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

Background

Arlene Delgado moved to reopen discovery to depose Michael Glassner. She sought information about discrimination complaints filed against Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. (the “Campaign”) and about the decision to initiate an arbitration proceeding against her concerning an alleged violation of a nondisclosure agreement.

Delgado said she had been unable to timely subpoena and depose Glassner because the Clerk of Court’s office delayed issuing his subpoena. She also relied on information that Jenna Ellis, a former Campaign lawyer, allegedly provided about settled gender-discrimination claims involving an individual identified as “Boris.” In addition, Delgado cited testimony from an unrelated case in which Glassner said he made the decision to sue her.

The defendants argued that Delgado had not been diligent during the discovery period and that reopening discovery would prejudice them because the parties had begun briefing motions for summary judgment. They also stated that Delgado had already received discovery from Glassner relating to complaints through a search of his electronically stored information.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that reopening discovery after the deadline requires a showing of good cause. It found that Delgado had not made that showing. An earlier order extending discovery instructed her to notify the court by April 10, 2024, if she had not received signed subpoenas from the Clerk’s Office. Instead, she waited until April 22, 2024, to file the request for Glassner’s subpoena. The court concluded that this did not demonstrate diligence.

The court also noted that Delgado had already received extensions to investigate discrimination and harassment complaints and had received the results of a search of Glassner’s electronically stored information. The information about settlements did not justify revisiting the court’s prior orders or establish that the search was incomplete. The court said information about other matters within Glassner’s knowledge could have been sought earlier, and that Delgado could have explored the start of the arbitration during a prior deposition of a designated organizational witness.

Finally, the court found that the approaching deadline for summary-judgment motions supported denying the request because reopening discovery could delay motion practice and prejudice the defendants.

Disposition

The court DENIED Delgado’s motion to reopen discovery. The order was without prejudice to Delgado subpoenaing trial witnesses of her choice, including Glassner or others with information that reveals admissions of a party. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 361, 365, and 367.