for standing, and that means surviving a hearing on a 12(b) motion to dismiss filed by the defense, then the court will issue a discovery order.
The discovery order authorizes both parties to take depositions of witnesses (their own and the other party's) including custodians of documents who they intend to call at trial to testify about the documents the parties intend to introduce as evidence.
There is no requirement that evidence be introduced under the FRE either in the initial filing or at a 12(b) motion to dismiss hearing, except in limited circumstances that Carter didn't grant.
What got some people excited was that when Carter first set the trail date (in early Sept?), he issued a routine preliminary discovery order and made comments in open court to the effect that he didn't expect the defense's 12(b) motion to dismiss to prevail.
That is when Orly jumped the shark (again) and claimed she would have Obama out of office in 30 days assuming she could get discovery of the HI vital records and depose Smith on how he got the BC and perhaps depose and obtain affidavits from Kenyan officials.
But, of course, the defense then filed a motion to stay discovery until after the 12(b) hearing, and the stay was granted. Then the motion to dismiss was granted. Then the dismissal was granted “with prejudice.” Game over in lower court.