Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. ( 2024 )

wire, Ely DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: LLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee eX DATE FILED:__ 5/22/2024 ARLENE DELGADO, Plaintiff, 19-CV-11764 (AT) (KHP) -against- ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., MOTION TRUMP FOR AMERICA, INC., SEAN SPICER, individually, REINCE PRIEBUS, individually, STEPHEN BANNON, individually, Defendants. +--+ +--+ ----X KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: On May 15, 2024 and May 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed several letters regarding discovery, two that appear to be duplicates (Dkt. Nos. 316-318). In the letters, Plaintiff asks the Court to: (1) reconsider its denial of her request to extend the discovery deadline for purposes of deposing Jared Kushner, Lucia Castellano, Michael Glassner, and Stephen Bannon; (2) to expand the scope of Donald McGahn’s deposition to allow questioning on documents that were sent by Defendant Reince Priebus to attorneys; (3) permit her to “utilize all emails and materials authored by Steve Bannon” in this case and also use in this case transcripts from depositions of Bannon taken in other cases; and (4) permit her to utilize in this case deposition transcripts from depositions of Castellano and Glassner taken in other cases. Defendants object to the letter requests. DISCUSSION The Court construes requests 1 and 2 above to be requests for reconsideration of this Court’s prior order declining to extend discovery deadlines to allow for the depositions of Kushner, Castellano, Glassner and Bannon and limi�ng the scope of McGahn’s deposi�on tes�mony. Local Rule 6.3 governs reconsidera�on, which is “intended to ‘ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the prac�ce of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost mo�on with addi�onal maters.’ ” SEC v. Ashbury Capital Partners, L.P., No. 00 Civ. 7898, 2001 WL 604044, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2001) (quo�ng Carolco Pictures, Inc. v. Sirota, 700 F. Supp. 169, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)). Reconsidera�on is “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conserva�on of scarce judicial resources.” In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)(internal cita�on omited). Accordingly, the Second Circuit has held that the standard for gran�ng a mo�on to reconsider “is strict, and reconsidera�on will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -- maters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). “The major grounds jus�fying reconsidera�on are ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injus�ce.’” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quo�ng 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Prac�ce & Procedure § 4478 at 790 (2d ed.)). “[A] mo�on to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to reli�gate an issue already decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. Plain�ff fails to point to controlling decisions or informa�on that the Court overlooked in rendering its prior discovery order. As the Court previously explained, it has extended discovery numerous times with excessive solicitude to the Plaintiff and communicated that no further extensions would be afforded. Discovery in this case must come to a close. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to extend discovery deadlines and expand the scope of McGahn’s deposition is DENIED. Plaintiff's request to utilize unspecified emails, documents and deposition transcripts of Bannon, Castellano and Glassner is DENIED as premature and without prejudice. Plaintiff's use of emails, documents and transcripts will be subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence at trial and any disputes about her use of such documents and transcripts can be raised later in this litigation at the appropriate time. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York Kathavee fate May 22, 2024 KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge