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

Background

Arlene Delgado, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, and Stephen Bannon. Her claims included breach of contract, promissory estoppel, pregnancy and sex discrimination under New York State and New York City human-rights laws, retaliation, interference with protected rights, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and prima facie tort. She alleged that the defendants reduced her campaign responsibilities after she announced her pregnancy and interfered with her obtaining a White House position and other opportunities.

Delgado moved to compel Fox Corp./Fox News Network, LLC, which was not a party to the case, to respond to a document subpoena. The subpoena sought “any and all” documents and communications referring to or mentioning A.J. Delgado from December 22, 2016, through May 2018. It proposed searching Fox News and Fox Business programs and staff, including Sean Hannity’s staff and Thomas Bowman’s staff, using the terms “AJ, A.J., Arlene, Delgado, Jason Miller, pregnancy, pregnant.” Fox objected that the subpoena sought irrelevant information, was overbroad, and imposed an undue burden.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which governs subpoenas to nonparties, together with Rule 26(b), which limits discovery to information relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. A court must quash or modify a subpoena that seeks protected information or subjects a person to an undue burden. The party seeking discovery first must show that the requested information is relevant and proportional; the opposing party then may show that the request is privileged or unduly burdensome.

Court’s reasoning

Judge Katharine H. Parker concluded that the subpoena was grossly overbroad because it sought all documents and communications concerning a person. The subpoena was not tailored to Delgado’s claims and sought information from Fox even though Delgado did not allege that Fox was involved in hiring, managing, or firing her from the campaign, deciding whether she would receive a White House job, or interfering with a specific job opportunity at Fox.

The court also found that the request was not proportional to the needs of the case. It was speculative whether Fox had any relevant information, particularly in light of discovery already completed and the costs of searching a large amount of electronically stored information across multiple custodians. The court further found the subpoena unduly burdensome because responding would require collecting, hosting, processing, searching, reviewing, and potentially logging privileged electronic information.

Disposition

The court denied Delgado’s motion to compel and quashed the subpoena. Fox was not required to respond and was excused from attending the scheduled conference about the subpoena.