Its and Ai response but lays it out pretty cut and dry. $MSOS What the judge actually did, and why The Oct 14 order is procedural housekeeping, not a signal on the merits. Three moves: Granted leave to file the reply and accepted it as filed. Reserved ruling on admitting the GAO report “pending additional responses.” Ordered the government to respond to the Motion to Reopen by Oct 21, capped at 10 pages, with the stay continuing “to allow time for a response and to allow time for the tribunal to consider the pending motions.” His stated rationale is one sentence: “Having received a new substantive motion, I will once again order a response and allow time for filing.” That is basic APA fairness — a motion asking for new relief gets an opposition before anyone rules on it. Nothing in the order endorses reopening, and he notably framed the Sept 29 stay narrowly, as granted “to allow briefing on the issue of whether the GAO Report should be admitted,” not on what it means. How the DEA brief and the reopening motion fit together The government’s brief is what generated the reopening motion. Its strategy was to concede the exhibit and starve the argument: let the report in if the judge wants, but there’s nothing to brief because the document is “clear on its face” and found “gaps in the memorialization of rescheduling process, not any flaws in the rescheduling process itself.” It leaned on Central States (7th Cir., an ERISA contract case) for the proposition that an unambiguous document needs no further argument, and it faulted the movants for never asking Chiapperino or Akinfiresoye at the hearing whether FDA or DEA had written procedures. The movants turned each of those points into the basis for reopening: “A party that accepts an exhibit but disputes what it shows has created a contested material fact.” That is the core of the motion. By deferring on admission while calling the report immaterial, DEA handed them a live factual dispute that, they argue, can only be resolved with evidence rather than briefs. The “you never asked” point backfires. The reply documents that the government declared the two-part CAMU test off-limits at the outset (OLC had resolved it, Tr. 26, 97) and invoked Touhy whenever questioning reached process. “It cannot restrict the inquiry and then fault Interested Parties for the resulting gap.” GAO got that process evidence through agency records and interviews the hearing couldn’t reach. The memorialization-vs-process framing is the whole fight. The movants’ answer: GAO’s Recommendation 2 tells FDA to develop criteria for relative abuse potential, and “an agency cannot memorialize criteria that do not exist.” That ties directly to the § 812(b)(3)(A) finding Schedule III requires. SAM’s brief makes the same point and adds the sharper jab that if DEA is now telling the tribunal something different from what it told GAO, that inconsistency itself warrants briefing. The legal authority is lopsided. Central States is a stretch for ALJ record management; the movants counter with Chenery, Encino Motorcars, and Fox on unexplained changes in agency method, plus 21 C.F.R. § 1316.52 (ALJ authority continues until certification) and § 1316.57 (good cause for late evidence). The Oct 21 brief will need better footing than the first one had. What the reopening would actually be Five discovery subjects, with testimony to match: who created and approved the July 2023 two-part CAMU test and why HHS switched to it mid-evaluation; who drafted the Part 1/Part 2 language and what role DEA, FDA, HHS, NIH, OLC and outsiders played; why the 2023 evaluation dropped psychosis, pregnancy, cardiovascular risk, diversion and pediatric/geriatric use relative to prior reviews; what criteria FDA used for “relative potential for abuse”; and what materials GAO reviewed. Subject (1) and (2) are the real prize for opponents: it is discovery into the provenance of the two-part test, which the government kept out of the hearing by pointing at the OLC opinion. Where this leaves the clock The Oct 21 government response is now the gating item. After that, Julius rules on both motions, likely together. Admission plus a short supplemental round adds weeks; a reopening with document requests and testimony adds months. Only then does the recommended decision issue, and certification can’t happen sooner than 25 days after it is served. The Dentons op-ed’s Q1 2027 best case for a final rule assumed no reopening.