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

Background

Arlene Delgado, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, and Stephen Bannon. She alleged discrimination and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that the Campaign hired Delgado as Senior Advisor and Hispanic Outreach Director in August 2016. After Delgado and Jason Miller learned they were expecting a child, Delgado alleged that defendants reduced her job responsibilities and prevented her from obtaining employment in the Trump Administration. The parties later reached a settlement after mediation, and defendants initiated arbitration concerning alleged breaches of confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. The arbitrator later found in Delgado’s favor.

In August 2022, Judge Katharine H. Parker entered a scheduling order setting September 15, 2022, as the deadline to seek permission to amend pleadings or add parties. After fact discovery closed, Delgado moved in August 2024 to add Michael Glassner, Eric Trump, and Jason Miller as defendants and to assert retaliation and pregnancy-discrimination claims against them.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. But when a scheduling order sets an amendment deadline, Rule 16(b)(4) requires the moving party to show “good cause”—a sufficient reason why the deadline could not be met. The court also considers delay and prejudice, meaning harm to the existing defendants, such as the need to reopen discovery or delay trial preparation. Judge Parker recommended denying Delgado’s motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court adopted Judge Parker’s report and recommendation in full. For Miller, the court found that defendants’ November 2022 interrogatory responses identified him as likely to have relevant knowledge. The court also noted that Delgado waited more than a year after a June 2023 deposition that, according to Delgado, provided additional information about Miller. The court concluded that these circumstances did not establish good cause for the delay.

For Glassner, the court found that defendants’ August 2022 disclosures and November 2022 interrogatory responses identified him as likely to have information about Delgado’s work for the Campaign and the allegations in the amended complaint. The court concluded that Delgado was on notice of Glassner’s possible involvement well before she sought to add him.

For Eric Trump, the court concluded that Delgado did not explain specifically what new documents revealed about his alleged involvement or why that information could not have been identified earlier. The court held that her general statement that he was a “key player” in retaliation was not enough to show good cause.

The court also agreed that adding three defendants after extensive discovery had closed would likely require reopening discovery, delay summary-judgment proceedings by months or longer, and require defendants to spend additional resources preparing the case. This potential prejudice, combined with Delgado’s delay and insufficient explanation, supported denying amendment.

Other Requests and Disposition

The court overruled Delgado’s objections and denied her motion to amend the complaint. It denied her requests for oral argument as moot. It also denied her motion to disqualify Judge Torres, which was based on Delgado’s disagreement with how the court handled her filings concerning Judge Parker’s report and recommendation. The opinion directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the listed motions.