Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-11764
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Magistrate Judge Parker granted counsel’s withdrawal motion, denied a 90-day stay, and extended discovery.
Arlene Delgado, her withdrawing attorney John M. Phillips, and the defendants in the ongoing case. Delgado proceeds without a lawyer, and the discovery schedule and counsel-file obligations were changed.
What happened
In Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Arlene Delgado’s lawyer, John M. Phillips, asked to withdraw after the attorney-client relationship broke down. Delgado’s claims include breach of contract, employment discrimination, retaliation, and interference with prospective economic advantage.
The court found that the relationship had broken down and that continuing the representation would not serve Delgado. Although the withdrawal caused delays and required depositions to be rescheduled, the court found that the case was still in discovery and that the delay was not significant enough to deny the motion.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion to withdraw, denied the request for a 90-day stay, and extended the discovery deadline by 60 days, to November 14, 2023. Delgado would proceed without a lawyer, Phillips could recover reasonable litigation costs but no attorney’s fees, and he had to turn over the case files.
The detailed version
- Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11764
- Analisa Torres
- Aug. 23, 2023
Background
Arlene Delgado sued Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Trump for America, Inc., Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, and Stephen Bannon. The opinion states that her claims include breach of contract, employment discrimination, retaliation, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.
John M. Phillips entered an appearance as Delgado’s counsel in May 2023. On August 9, 2023, he moved to withdraw, citing several reasons, including an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The parties submitted confidential letters, and the court held a private conference with Phillips and Delgado. At that conference, Delgado agreed that the attorney-client relationship had broken down.
Withdrawal of Counsel
Local Civil Rule 1.4 requires a lawyer who has appeared in a case to obtain the court’s permission before withdrawing. The court considered the reasons for withdrawal and the effect withdrawal would have on the case.
The court found that an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is a satisfactory reason for withdrawal. It concluded that the relationship had deteriorated enough that it would not serve Delgado for Phillips to continue representing her. The court did not determine who was responsible for the breakdown and stated that the decision did not address the merits of Delgado’s claims.
The court also considered the case’s timing. Discovery was still underway, no trial had been scheduled, and the withdrawal had delayed some depositions. The court found that these effects were not significant enough to require denial of the motion. Because Delgado is an individual, she could continue without a lawyer if she could not find new counsel. The court also noted that she is a lawyer with legal training and experience.
Costs, Files, and Discovery
Phillips asserted a lien for litigation costs but not for attorney’s fees or a retaining lien. Delgado agreed to reimburse him for reasonable costs he advanced in the litigation. The court ordered that she pay those reasonable costs and stated that Phillips was not entitled to attorney’s fees in connection with the case.
Because Phillips did not assert a retaining lien, the court ordered him to turn over the relevant case files and information to Delgado no later than August 25, 2023. The materials included deposition transcripts, subpoenas, contact information for third-party witnesses, and other documents related to the case.
The court denied the requested 90-day stay. It granted a 60-day extension of the discovery deadline, moving it to November 14, 2023, and stated that no further extension requests would be entertained. The court directed the clerk to terminate Phillips as counsel of record and note that Delgado was proceeding without a lawyer.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion to withdraw. The court denied the request for a 90-day stay, granted the 60-day discovery extension, ordered payment of reasonable advanced costs but no attorney’s fees, and required the transfer of the case files.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.