Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-11764
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Judge Parker denied Delgado’s reconsideration motion over deposition limits because she identified no overlooked controlling law or information.
Arlene Delgado’s request to revisit deposition limits and discovery deadlines was denied; the ruling concerned discovery involving the defendants named in the case.
What happened
In Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Arlene Delgado asked the court to reconsider or clarify limits on certain depositions and to allow up to 10 depositions. She said her discovery rights were violated because she had not been allowed to take 10 depositions.
The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and generally requires overlooked controlling law or information, new evidence, a change in controlling law, or a clear error. The court found that Delgado had not identified anything overlooked in the earlier discovery orders.
Judge Parker concluded that Delgado was challenging deadlines rather than showing a proper basis for reconsideration. The court noted that Delgado and her former lawyer had not completed third-party depositions within the court’s deadlines, despite extensions, and denied the motion for reconsideration or clarification.
The detailed version
- Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11764
- Analisa Torres
- May 29, 2024
Background
Arlene Delgado filed a letter motion seeking reconsideration or clarification of the scope of certain depositions and permission to take up to 10 depositions. She argued that her discovery rights had been violated because she was not permitted to take 10 depositions.
The opinion states that, when discovery began, the court had not placed restrictions on the number of depositions. It also states that Delgado and her former counsel did not conduct third-party depositions within deadlines previously set by the court. The court had granted multiple deadline extensions over the defendants’ objections, but extended the deadlines for specific purposes.
Legal standard
The court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3, which governs motions for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that courts use sparingly. Under the standard described in the opinion, reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result. The opinion also identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice as possible grounds for reconsideration. A party may not use reconsideration simply to argue again about an issue the court already decided.
Ruling
The court found that Delgado had not identified controlling decisions or information that it had overlooked in its prior discovery orders concerning depositions. The court determined that her actual complaint concerned being held to discovery deadlines. It therefore denied Delgado’s motion for reconsideration or clarification. The opinion does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.