State of New Mexico v. Musk
Not Reported (2025)
Rule of Law:
A district court lacks the authority to vacate one of its orders when that order is subject to a stay pending appellate review, as a stay temporarily suspends the source of authority to act and prevents the district court from contravening the appellate court's directive, though it may issue an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs (State of New Mexico, et al.) initially requested expedited discovery based on an intention to file a motion for preliminary injunction.
- Plaintiffs subsequently determined that they would not be filing a motion for preliminary injunction.
- Plaintiffs therefore moved to vacate the March 12 Discovery Order, which had granted their request for expedited discovery.
- Defendants (Elon Musk, et al.) stated they did not oppose vacating the March 12 Discovery Order.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (State of New Mexico, et al.) filed a lawsuit against Defendants (Elon Musk, et al.) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Plaintiffs requested expedited discovery in the District Court.
- On March 12, 2025, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery (the "March 12 Discovery Order").
- Defendants, as Petitioners, sought an emergency stay and writ of mandamus from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (In re Musk, No. 25-5072), requesting the quashing of the March 12 Discovery Order.
- On March 26, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted the emergency stay, ordering that the District Court's March 12 Discovery Order be stayed pending further order of the Circuit.
- The District Court subsequently stayed its March 12 Discovery Order.
- The D.C. Circuit further ordered the parties to notify it upon the District Court's disposition of Defendants' pending motion to dismiss.
- On May 27, 2025, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.
- The parties promptly notified the D.C. Circuit, which then ordered Defendants to file a motion to govern further proceedings.
- On June 6, 2025, Plaintiffs moved in the District Court to vacate the March 12 Discovery Order.
- Plaintiffs then notified the D.C. Circuit of their motion to vacate.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court have the authority to vacate its own discovery order while that order is subject to a stay issued by a court of appeals, even if both parties agree to the vacatur?
Opinions:
Majority - Tanya S. Chutkan
No, a district court does not have the authority to vacate its own discovery order while that order is subject to a stay issued by a court of appeals, even if both parties agree to the vacatur. The court reasoned that a stay pending judicial review, as established in Nken v. Holder, 'temporarily suspend[s] the source of authority to act—the order or judgment in question—' to 'allow an appellate court the time necessary to review it.' Since the D.C. Circuit's Order explicitly stated the stay was 'pending further order of' the Circuit, the District Court's authority to act on the stayed order was suspended. To lift the stay or vacate the order, even with the parties' agreement, would 'flaunt basic principles of vertical stare decisis,' citing Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. and Briggs v. Pa. R. Co. However, the court's hands are not 'completely tied.' Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, the court can make an 'indicative ruling' stating that it 'would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose,' which is appropriate to help advance the final resolution of the matter. Therefore, considering Defendants' non-opposition and request for an indicative ruling, the court stated it would grant Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate if the Circuit lifts the stay and remands for that purpose.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the strict limitations on a district court's authority over its orders once an appellate court has imposed a stay, reinforcing the principles of judicial hierarchy and vertical stare decisis. It prevents lower courts from undermining appellate directives, even when the parties have reached an agreement. The application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 offers a practical and efficient mechanism for district courts to signal their intended ruling without exceeding their jurisdictional bounds, potentially streamlining future appellate proceedings and allowing for an orderly resolution of issues where a lower court lacks immediate authority to act.
