Sometimes from what I've read the discovery evidence can actually be useful in the determination to move forward or not though having a lack of standing might mean discovery isn't relevant to the case. We'll just have to wait and see, hopefully he rules tomorrow.
Another poster said this action was in Hawaii state court?
You’re right that sometimes discovery can be relevant to standing, but I don’t see this being applicable here. If a citizen doesn’t have standing because the Constitution provides the one and only process for challenging a President-elect’s qualification for office is through the Congress, not the courts, no amount of discovery can “fix” that kind of lack of standing.
That said, I’ve been thinking about how to possibly style the claim to avoid the standing problem. Just kicking around ideas-—maybe the plaintiff could assert that, while the Congress is where objections to a President-elect’s qualifications must be submitted and decided, a citizen who is concerned about this issue has no way to obtain facts except through a court order to produce the birth certificate.
IOW, the plaintiff would not argue that he had standing to challenge the candidate’s qualifications or any of that other stuff about the harm being a busted election, etc.
He would argue that, since he has no other way to obtain the information he thinks is necessary to support requesting a Senator or Representative to object to the PE’s qualifications, he has standing to request production of the BC.
Something along those lines. Of course, the plaintiff would have to show some likelihood that there is relevant evidence-—i.e., that he is not engaging in a mere fishing expedition.