The second doc. is an unsigned “Proposed” version of an order that DOJ filed moving all plaintiff discovery be restricted to only issues directly related to the motion to dismiss. If I’m not mistaken, this is on the docket, but it has not been put into effect with yet by the magistrate judge.
The Third doc is the full text of the motion by the defense/DOJ that plaintiff discovery be limited for now to include only items directly related to the defense's motion to dismiss.
Yes? No? Help?
Yes
Yes.
1. Judge Carter merely referred the motion filed by the Plaintiffs (Taitz) to the Magistrate Judge who will preside over discovery when/if it is granted. He did not order expedited discovery at this time.
2. The defendants filed a motion with a proposed order to limit discovery. In (most) federal courts, when filing a motion or an opposition, the parties (attorneys) have to file a proposed order. It’s merely a matter of following the rules of this specific court to file a ‘proposed’ order and means absolutely nothing until the judge rules on and signs one of the proposed orders (or one drafted by the judge).
It’s getting to be the case way too often that what is actualy said/done by a judge is misinterpreted, getting folks hopes up when all that’s really happened is following the slow procedures of the court.
If you remember Nakazato was the first judge for the good Captain, he refused discovery for her, and held the first birth certificate and sealed it. This document, as I read it, sets aside Nakazatos order.