You simply don’t get it. The purpose of the hearing is for Orly to demonstrate why she’s entitled to the documents not for the DoH to demonstrate why she isn’t entitled to them. There is no legal assumption that she is entitled to them. Orly has to prove her case. (She can’t.) The DoH doesn’t have to prove anything.
“The purpose of the hearing is for Orly to demonstrate why she’s entitled to the documents not for the DoH to demonstrate why she isn’t entitled to them.”
You a lawyer? If so, would you advise a client to ignore such a hearing?
Whether you are or not, I think it would be pretty dumb for anyone not to show up for a hearing that could ultimately result in them going down in history as the nastiest traitors since Benedict Arnold.