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

OUNG DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC wane eX DATE FILED:_ 7/10/2024 ARLENE DELGADO, Plaintiff, 19-CV-11764 (AT) (KHP) -against- ORDER DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., TRUMP FOR AMERICA, INC., SEAN SPICER, individually, REINCE PRIEBUS, individually, STEPHEN BANNON, individually, Defendants. +--+ ----X KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff Arlene Delgado has moved to reopen discovery for purposes of deposing Michael Glassner concerning discrimination complaints filed against Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. (the “Campaign”) and the decision to initiate an arbitration proceeding against her. (ECF Nos. 361, 365, 367 and 380.) Plaintiff asserts that she was unable to timely subpoena and depose Glassner because the Clerk of Court’s office delayed issuing Glassner’s subpoena. Plaintiff also states that Jenna Ellis, a former lawyer for the Campaign, disclosed to Plaintiff that the Campaign had settled several claims of gender-based discrimination against an individual identified as “Boris” and advised Plaintiff to subpoena Glassner. Finally, Plaintiff references transcripts from a deposition in an unrelated case in which Glassner testified that he made the decision to sue Plaintiff for violating a nondisclosure agreement (the “NDA”) with the Campaign. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exercise diligence during discovery when she could have deposed Glassner and that reopening discovery now would be prejudicial because the parties have commenced summary judgment briefing. (ECF Nos. 374, 378.) Defendants also state that Plaintiff already received discovery from Glassner regarding complaints because they searched Glassner’s ESI pursuant to the Court’s May 14, 2024 Order and produced responsive documents. “A district court has wide la�tude to determine the scope of discovery.” In re Agent Orange Prod. Liability Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 103 (2d Cir. 2008). District courts may limit discovery if, among other reasons, they determine certain discovery sought is unreasonably cumula�ve or duplica�ve, if the party seeking discovery already had ample opportunity to obtain the informa�on sought, if the discovery is dispropor�onal to the case, or if the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1-2). Importantly, under Rule 16(b), district courts are required to enter scheduling orders “that limit the par�es’ �me to complete discovery.” McKay v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., No. 05 Civ. 8936(RJS), 2007 WL 3275918, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2007). Reopening discovery a�er the discovery period has closed requires a showing of good cause. Eng–Hatcher v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 07 Civ. 7350 (BSJ)(KNF), 2008 WL 4104015, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2008). Here, Plain�ff has not shown good cause to reopen discovery for purposes of deposing Glassner. The Court’s April 3, 2024 Order extending discovery instructed Plain�ff to alert the Court by April 10, 2024 if she had not received the signed subpoenas from the Clerk’s office. (ECF No. 231.) Despite this explicit instruc�on, Plain�ff waited un�l April 22, 2024 to file the Glassner subpoena request. (ECF No. 260.) Such conduct does not demonstrate diligence. Further, Plain�ff has already been granted extensions of discovery for purposes of exploring complaints of discrimina�on and harassment and has received the results of a search of Glassner’s ESI. This Court has previously denied Plain�ff’s request to obtain informa�on about setlements of suits. (ECF No. 371.) The informa�on Ellis provided about setlements does not justify revisiting this Court’s prior orders or suggest that the search of Glassner’s ESI was incomplete. The other information Glassner has knowledge about could have been sought earlier in discovery and that Plaintiff now knows Glassner made the decision to initiate the arbitration against her does not justify reopening discovery, particularly when she took a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition during which she could have explored information about commencement of the arbitration. Finally, the deadline for the parties to file motions for summary judgment is fast approaching. Reopening discovery would risk further delaying motion practice and prejudice the Defendants. For all these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff subpoenaing trial witnesses of her choice, including Glassner or others with information that reveals admissions of a party. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 361, 365, and 367. SO ORDERED. New York, New York July 10, 2024 ket haut H (4 hh Katharine H. Parker U.S. Magistrate Judge