section_path: "Facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return/Return to the district court/Expedited discovery and consideration of criminal contempt
section_name: Expedited discovery and consideration of criminal contempt
paragraph_text: Expedited discovery and consideration of criminal contempt
  
  After the Trump administration's continued inaction in facilitating Abrego Garcia's release and return to the United States, on April 15, Xinis approved a request from Abrego Garcia's lawyers for expedited discovery, ordering the government to turn over specific kinds of documents requested by the lawyers that are related to Abrego Garcia's deportation and their efforts to return him, and requiring written responses to a related set of 15 questions posed by the lawyers, known as interrogatories. She also ordered several government officials to sit for depositions, including Joseph Mazzara, the Department of Homeland Security's acting general counsel, and Robert Cerna, the acting field office director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She said that she would review this evidence in assessing whether the government should be held in contempt of court, which Abrego Garcia's lawyers had requested.
  
  Xinis ordered the government to produce the requested documents and respond to the interrogatories by April 21, and the next day, Abrego Garcia's lawyers stated that the government had produced "nothing of substance" and asked for hearing. The New York Times described the government's responses as part of "a pattern of stonewalling" in which it was coming "ever closer to an open showdown with the judicial branch in a way that could threaten the constitutional balance of power". Despite courts having ordered the federal authorities to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, DOJ lawyers said that the discovery requests were "based on the false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador". Xinis responded with another order, stating that the government was engaged in "a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations" and had "sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege". She gave the government an additional day to respond to the discovery demands, and said that any assertions of priviledge must be accompanied by "specific legal and factual showings".
  
  On April 23, both the government and Abrego Garcia's lawyers filed motions under seal, and with both parties' agreement, Xinis paused the discovery deadline until April 30. When the government asked her to stay her discovery order a second time, she denied the request and set new deadlines for early May. On May 7, Xinis revealed the administration had invoked the state secrets privilege in the case and set a hearing on the issue for May 16. The following week, Abrego Garcia's lawyers indicated that there had been "sealed ex parte communications" in which the government had "apparently suggested to this Court... that it was working to secure Abrego Garcia's return." Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers, told the HuffPost that the government had been "saying one thing in court filings and another thing in the media."
  
  On May 16, Xinis held two hearings, one public and the other closed. She questioned the DOJ lawyer, Jonathan Guynn, about the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege, telling him that it was insufficient for the government to essentially tell her "Take my word for it". Abrego Garcia's lawyers said that the government had been largely non-responsive to their discovery requests, suppling 132 photocopies of court filings and the discovery requests themselves, 16 of the remaining 32 supplied relating to Van Hollen's visit, and 1,140 withheld as privileged. After the hearing, Xinis ordered that a sealed statement from Secretary of State Rubio be unsealed, and granted a request from Abrego Garcia's lawyers to depose three more administration officials. Rubio had stated that "Compelled disclosure of any sensitive communications or discussions with the Government of El Salvador regarding Abrego Garcia's removal and confinement in CECOT and Centro Industrial threatens significant harm to the United States' foreign affairs and national security interests", and that the same was true for the steps the government "has or has not taken" to secure Abrego Garcia's release.
  
  A group of more than 20 press organizations requested that Xinis unseal documents that were under seal, including documents related to the government's request that Xinis stay discovery at the end of April. On June 4, she ruled that several of them would be unsealed, though portions would be redacted. The administration had opposed the request on the basis of national security and the potential to negatively impact negotiations with the Salvadoran government, but the unsealed documents contained little information that was not already public.
  
  After the Trump administration's continued inaction in facilitating Abrego Garcia's release and return to the United States, on April 15, Xinis approved a request from Abrego Garcia's lawyers for expedited discovery, ordering the government to turn over specific kinds of documents requested by the lawyers that are related to Abrego Garcia's deportation and their efforts to return him, and requiring written responses to a related set of 15 questions posed by the lawyers, known as interrogatories. She also ordered several government officials to sit for depositions, including Joseph Mazzara, the Department of Homeland Security's acting general counsel, and Robert Cerna, the acting field office director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She said that she would review this evidence in assessing whether the government should be held in contempt of court, which Abrego Garcia's lawyers had requested.
  
  Xinis ordered the government to produce the requested documents and respond to the interrogatories by April 21, and the next day, Abrego Garcia's lawyers stated that the government had produced "nothing of substance" and asked for hearing. The New York Times described the government's responses as part of "a pattern of stonewalling" in which it was coming "ever closer to an open showdown with the judicial branch in a way that could threaten the constitutional balance of power". Despite courts having ordered the federal authorities to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, DOJ lawyers said that the discovery requests were "based on the false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador". Xinis responded with another order, stating that the government was engaged in "a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations" and had "sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege". She gave the government an additional day to respond to the discovery demands, and said that any assertions of priviledge must be accompanied by "specific legal and factual showings".
  
  On April 23, both the government and Abrego Garcia's lawyers filed motions under seal, and with both parties' agreement, Xinis paused the discovery deadline until April 30. When the government asked her to stay her discovery order a second time, she denied the request and set new deadlines for early May. On May 7, Xinis revealed the administration had invoked the state secrets privilege in the case and set a hearing on the issue for May 16. The following week, Abrego Garcia's lawyers indicated that there had been "sealed ex parte communications" in which the government had "apparently suggested to this Court... that it was working to secure Abrego Garcia's return." Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers, told the HuffPost that the government had been "saying one thing in court filings and another thing in the media."
  
  On May 16, Xinis held two hearings, one public and the other closed. She questioned the DOJ lawyer, Jonathan Guynn, about the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege, telling him that it was insufficient for the government to essentially tell her "Take my word for it". Abrego Garcia's lawyers said that the government had been largely non-responsive to their discovery requests, suppling 132 photocopies of court filings and the discovery requests themselves, 16 of the remaining 32 supplied relating to Van Hollen's visit, and 1,140 withheld as privileged. After the hearing, Xinis ordered that a sealed statement from Secretary of State Rubio be unsealed, and granted a request from Abrego Garcia's lawyers to depose three more administration officials. Rubio had stated that "Compelled disclosure of any sensitive communications or discussions with the Government of El Salvador regarding Abrego Garcia's removal and confinement in CECOT and Centro Industrial threatens significant harm to the United States' foreign affairs and national security interests", and that the same was true for the steps the government "has or has not taken" to secure Abrego Garcia's release.
  
  A group of more than 20 press organizations requested that Xinis unseal documents that were under seal, including documents related to the government's request that Xinis stay discovery at the end of April. On June 4, she ruled that several of them would be unsealed, though portions would be redacted. The administration had opposed the request on the basis of national security and the potential to negatively impact negotiations with the Salvadoran government, but the unsealed documents contained little information that was not already public.