The Trump administration is strongly resisting discovery requests from California Governor Gavin Newsom in the legal battle to remove the National Guard from the streets of Los Angeles.

This month, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, appointed by Bill Clinton—who is also the brother of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer—issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that challenged President Donald Trump”s authority over California’s national guard forces. Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit twice paused this relief—first as an emergency measure, then by converting the TRO into a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.

Late last week, the lower court determined some issues in the case are still pending, and may turn in Newsom’s favor.

On Monday, California’s legal team sought to press this potential advantage by requesting both written discovery and depositions.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

In their 14-page supplemental brief requesting discovery, the plaintiffs argued the court still has jurisdiction over issues the 9th Circuit had not yet considered. Specifically, those issues include claims under the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) and the duration of the federalization order — how long Trump’s control over California’s National Guard can last.

Additionally, California argued Breyer could consider “any new evidence submitted in support of a new preliminary injunction motion.”

The government responded the same day in a brief notice arguing against discovery on the basis that they “have had no opportunity to respond and would be prejudiced if the request were granted without any substantive response from Defendants.”

The court was less than moved, however, and issued an order directing the government to explain why California should not be granted discovery on the PCA and duration issues.

Now, in their 11-page supplemental brief, the Trump administration insists, in no uncertain terms, both the plaintiffs and the court itself are in the wrong when it comes to discovery and moving forward.

“The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ procedurally improper and substantively unjustified request for expedited discovery,” the brief reads. “Plaintiffs have lost this case, full stop, and this Court should read the writing on the wall and refuse to entertain the unbelievably broad and unnecessary requested discovery, including the request to depose two national security officials during defense operations.”

Calling discovery “plainly unwarranted,” the U.S. Department of Justice argues that giving the plaintiffs what they want in terms of additional information ultimately will not matter.

“The requisite good cause for discovery is wholly lacking here because discovery could not affect the resolution of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, which must be denied regardless of whatever facts Plaintiffs might elicit through discovery,” the brief argues.

To hear the Trump administration tell it, the 9th Circuit’s opinion “logically forecloses” the PCA issues “as a matter of law.”

When the appellate court ruled in Trump’s favor, the panel interpreted a different federal law, which allows the president to federalize the National Guard where he “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

“To be clear, and as Defendants have explained, the Marines and federalized Guard are not enforcing the law; they are merely providing protection for federal officials and federal property,” the brief goes on. “But any facts concerning this question are ultimately immaterial given that [the federalization law] is an express statutory authorization for purposes of the PCA, and the Ninth Circuit has already held that the President likely acted within his authority in invoking that Section.”

As for the durational inquiry, the government argued the plaintiffs have “forfeited” any such challenge by not already bringing it up. And, the DOJ says, California cited the wrong case when they tried to find authority for that issue.

“Even if such authority existed, no discovery would answer where and for how long the mission must continue,” the brief continues.

During last week’s hearing, a DOJ attorney explained the basics of the duration issue, arguing the president could choose to federalize the National Guard in 6o-day increments as many times as he found necessary.

But, for now, the government says, it’s “entirely speculative” – and fatally flawed under the precedent recently set by the appellate court.

“The 60-day timeframe set by the Secretary of Defense has not yet elapsed and the Secretary has not yet determined whether the evolving situation on the ground would require the deadline to be shortened or extended,” the brief reads. “Discovery into such discretionary issues, including any unknown future determination, would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the ‘especially deferential’ framework that the Ninth Circuit found applicable to the President’s decision to invoke [the federalization law] in the first place.”

The government also rubbishes the discovery request as too little, too late – and as tell-tale evidence of a case gone awry.

From the brief, at length:

Plaintiffs’ request for discovery also comes far too late. The Court ordered the parties to brief a preliminary injunction motion on the schedule that Plaintiffs preferred, and that briefing has now closed. At no point before or during that briefing did Plaintiffs argue they needed expedited discovery to present their arguments. In essence then, Plaintiffs’ request for discovery is a concession that, once briefing concluded, they lacked a basis for a preliminary injunction on these issues.

The plaintiffs are notably seeking expedited discovery. The government says this is a particularly “burdensome” and unnecessary request.

“Here, the time for Defendants to answer the complaint has not expired and the Ninth Circuit’s order indicates that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits,” the brief goes on. “Under these circumstances, where the scales already tip against Plaintiffs, it is especially prudent to protect Defendants from the burdens of unnecessary discovery.”