Plaintiffs Suing Over ED Layoffs Seek Withheld Documents

A group of Democratic attorneys general and other organizations are asking a federal judge to force the Education Department to turn over hundreds of documents related to last year’s mass layoffs.

They argued in a filing Monday that the department has improperly withheld documents “highly relevant” to their case, which challenged the layoffs and subsequent efforts to outsource education programs and responsibilities to other federal agencies. The plaintiffs, which also include faculty unions and Somerville Public Schools, are planning to depose senior department officials in October and November. They say they need to review the materials to prepare for those interviews, which are taken under oath.

The documents include emails among senior officials, spreadsheets and draft plans. For instance, the department withheld a March 5, 2025 document titled “RIF Brief,” which reflects the “timeline and scope of the potential RIF activities prior to final RIF decisions,” according to a log of documents that was included in court filings. The log lists about 1,300 withheld records, and plaintiffs say ED has identified nearly 2,500 documents overall.

“The privilege log references documents containing information central to plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants stated, under oath, did not exist,” the plaintiffs argue in Monday’s motion. “These documents do exist, and defendants must produce them.”

The document battle is the latest development in a year-long fight over what’s sufficient for discovery, whether discovery is even fitting for the case and which records should be exempt from disclosure.

The attorneys general from states including New York and California first sued in March 2025 after the Trump administration laid off more than 2,000 employees, nearly half of the department’s workforce. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the reduction in force to proceed, but the lawsuit continues to challenge the legality of the layoffs and other efforts that plaintiffs say are geared toward dismantling the agency. The plaintiffs argue in part that the department violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it laid off department staff. The litigation is now in the discovery phase, which can precede a trial.

The Education Department, in August 2025, turned over an initial administrative record of its decisions related to the layoffs, but the plaintiffs took issue with that compendium, arguing a month later that it was “threadbare” and “plainly deficient.”

Trump officials have argued that the administrative record was complete and its brevity “reflects the discretionary nature of determining a headcount at an agency.” They noted that “discovery is generally inappropriate” in cases concerning whether an agency followed the APA. Typically, the administrative record serves as the basis for review.

The officials also asserted that the government doesn’t have to turn over other records because they are related to the deliberative process, which can be exempt from disclosure. They also argued that the plaintiffs’ discovery request was “grounded in mere speculation that the documents were considered or even exist.”

Massachusetts judge Myong Joun largely sided with the plaintiffs, ruling in February that the deliberative process privilege doesn’t apply to this case, finding that plaintiffs “made a ‘strong showing of arbitrariness.’” He ordered the administration to turn over records, answer the plaintiffs’ questions and submit to depositions.

“As the [administrative record] currently stands, there is virtually no reasoning backing the agency’s decision-making process reflected in the record,” he wrote. “For instance, organizational charts, email instructions to already terminated employees, and a list of impacted offices within the Department do not inform the court why certain employees were terminated or why certain offices were closed.”

As ED has complied with the discovery order, the plaintiffs argued that the administration has changed its story about what documents exist. For example, the first tranche of records the agency provided in June didn’t include any emails or records about why the department proceeded with layoffs.

“Only after Plaintiffs pressed for more details as to how Defendants searched for relevant documents and requested specific searches for relevant custodians did Defendants at last identify documents concerning the RIF,” the motion said.

Trump officials also repeatedly pointed to organizational charts, the RIF notices and spreadsheets when asked what information was considered when deciding who to lay off.

“Yet the documents and privilege log most recently produced by Defendants identify hundreds of emails and documents pertaining to the decision-making behind the RIF, the most substantive of which they have withheld,” the plaintiffs said. “Such materials include documents whose titles suggest they constitute cost estimates and analyses of statutory functions.”

The plaintiffs are hoping the judge will rule unlawful the RIF and Trump’s executive order to close the department, order the department to take back the functions it outsourced to other agencies and staff itself to continue to carry out its responsibilities.