Stone v. Trump, 356 F. Supp. 3d 505

Plaintiffs challenge the Department of Defense's (DOD) Implementation Plan and related policy changes banning transgender individuals who have undergone or require gender transition from military service.
President Trump's July–August 2017 tweets and memorandum prompted DOD to convene a Panel of Experts and draft the Implementation Plan.
Plaintiffs sought discovery, including deliberative materials and a PowerPoint that defendants later tried to claw back. Defendants asserted deliberative process and presidential communications privileges.
A U.S. Magistrate Judge (USMJ) granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel and denied part of defendants' protective-order request; defendants objected to factual findings, privilege rulings, and the protective order.
The district court reviewed the objections under Rule 72(a) (clearly erroneous for facts; contrary to law for legal conclusions) and a deferential standard for nondispositive discovery rulings.
The court overruled defendants' objections but granted a stay of the USMJ's order as to documents claimed to be protected by the deliberative process privilege pending the Ninth Circuit's ruling in an analogous appeal (In re Donald J. Trump / Karnoski appeal).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Factual findings re: genesis and effect of Panel and Policy	Tweets triggered Panel; policy effectively bans transgender persons	Panel predated tweets; policy addresses gender dysphoria, not transgender status	Court: USMJ findings reasonable; overrules defendants' objections; policy found discriminatory in effect
Whether USMJ prematurely decided discovery while dispositive motions pending	Discovery should proceed; judicial economy favors moving case	Discovery should await dispositive motions	Court: USMJ within broad discretion to grant motion to compel; not premature
Applicability of deliberative process privilege to requested documents	Government intent is central; privilege should yield; plaintiffs need deliberative materials	Deliberative process privilege protects these documents; Cipollone factors weigh for nondisclosure	Court: privilege does not cover requested materials because government intent is at issue; USMJ's conclusion supported by authority
Whether to stay production of documents withheld under deliberative process privilege	Plaintiffs oppose delay; want immediate production	Stay urged because Ninth Circuit stay and parallel appeal could control outcome	Court: granted a limited stay as to documents claimed under deliberative process privilege pending Ninth Circuit decision to avoid duplicative litigation

Harman v. Levin, 772 F.2d 1150 (4th Cir. 1985) (standard for overturning factual findings as clearly erroneous)
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (presidential communications and confidentiality interests)
EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (U.S. 1973) (rationale for deliberative process privilege)
Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n, 532 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2001) (definition/scope of deliberative process materials)
NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1975) (deliberative process privilege protects advisory opinions and recommendations)
City of Va. Beach v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 995 F.2d 1247 (4th Cir. 1993) (deliberative process privilege protects certain agency documents)
Karnoski v. Trump, 328 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (finding the transgender service restriction facially discriminatory; overlap with discovery issues)
Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (U.S. 2018) (deference to government in national-security/military policy contexts)