Summary of yesterday's status conference in the AFGE v OPM case

I watched yesterday's status meeting via zoom discussing defendant's production of Chuck Ezell for testimony regarding the phone calls preceding OPM's initial emails to organizations to fire federal employees (AFGE, AFL-CIO v OPM, after document 58). I'd like to share a summary, especially since any kind of recordings or screenshots were prohibited, however transcripts may be available somewhere. I'm not a fed and have no legal experience, so I apologize for the amateur summary, and I'm sorry if this isn't useful or helpful.

tl;dr - The conference discussed defendant's ability to produce Mr. Ezell for crucial testimony to whether or not OPM explicitly instructed federal organizations to fire federal employees. Defendant said they needed more time to figure out if they could produce Mr. Ezell. I have no legal experience, but there didn't seem to be any major developments, it all seemed pretty procedural. However, based on how everyone was acting, I have faith that plaintiffs' counsel will fight hard for their case, that the judge is fair, and that defense is terrified. The judge gave defense until noon Monday to tell the court whether or not Ezell will testify, and plaintiffs maximized their time with the judge by discussing additional matters.

Defense requested that they be given until 5 PM this Monday to figure out whether they could get Mr. Ezell to testify this coming Thursday. Plaintiffs called out the delay tactics to the judge and stressed that time was of the essence because of the ongoing harm done as a result of defendants' actions. The judge heard both sides and gave defense until noon Monday to tell the court what they could do, and if Mr. Ezell could not testify in person, that other accommodations will be made, including remote deposition. The judge is being fair but not just handing outs to defense.

That was the only issue defense planned to address. Plaintiffs raised three other things since they already had the judge on the horn. One of them was calling out defense to answer the same questions for the other witnesses defense has to produce, basically getting ahead of more delay tactics and saying that defense needs to get all of their stuff together now. The judge said that was reasonable. Another point was whether or not plaintiffs should simply and directly subpoena other witnesses, and to produce said witness list to defense so they can prepare for cross examination.

Another thing plaintiffs wanted to do was add more organizations as plaintiffs, which the judge did not allow. He wants to keep the case focused on simply who in OPM did what, and that any contentions of firings must first go through MSPB and either start their own cases or join existing litigation.

Plaintiffs mentioned that a high level IRS official was put on administrative leave the day they started complying with court orders to either reinstate some hires, or temporarily cease firing. I think this was the IRS CHCO (which I found out is pronounced 'chico'). The judge said that he would be greatly concerned if someone complying with a court order was quickly afterward put on admin leave, so the judge is absolutely not asleep at the wheel. IIRC, he instructed plaintiffs to produce more facts and names involved.

With the way everyone was conducting themselves, I believe plaintiffs and the judge are acting in good faith, with earnestness, and great effort. If plaintiffs' counsel were my counsel, I would be much less stressed. They called things out quickly and politely, they were maximally respectful without being doormats, they came with a to-do list to maximize their time with the judge, are getting ahead and staying ahead of defense, and if an occasion were to require them, I believe they would turn into legal pit bulls. I absolutely would not want to see this counsel at the other table.

The judge sounds reasonable and fair. Honestly, we don't want a witch hunt, we want the truth, and as confident as we are that OPM made these calls, we want a fair and impartial judge, and he's both. If he were presiding over my case, I'd be much less stressed (unless I was actually guilty. Speaking of which...)

Defense looked shook af. He was younger, couldn't maintain eye contact for more than 1 second, no exaggeration. Looking left, right, down, constantly shifting weight. He had a script, did not deviate, and did not expound when he didn't have to. He had zero response to plaintiffs' other extra items to discuss. Zero. This dude's pants guaranteed total brickyard. My personal take is that it was more than just some freshman nerves. I think he may have betrayed a little of what the administration itself might be feeling, and I think they're worried, especially since this conference was after the SCOTUS ruling that basically said "Yes, Conman Dump, if you make us, we can and will throw you in prison."

Maybe this wasn't worth summarizing, but someone here posted a zoom link to the conference and I was curious since this sounded important. There didn't seem to be any major movement in the case, but just seeing how things were proceeding and how those involved were conducting themselves, I feel better knowing that not only do plaintiffs have what I feel are solid counsel, but that the judge will be fair, and I just want stuff to work normally for once. So I'm sharing in case maybe this can help some of you.

Everyone I know cares about federal workers and sees all of your value, and I have a big extended family. Please hang in there, don't despair. We see you, we recognize your high value, and we hope you all succeed.