Newark, NJ — A federal judge has denied a New Jersey man’s attempt to force the Internal Revenue Service to preserve and produce records tied to his ongoing tax dispute, ruling that the request did not meet the high legal bar required for emergency court intervention. The decision, issued in an amended opinion, leaves the plaintiff without immediate relief as his broader fight with the IRS continues.
U.S. District Judge Brian R. Martinotti rejected Paul D. Hester’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which sought to stop the IRS from allegedly destroying records and to compel faster processing of his Freedom of Information Act requests.
The ruling means the IRS is not required to take any additional action beyond its current handling of the requests while the case proceeds.
Dispute centers on FOIA requests tied to tax proceedings
Hester, representing himself, filed multiple FOIA requests while engaged in separate tax disputes before the U.S. Tax Court in 2023. He later asked the IRS for fee waivers and expedited processing, both of which were denied on March 3, 2025.
After appealing those denials internally, Hester filed a federal lawsuit in March 2025. The IRS Appeals Office then closed his administrative appeal, citing the ongoing litigation.
Hester withdrew that initial lawsuit and filed a new one in May 2025, shortly before seeking emergency court intervention.
Court says emergency relief not justified
Judge Martinotti emphasized that preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders are considered “extraordinary” remedies, granted only in limited circumstances.
The court found that Hester did not provide sufficient legal grounds to justify such relief, particularly given the ongoing nature of the IRS’s document search and processing efforts. According to court filings, the IRS indicated that responsibility for the FOIA requests had shifted to agency counsel and remained active.
Hester argued that records were at risk of destruction and that delays were unjustified, but the court ultimately concluded those claims did not meet the required threshold for intervention.
—
Key Points
• Federal judge denied emergency motion seeking to force IRS action on FOIA requests
• Plaintiff claimed risk of record destruction and improper delays
• Court ruled request did not meet standard for extraordinary relief
—
Procedural issues also noted in filings
The opinion also highlighted procedural irregularities in Hester’s filings. In a footnote, the court noted his reply brief included “bizarre use of cartoonish names for the parties,” which he later attempted to correct. The judge deemed the correction unnecessary and said it would not have changed the outcome.
While courts typically give leeway to individuals representing themselves, the opinion reiterated that pro se litigants must still present sufficient factual and legal support for their claims.
Broader context: limits of FOIA litigation
The case underscores the challenges individuals face when seeking expedited or court-ordered FOIA compliance, particularly when parallel litigation is involved. Once a dispute enters federal court, administrative processes within agencies are often halted or redirected.
The IRS maintained that it continued searching for responsive documents even after denying expedited processing and fee waivers, a key factor in the court’s decision not to intervene.
What comes next
The denial applies only to Hester’s request for immediate injunctive relief and does not resolve the underlying lawsuit. His broader claims regarding FOIA compliance and access to IRS records remain pending.
For now, the IRS is allowed to continue handling the requests under its existing process, with no court-ordered deadlines or preservation mandates imposed.
The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, with no indication yet of when a final resolution might occur.