usdoj formally filed a motion for a protective order on february 27, 2018, complaining about the "multiple, burdensome discovery requests [issued] directly to the president of the united states" and noting the responsiveness in issuing "more than 80,000 pages of documents on an expedited, rolling basis from the department of defense, joint chiefs of staff, defense health agency, and the departments of the army, air force, and navy". in their response, the plaintiffs argued that "[t]here are good reasons to doubt—and to investigate—whether the ban originated from, or was even vetted by, the nation's military professionals" and stated that discovery was meant to assess "any process that preceded the reversal of the open service policy" since the defendants' arguments relied on assertions of military deference and privilege based on a deliberative process. usdoj argued the "entire "purpose" of [the plaintiffs'] demand is to test and expose the president’s deliberative process, and protection of the information sought through interrogatories falls comfortably within the law protecting presidential communications and deliberations", tying the protective order to the motion to dismiss the president as a defendant filed on march 2.