Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.

Background

Arlene Delgado filed three motions concerning discovery. The first sought additional information about written complaints of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, or pregnancy discrimination involving the Campaign, along with sanctions. The second sought an order requiring non-party Brad Parscale to answer five questions from his deposition. The third sought an order requiring Defendants to provide proper responses to nine requests for admission.

Complaints and sanctions

The court had previously ordered Defendants to search for and produce written complaints made during the 2016 and 2020 campaign cycles, including complaints filed with an agency or court and internal written complaints in emails, text messages, or attorney letters. Delgado said she knew of complaints involving “R.G.,” Hannah Castillo, and others, but appeared not to know whether those complaints were written. She also questioned whether the Campaign had conducted a reasonable search.

The court denied the motion to compel and for sanctions under both Rule 37(a) and Rule 37(b). It found that Defendants had represented that they complied with the earlier discovery order and that Delgado had received a production of written complaints. The court also found no factual basis showing that other written complaints existed or that Defendants had failed to conduct a reasonable search. The request for a declaration identifying settlement recipients was denied because the court had previously ruled that Delgado was not entitled to additional discovery about settlements. Her request to depose Castillo was denied because discovery was closed and she had not shown good cause to reopen it.

The court nevertheless required Defendants, by July 3, 2024, to confirm in writing that they were not withholding responsive written complaints. If additional responsive complaints had been withheld, Defendants had to produce them by that date. The court found that fees and expenses were not warranted, considering Delgado’s self-represented status, unfamiliarity with litigation, and colorable basis for questioning the production.

Parscale deposition

The court denied Delgado’s motion to compel Parscale to answer the five additional deposition questions. Parscale did not have to answer the question about whether his conversations with attorneys concerned Delgado’s lawsuit because he had already testified that he spoke with the Campaign’s attorney and his personal attorney about Delgado and her lawsuit, and further questioning could implicate attorney-client privilege or protection for attorney work product. He also did not have to answer whether his interests were aligned with the Campaign because the question was vague, he had already answered questions about bias, and another answer was not proportional to the needs of the case.

Parscale also did not have to answer questions about what Jason Miller was “going through” or whether Parscale hoped the Campaign would win. The court found those questions irrelevant or not proportional to the case. Finally, Parscale properly declined to answer questions about his neutrality and personal animus because Delgado had already asked about bias during the first day of the deposition and the court had limited the second day to subjects not covered on the first day.

Requests for admission

The court also denied Delgado’s motion to compel responses to nine requests for admission. Requests for admission are intended to establish specific facts, the application of law to facts, opinions, or the authenticity of documents; they are not general discovery tools. The court found that Delgado’s requests used vague language, combined multiple issues, sought information more suited to other discovery methods, asked for document interpretations, or sought disputed matters and legal conclusions.

The court stated that requests concerning the identity of the decisionmaker and documents explaining the decision not to hire Delgado were confusingly worded and did not need to be answered as written. If Delgado had requested those documents and none had been produced, she could ask defense counsel to confirm whether a reasonable search found no responsive documents, identify produced documents by control number, or identify documents withheld on privilege grounds through a privilege log. Defendants were required to respond to that inquiry within seven days after it was made. The court also found that the request concerning stress during pregnancy was not a proper request for admission because it sought an opinion about a disputed issue rather than a proper factual or legal admission.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the motion to compel and for sanctions at ECF Nos. 353 and 355, denied the motion to compel Parscale to answer deposition questions at ECF No. 354, and denied the motion to compel answers to requests for admission at ECF No. 357. The court permitted the limited written inquiries described above and directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 355 and 357.