A federal judge on Thursday ordered Donald Trump to sit for a deposition in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC by Dec. 11.

The order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett came as lawyers for the British broadcaster complained that Trump had delayed his appearance. Charles Tobin, attorney for the BBC, said that with two months left in the discovery period, “we still haven’t been able to depose the plaintiff.”

He noted there was an agreed-upon date of Oct. 16, but that Trump had canceled it for a “matter of national importance.” Tobin said the Republican president was in fact campaigning in Georgia that day. “He was participating in party politics and prioritized that over sitting for the deposition,” Tobin said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 55 points 1 week ago (18 children)

Or what? Yeah... it's totally going to happen, this time.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    Have you tried reading the article?

    Lett said Trump must sit for a deposition by Dec. 11, or face sanctions up to dismissal of his lawsuit

    No deposition, no more lawsuit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    He already wants out of the lawsuit so that he can evade discovery. When they close it he'll just scream to high heaven about how the entire system is rigged against him by activist judges.

    It's not possible, but he should be held in contempt and locked up until he fully cooperates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    He dropped actual damages to avoid disclosing his financial details, the release of which would almost certainly expose him to prosecution. Now he's still suing only for reputational damage. So he hasn't dropped the case yet. But this ruling might convince him to. No lawyer in their right mind would let that rotten-brained liar give a deposition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Eventually, but meanwhile the BBC is spending, at least indirectly, the British taxpayer's money just to maintain a shred of journalistic independence while reminding them that there is a price and his base that they're "fake news".

    I assume that this was a very satisfactory "plan B" all along. Harassing via litigation is the one thing he's proven to be very good at over the years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, if he doesn't stand and the case is dismissed, the BBC will be able to recover their costs from him.

    So, it would be safe to assume it would eventually be the USA taxpayer footing the bill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    BBC will be able to recover their costs from him

    In an academic sense, yes, but more likely is that he stalls and appeals and leverages every excuse his job offers him and every weasel word in the Rules of Civil Procedure, and then drops the suit at the last possible moment before there's an order, and then appeals any claim for attorney's fees because it was dropped due to some fig-leaf explanation and not because it was without merit.

    Eventually the BBC walks away vindicated in the eyes of anyone paying attention, and maybe with some settlement of their own, but almost certainly not made whole and their speech is at least somewhat chilled because they have to be good custodians of their budget, just as was always intended.

    Maybe I'm jaded, but litigation with a ratfuck is ratfuck business. It can be a worthwhile investment if you have something other than money at stake, but it's inherently wasteful and awful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Hopeful, they throw up the lawsuit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments