The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a trial court order that would have required a former White House press secretary to comply with depositions in litigation brought by former Attorney General, now Senator, Eric Schmitt.
Jen Psaki, who left her position as press secretary to become a television commentator, is named as a defendant in Schmitt and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry’s lawsuit against the Biden administration alleging that it colluded in silencing conservatives on social media sites.
Psaki allegedly and repeatedly sought the silencing of millions of conservative Americans in her position as White House press secretary, according to media reports.
A panel of three Fifth Circuit judges determined that Psaki’s deposition is not necessary because there are other means to gather the information.
The judges included Stephen Higginson, appointed by President Barack Obama, Edith Clement: appointed by President George H.W. Bush; and Leslie Southwick: appointed by President George W. Bush.
“If the use of the other means doesn't get the information that's desired, that begs the question as to whether the ruling was appropriate or not,” said Curtis Hill, former Indiana Attorney General.
Psaki sought to quash Schmitt’s subpoena in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana where the lawsuit was filed and where there is a standing order issued by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty allowing government officials like Psaki and Dr. Anthony Fauci to be deposed.
But Psaki appealed Doughty's standing order.
“A party seeking the deposition of a high-ranking executive official must show that “extraordinary circumstances” exist,” wrote the judges. “We agree with other circuits that such a showing is equally applicable to former officials, lest they be ensnared in unnecessary discovery upon leaving office.”
The AGs are now free to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court but Hill said such an appeal will depend on whether the interrogatories in hand failed to provide the information that was asked for.
“My understanding is that both parties agreed that the information should be attainable through other discovery, but that it may not have been forthcoming of the Psaki group,” Hill told the St. Louis Record.
The court also cited 'extraordinary circumstances,' in which 'depositions of high government officials should not proceed.'
"That rule is a constant across the decades regardless of who the officials are," the opinion stated. "The circumstances have not yet been shown as extraordinary in light of the possibility of alternatives.”