U.S. WeChat Users Alliance et al v. Trump et al

Filing 25

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. In the attached order, the court denies the plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery. (lblc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2020)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

U.S. WECHAT USERS ALLIANCE, et al.,

Case No. 20-cv-05910-LB

Plaintiffs,

12

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

13

Re: ECF No. 18

14

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

The plaintiffs, who use the mobile-messaging application WeChat, challenge the

18
19

constitutionality of Executive Order 13943, which — according to the plaintiffs — prohibits the

20

use of WeChat starting on September 20, 2020.1 (The defendants contend at least in part that the

21

issues are not ripe until the Secretary of Commerce issues a final order.2) The plaintiffs moved for

22

a preliminary injunction that is noticed for a hearing on September 17, 2020.3 The parties dispute

23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Compl. – ECF No. 1. The plaintiffs are U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, a nonprofit formed to challenge
the Executive order, and individual and business users. Id. at 7–9 (¶¶ 19–25). Citations refer to
material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page
numbers at the top of documents.
2

Discovery Letter – ECF No. 18 at 2, 4–5; Opp’n – ECF No. 22 at 28–30, 51 (any preliminary
injunction should be limited to a stay of the Executive Order pending the Secretary’s action).

3

Mot. – ECF No. 17.

ORDER – No. 20-cv-05910-LB 

1

the plaintiffs’ entitlement to early discovery about the factual bases for the executive order.4 The

2

court can decide the issue without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). On this record, the court

3

denies the request.

4
5

STATEMENT

6

WeChat is a popular mobile application used in the United States and around the world.5 It

7

allows its users to send text and voice messages, make phone calls, have video conference, share

8

photos and posts, comment on other users’ posts, make payments, and use other integrated apps.6
On August 6, 2020, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13943, “Addressing

10

the Threat Posed by WeChat, and Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

with Respect to the Information and Communication Technology and Services Supply Chain.”7 It

12

prohibits “any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property,

13

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”8 It says the following about its effective date:
Section 1. (a) The [] actions shall be prohibited beginning 45 days after the date of
this order, to the extent permitted under applicable law . . .

14
15

....
16

(c) 45 days after the date of this order, the Secretary [of Commerce] shall identify
the transactions subject to subsection (a) of this section.9

17
18

In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the Executive Order violates the First

19

Amendment’s guaranty of freedom of speech, the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection and due-

20

process clauses, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and they also challenge the Executive

21
22
23
24

4

Discovery Letter – ECF No. 18.

25

5

Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 2 (¶¶ 1–2).

6

Id. at 10–11 (¶¶ 29–33).

7

Id. at 17 (¶ 45).

27

8

Id. at 17–18 (¶¶ 46–47); see also Exec. Order No. 13943, 85 Fed. Reg. 48641 (Aug. 6, 2020).

28

9

Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 17–18 (¶ 47), 18 (¶ 49).

26

ORDER – No. 20-cv-05910-LB

2 

1

Order as ultra vires on several grounds, including the President’s allegedly exceeding his authority

2

under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act and not complying with other statutes.10

3

The plaintiffs want expedited discovery for “all evidence that support[s] the factual bases for

4

the issuance of Executive Order 13943,” and the government opposes the discovery.11 All parties

5

have consented to the court’s jurisdiction.12

6
GOVERNING LAW

7

A court may authorize expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the parties’

8

and witnesses’ convenience and in the interest of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts within the

10

Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown “good cause” for early discovery.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

See, e.g., IO Grp., Inc. v. Does 1–65, No. 10-CV-4377-SC, 2010 WL 4055667, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

12

Oct. 15, 2010); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275–77 (N.D. Cal.

13

2002); Tex. Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Dhindsa, No. 10-CV-0035, 2010 WL 2353520, at

14

*2 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010); Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612,

15

613–14 (D. Ariz. 2001) (collecting cases and standards). “Good cause may be found where the

16

need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the

17

prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276.
Courts weigh five factors to determine whether good cause exists for expedited discovery: “(1)

18
19

whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the

20

purposes for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with

21

the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request is was made.”

22

Hudson Martin Ferrante St. Witten & Demaria, PC v. Forsythe, No. 16-06551-BLF (SVK), 2017

23

WL 550242, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) (cleaned up). In weighing the five factors, the court

24

considers “the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Id.

25
26
10

Id. at 24–31 (¶¶ 63–108).

27

11

Discovery Letter – ECF No. 18 at 1–2.

28

12

Consents – ECF Nos. 6, 8.

ORDER – No. 20-cv-05910-LB

3 

ANALYSIS

1

The plaintiffs’ request is broad: “all evidence that support the factual bases for the issuance of

2
3

Executive Order 13943.”13 They then limited the request to “documents” that were “generated

4

through August 6[, 2020].”14 They want the discovery to respond to the government’s opposition,

5

in part because the First Amendment claim requires the government to justify the restriction, and

6

they anticipate that the government will argue that threats to national security justify the Executive

7

Order.15 The defendants oppose the discovery on grounds that include the following: (1) the

8

President’s reasons for issuing the Executive Order are not reviewable and are likely to be

9

privileged, and (2) the proper approach is to wait for the Secretary’s final action and challenge that
final action under the Administrative Procedures Act.16 The defendants also agreed that they

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

would not rely on any documents in their opposition that are not publicly available.17
On this record and argument, the court does not find good cause for early discovery. The

12
13

defendants filed their opposition, and on quick review, it relies on public information (as

14

promised). Navigating issues of privilege on the current schedule is not practicable. The interplay

15

between the Executive Order and final agency action also militates in favor of this approach.

16

Finally, the existing record allows consideration of the issues at the September 17, 2020 hearing.

17
CONCLUSION

18
19

The court denies the plaintiff’s request for expedited discovery. This disposes of ECF No. 18.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: September 10, 2020
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
13

Swearingen Letter, Ex. A to Discovery Letter – ECF No. 18 at 8.

14

Discovery Letter – ECF No. 18 at 5.

15

Id. at 3.

27

16

Id. at 2, 4–5.

28

17

Id. at 5.

25
26

ORDER – No. 20-cv-05910-LB

4