Nothing was proven as claimed. The judge found that plaintiffs “proved” the specific people they sought to depose had personal knowledge of issues related to censorship based on the statements plaintiffs introduced. (p.10, 12, 15, 17 of order). The entire reason to depose them is to find out what that personal information is. So no, there is no finding by the court that “censorship was proven.” What happened is plaintiffs met their burden of proof for the particular relief they were seeking. Which is not even close to “proving” the existence of a particular fact. If they had done so, there would be no need for a deposition. The judge could simply rule on the motion for injunction and either grant or deny the TRO.
It always matters what an appellate court does. But timelines alter what that might be. If the deponents refuse to show up and an appellate court vacates the subpoenas before the trial court can compel them to appear, the issue is moot and nothing will happen to them. But if the appellate courts don’t rule for 6 months, they will appear or be held in contempt.
I have not seen if a protective order was issued on the depositions. I am guessing it probably was. Typically it is inappropriate to discuss deposition specifics even in the absence of a protective order until the transcripts are approved by the deponent. They have 30 days from notice that transcripts are available to make the review request.
Would also not read too much into the stay analysis. It is just a CYA. Why would a judge stay an order they just granted, pending appeal? They already ruled. Judges don’t like saying “I could be wrong on that. Will hold off on it till someone else above me chimes in.” It happens, but typically where the relationship between the parties is fundamentally altered by the order and cannot easily be restored to prior condition if reversed on appeal.
Nothing was proven as claimed. The judge found that plaintiffs “proved” the specific people they sought to depose had personal knowledge of issues related to censorship based on the statements plaintiffs introduced. (p.10, 12, 15, 17 of order). The entire reason to depose them is to find out what that personal information is. So no, there is no finding by the court that “censorship was proven.” What happened is plaintiffs met their burden of proof for the particular relief they were seeking. Which is not even close to “proving” the existence of a particular fact. If they had done so, there would be no need for a deposition. The judge could simply rule on the motion for injunction and either grant or deny the TRO.
It always matters what an appellate court does. But timelines alter what that might be. If the deponents refuse to show up and an appellate court vacates the subpoenas before the trial court can compel them to appear, the issue is moot and nothing will happen to them. But if the appellate courts don’t rule for 6 months, they will appear or be held in contempt.
I have not seen if a protective order was issued on the depositions. I am guessing it probably was. Typically it is inappropriate to discuss deposition specifics even in the absence of a protective order until the transcripts are approved by the deponent. They have 30 days from notice that transcripts are available to make the review request.
Would also not read too much into the stay analysis. It is just a CYA. Why would a judge stay an order they just granted, pending appeal? They already ruled. Judges don’t like saying “I could be wrong on that. Will hold off on it till someone else above me chimes in.” It happens, but typically where the relationship between the parties is fundamentally altered by the order and cannot easily be restored to prior condition if reversed on appeal.