Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-11764
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Judge Parker found no basis for Delgado’s objections to replacement defense counsel or further disqualification proceedings.
Arlene Delgado, the Defendants, and the Schulman Bhattacharya firm and Jeffrey Gavenman, whose substitution as defense counsel was allowed to stand without further disqualification proceedings.
What happened
In Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Plaintiff Arlene Delgado objected to Defendants’ substitution of the Schulman Bhattacharya firm and attorney Jeffrey Gavenman for their former lawyers. She also raised concerns about possible disqualification.
The court found that Delgado’s concerns did not meet the high standard for disqualifying opposing counsel. The court explained that the substitution would not delay the limited discovery that remained, that Delgado identified no rule preventing Gavenman from representing Defendants after serving as local counsel for a non-party, and that another matter involving a different firm attorney had no bearing on this case.
Judge Katharine H. Parker ruled that there was no basis to object to the substitution. The court said it would not further discuss the issue at the scheduled conference or set a briefing schedule for a disqualification motion because doing so would be frivolous.
The detailed version
- Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11764
- Analisa Torres
- May 13, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Arlene Delgado objected to the substitution of defense counsel. Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC and attorney Jeffrey Gavenman had appeared for Defendants in place of their former law firm and its associated attorneys. The court had previously indicated that it would consider whether Delgado had a basis to seek disqualification of Gavenman and the Schulman Bhattacharya firm.
Legal standard
The court explained that motions to disqualify counsel are disfavored and subject to a high standard of proof. Disqualification means removing a lawyer or firm from representing a party. Courts balance a client’s right to choose counsel against the need to maintain professional standards, and the decision is left to the district court’s discretion.
Court’s analysis
The court identified three concerns underlying Delgado’s objections:
- She was concerned that the substitution would delay discovery. The court found that discovery was already closed except for responses to certain interrogatories and requests to admit, so the substitution would not cause such a delay.
- Gavenman had served as local counsel for Brad Parscale in connection with Parscale’s deposition under a subpoena issued to a non-party in this matter. Delgado cited no ethical or other rule barring Gavenman from later representing Defendants, and the court was aware of no such rule.
- Delgado was concerned about a separate pending matter involving an attorney from Schulman Bhattacharya who had not appeared in this case. The court found that matter unrelated to this case, unrelated to Gavenman, and not a basis for disqualifying either the firm or Gavenman.
Disposition
The court found no basis for objecting to the substitution of counsel. It also ruled that there was no need to discuss Delgado’s objections at the May 15, 2024 conference. The court would not entertain further discussion of disqualification at that conference and would not set a briefing schedule for a motion to disqualify because it considered such a motion frivolous. The order addressed counsel and case-management issues; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.