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

Background

Arlene Delgado sued Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Trump for America, Inc., Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, and Stephen Bannon. She alleges that she was discriminated and retaliated against because of pregnancy while working for the Campaign in 2016. She also asserts common-law claims, including breach of contract and tortious interference with anticipated employment at the White House.

The court had set a January 31, 2023 deadline for fact discovery and later granted several extensions at Delgado’s request. On January 31, 2024, the court extended discovery through April 15, 2024, but limited depositions to previously contemplated party depositions and depositions of Eric Trump and Brad Parscale. The court required Delgado to seek permission for any additional third-party discovery and show that it was relevant, proportional to the needs of the case, and could be completed by the deadline.

Discovery Request and Ruling

On February 27, 2024, Delgado identified 16 nonparty witnesses whom she wanted to depose and requested another extension. At a February 28, 2024 case-management conference, defendants argued that most of the requested depositions sought cumulative or irrelevant information.

The court granted permission to subpoena and depose four additional nonparties:

- Lucia Castellano, identified as the Campaign’s head of Human Resources and likely to have information about employment decisions; - Michael Glassner, identified as Campaign counsel during a mediation related to the breach-of-contract claim and likely to have information relevant to that claim; - Jared Kushner, identified as having a role in the decision not to hire Delgado for a White House position and likely to have information relevant to the discrimination claim; and - Donald McGahn, identified as involved in the security-clearance process for White House personnel and likely to have information relevant to defendants’ position that Delgado would not have qualified for a White House position because of security-clearance issues.

The court also stated that if defendants renewed their intention to call Kellyanne Conway as a trial witness, Delgado could seek permission to depose her before trial. The court otherwise denied the request for additional third-party discovery.

Reasons

The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which requires discovery to be relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. It concluded that the additional discovery Delgado sought was not proportional because it duplicated information obtained through document discovery and party depositions, as well as information available through the limited third-party discovery the court allowed.

The court also applied Rule 16, which permits changes to a scheduling order only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court found that Delgado had not shown good cause for failing to complete the requested depositions by the court-set deadlines. It rejected her reliance on prior counsel’s conduct, explaining that a client generally bears the consequences of an attorney’s negligence or other misconduct. The court also rejected Delgado’s argument that delays before the scheduling order justified allowing additional late discovery.

Other Directions and Disposition

The court directed either party that believes responsive documents remain outstanding to identify the documents and confer with the opposing party. Any motion to compel was due March 20, 2024, with opposition due March 27, 2024. The court scheduled a telephone case-management conference for March 26, 2024, at 4:30 p.m.

Judge Katharine H. Parker concluded that Delgado’s request for additional third-party discovery was granted in part and denied in part, to the extent described in the order. This was a discovery and scheduling ruling; the opinion did not decide the underlying discrimination, retaliation, contract, or tort claims.