Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC is turning into a headache after a federal judge ordered the president to sit for a deposition he had desperately tried to avoid, warning that failure to comply could bring sanctions and even get the entire case thrown out.
The order comes after Trump canceled a previously scheduled deposition on October 16, citing a “matter of national importance.” But the BBC’s attorney challenged that explanation, arguing that Trump had instead attended a political rally and fundraiser.
“He was participating in party politics and prioritized that over sitting for the deposition,” Tobin said.
That argument appears to have landed. With the discovery deadline set for December 18, the BBC argued that waiting until late January would leave too little time to complete the evidence-gathering process.
Now, the court has made clear that the deposition cannot simply be put off indefinitely.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett ordered Trump to give a deposition by December 11 or face possible sanctions, including dismissal of his massive defamation lawsuit against the British broadcaster.
And there’s another problem for Trump: he is the person demanding billions of dollars in damages, making his own testimony central to the case.
Trump’s lawyers had argued that the deposition should be postponed. Judge Lett rejected the proposed late-January date, setting December 11 as the deadline.
Now, Trump will have to answer questions under oath on camera unless the court schedule changes or another legal development intervenes.
Trump sued the BBC over a documentary that edited together portions of his January 6, 2021, speech at the Ellipse, before the Capitol attack. He alleges the editing created a false and defamatory impression of his remarks and is seeking $10 billion in damages.
The BBC has acknowledged splicing portions of the speech together but denies that the documentary defamed Trump or caused him damages. The broadcaster has also said the program never aired in the United States.
The BBC has also subpoenaed Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club for information about whether membership applications or fees were affected by the documentary. Trump’s lawyer argued that the request should be thrown out because Trump is not claiming the program harmed the club’s business.
The BBC countered that Trump’s lawsuit alleges damage to his “profession, occupation and trade.” Judge Lett agreed that the information sought falls within the scope of relevant evidence that should be turned over.
That creates another uncomfortable issue for Trump: if he claims the BBC’s documentary damaged his professional standing and cost him billions, the broadcaster argues it should be allowed to investigate evidence relevant to those alleged losses.
Trump has frequently fought efforts to question him in legal disputes, but this case presents a straightforward problem: he voluntarily filed the lawsuit, and the defendant is entitled to seek evidence to challenge his claims.
Trump wants the BBC to pay $10 billion. Now he must sit for a deposition on the court’s schedule—or risk jeopardizing the lawsuit he brought.
The president may be accustomed to setting his own timetable. In this courtroom, however, the judge gets to set the rules.
