Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-11764
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.: Judge Parker denied Delgado’s requests to extend discovery, expand a deposition, and use specified materials.
Arlene Delgado’s discovery requests were denied or denied without prejudice; the defendants’ discovery objections were accepted in the order’s rulings.
What happened
In Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Arlene Delgado asked the court to extend the discovery deadline for several depositions, expand Donald McGahn’s deposition, and allow her to use documents and deposition transcripts involving Stephen Bannon, Lucia Castellano, and Michael Glassner. The defendants objected.
The court treated the requests to extend discovery and expand McGahn’s deposition as requests to reconsider an earlier discovery order. It said reconsideration is generally allowed only when the court overlooked controlling law or important information, received new evidence, or made a clear error. The court found that Delgado had not shown any of those circumstances and said discovery had already been extended several times.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Delgado’s requests to extend discovery and expand McGahn’s deposition. The court also denied, as premature and without prejudice, her requests to use unspecified emails, documents, and deposition transcripts; it said those materials would be governed by the evidence rules at trial and that disputes could be raised later.
The detailed version
- Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11764
- Analisa Torres
- May 22, 2024
Background
Arlene Delgado filed several discovery-related letters. She asked the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to extend the discovery deadline so she could depose Jared Kushner, Lucia Castellano, Michael Glassner, and Stephen Bannon. She also asked to expand Donald McGahn’s deposition to cover documents that Reince Priebus had sent to attorneys. In addition, she asked to use emails and other materials authored by Stephen Bannon, deposition transcripts from Bannon’s depositions in other cases, and deposition transcripts from Castellano’s and Glassner’s depositions in other cases. The defendants objected.
Legal standard
The court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3, which governs reconsideration of a prior decision. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies controlling law or information the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not meant to give a losing party another opportunity to reargue an issue already decided.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Delgado had not identified controlling decisions or information that it overlooked when issuing the earlier discovery order. The court also noted that it had already extended discovery several times and had told Delgado that no further extensions would be granted. It concluded that discovery had to end.
As to the requests involving Bannon’s, Castellano’s, and Glassner’s emails, documents, and deposition transcripts, the court found them premature because their use could be considered later. The court stated that the Federal Rules of Evidence would govern their use at trial and that any disputes could be raised later at the appropriate time.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Delgado’s request to extend discovery deadlines and expand the scope of McGahn’s deposition. The court denied, as premature and without prejudice, Delgado’s request to use unspecified emails, documents, and deposition transcripts involving Bannon, Castellano, and Glassner.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.