Friday, a federal judge granted a request from several organizations that will allow attorneys to question Department of Government Efficiency and Department of Labor officials under oath.

Plaintiffs plan to file a preliminary injunction motion request with the court to stop the Department of Labor from giving DOGE access to what plaintiffs have described as personal and sensitive information of federal workers and other individuals. Plaintiffs argued that in order to gather enough information to file a pending preliminary injunction motion, they will need permission to question certain government employees under oath.

U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, who granted the request, said the questions will be limited in scope. Under this granted motion of expedited discovery, attorneys for the plaintiffs will able to submit written questions to defendants. Plaintiffs will also be allowed to submit requests for documents from the defendants and will be permitted to conduct depositions of the defendants. Depositions are recorded sworn oral testimonies.

Plaintiffs convinced the judge that sworn testimonies were necessary in this case because DOGEs current structure and the extent of its authority is still unknown. There is an open question of whether these employees are allowed to view the personal information of Americans under the privacy act.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, along with other organizations, initially filed the lawsuit in early February, alleging that DOGE staffers are gaining access to sensitive for federal workers and other individuals and the Department of Labors leadership has not fought back. The lawsuit alleges some of that sensitive data includes ... medical and benefits information about all federal workers with worker compensation or Black Lung claims.

Contrary to its statutory and regulatory obligations, the Department of Labor and its current leadership are acceding to this takeover, ordering Department employees to give DOGE access to whatever they ask for regardless of security protocols or risk termination, plaintiffs wrote in their lawsuit.

RELATED STORY | Scripps News Reports: DOGE Unleashed

Defendants argue against allowing sworn testimony of DOGE employees, saying ...the interrogatories and document requests are unduly burdensome because of the number of subparts and the focus on agency structure, training, and systems usage.

But Judge Bates said four of five factors "... weigh in favor of granting plaintiffs motion..." He also wrote providing certain requested information would not be burdensome, especially since it does not require DOGE employees look beyond the start of President Donald Trumps second term which started on January 20, 2025.

A federal judge on Friday ruled that the Trump administration cannot fire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau employees without cause as the president attempts to "eliminate" the agency.

Several organizations are suing the Trump administration to prevent the potential closure of the agency.

The CFPB was created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from predatory loans, high interest rates and deceptive lending practices such as complex fine-print agreements that can lead to millions in fees.

The Trump administration has ordered workers and contractors of the CFPB to stop working, and attorneys who were leading litigation against big banks were ordered to stop those lawsuits.

RELATED STORY | OPM tells government agencies to start firing recently hired workers

In an email, the administration expressed concern the CFPB has functioned as a weaponized arm of the bureaucracy that leverages its power against certain industries and individuals disfavored by so-called 'elites.'

But organizations like the National Consumer Law Center and the National Association for The Advancement of Colored People, are asking a federal judge in a lawsuit to issue an injunction to bar the administration from closing the agency.

The plaintiffs argue the agency was created by an act of Congress meaning only Congress has the power to eliminate it.

Plaintiffs also share stories of people who are now experiencing consequences because work has stopped or slowed down at the CFPB.

They mention an 83-year-old pastor who was given less than six months to live. According to the lawsuit, she is entitled to discharge her student loans under the Public Loan Forgiveness Program, but after a meeting with the agency was suddenly canceled, shes now concerned that if her debt is not discharged before she dies, she could pass that burden on to her family.

There are so many things that the CFPB regulates and pays attention to in junk fees and individual banks and how they're impacting consumers, says Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, an organization that supports the lawsuit. It's just not OK to remove a cop off the beat, particularly when the Trump administration ran on protecting regular people, lowering prices helping us with scams. You know, that's exactly what the CFPB is for.

President Trump's attempts to gut the CFPB are part of a larger effort to reduce the size of the federal government.