The lead attorney representing Butler and three other counties, four Republican lawmakers and several businesses made his case in federal court Wednesday for a quick decision on a lawsuit challenging the state's business closure order and reopening plan.

And Tom King, of the firm Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham in Butler, told U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV just how far he was willing to go to make that happen.

“We're prepared to concede that no discovery is necessary,” he said. “We would stipulate with the deputy attorney general with respect to every factual issue she has.”

But that wasn't all. He also assured Karen Romano, the state's chief deputy attorney general, that he had no plan to depose the defendants — Gov. Tom Wolf and state Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine — in the litigation.

King and Romano squared off by teleconference in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania over the plaintiff's request for a “speedy hearing” — afforded under Rule 57 of federal law — in the case.

The motion specifically requests Stickman, who is assigned to the case, for a declaratory judgment finding the orders in violation of the U.S. Constitution, namely the First, Fifth and 14th amendments.

A quick decision on the matter is imperative because of the constitutional issues involved, and because every Pennsylvanian is affected, King said, not just his clients.

Romano, however, countered that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the Rule 57 relief, while denying the Wolf administration's orders violated the U.S. Constitution.

“These exact issues have already been analyzed and rejected,” she said.

Her reference was about recent rulings in three other cases that challenged the governor's executive orders made in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Those decisions included:

A U.S. Middle District of Pennsylvania judge May 21 refused to overturn the state's stay-at-home order and rejected a call for a temporary restraining order, saying the court would not micromanage public policy in the midst of a pandemic.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in April rejected a different challenge, over the stay-at-home and business closure orders. The court ruled the governor's state of emergency powers and the temporary nature of the closure order superseded the plaintiff's concerns.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on May 6 denied an immediate stay of Wolf's orders, after the challengers in the state supreme court case appealed the ruling.

King, however, contends his clients' lawsuit is unlike those other cases, in arguing that the governor's orders violated the First, Fifth and 14th amendments.

Even Stickman noted, “Each case is its own case.”

Romano, in opposing the speedy hearing, also claimed that the plaintiff's argument, in part, was moot, because of the ongoing implementation of Wolf's reopening plan.

Butler, as well as Greene, Fayette and Washington counties - the other counties named as plaintiffs in the suit - on May 15 moved from the “red” to “yellow” phase under the plan, and with it the easing of restrictions on businesses and individuals.

And it is anticipated those same counties will soon be moved into the “green” phase, meaning more restrictions would be lifted.

The ongoing reopening plan will “completely eliminate” the plaintiffs concerns, therefore rendering their argument moot, she said.

But King noted that even under the green phase, businesses like bars, restaurants, hair salons, barber shops, entertainment venues and others would only be allowed to operate under 50 percent capacity.

Those restrictions, King claimed, are “still significant” and impact his clients.

“Certainly they can make the argument that the harm is ongoing,” Romano countered, but asked does that mean a speedy hearing is warranted?

She also claimed that an expedited hearing would “divert resources” as the state continues to fight the pandemic.

Additionally, Romano in her motion contended that a speedy hearing was not appropriate when discovery was needed. She also suggested that the plaintiffs could move to take depositions, even from Wolf.

“We have no intention of deposing the governor or the secretary of health,” King said. “I'm a little put off by the suggestion that we want to divert anybody's efforts that would otherwise be dedicated for the eradication of COVID-19.”

He also made the unusual offer to waive discovery.

“We're disappointed that (Romano) doesn't want a speedy hearing on this,” King said. “We're anxious to speed this as best we can in a federal courtroom with a federal judge to address federal constitutional issues.”

Stickman, meanwhile, seemed intrigued by King's offer to forgo discovery and, instead, work with Romano toward agreeing to a set of facts in the case.

With the stipulation “to a factual record that I could examine,” the judge said, he could “treat this like a summary judgment decision.”

But Romano said there is already an established process in place for the plaintiffs to make a motion for summary judgment, but only once the state files its response to the lawsuit.

Stickman, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Donald Trump in 2019, said he would consider the oral arguments of both sides, study their briefs and “issue an order forthwith.”