In a development that could be characterized as both procedural and perplexing, Judge Paula Xinis has decided to push back the discovery phase in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia by one week, following a request from the Trump Administration. The rationale behind this delay remains shrouded in mystery, as the judge offered no explicit explanation for her decision.
“The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Plaintiffs’ Response. With the agreement of parties, the Court hereby ORDERS that discovery shall be stayed until April 30, 2025, at 5:00 PM,” the judge announced in a rather formal decree.
JUST IN: Judge Xinis has postponed discovery in the Abrego Garcia case for a week, with the agreement of both sides. The reason is unclear but it follows a sealed filing from the government this AM. pic.twitter.com/10Vl3NmVBS
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 24, 2025
Earlier in the week, the Department of Justice under the Trump Administration submitted a sealed motion, urging the judge to halt discovery for a mere seven days. This request seems to have been granted without much fanfare.
However, the plot thickens. On Tuesday evening, during a conference aimed at resolving the government’s disputes over discovery matters in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, Judge Paula Xinis, an Obama appointee, expressed her frustration with the Trump Administration’s conduct. Garcia, an El Salvadoran national with alleged ties to the infamous MS-13 gang, has quite a history, having been ordered removed from the U.S. by an immigration judge back in 2019.
Photo courtesy of En Vivo – Screenshot from video.
Following his deportation to El Salvador, where he was sent to the notorious CECOT prison, Judge Xinis is now pushing for the Trump Administration to disclose the details surrounding the diplomatic discussions that led to Garcia’s transfer.
In a rather scathing critique of the administration, the judge accused them of flouting her court order and demanded that they provide more clarity regarding their decision to send Garcia to CECOT by Wednesday. “Defendants’ objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations,” she noted, emphasizing the need for the government to fulfill its legal responsibilities.
“The objection is overruled. Defendants are therefore ordered to supplement their answers in full compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their answers must include facts responsive to the requests, not oblique and incomplete, non-specific characterizations,” Judge Xinis declared in an eight-page order reviewed by .
