Federal Judge Orders Trump to Sit for Deposition in $10 Billion BBC Lawsuit
U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett warned that Donald Trump must comply with the December 11 deposition deadline or face potential sanctions, including the dismissal of his lawsuit.
A federal magistrate judge ordered Donald Trump to sit for a seven-hour deposition by December 11 as part of his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC. U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett warned during a Miami hearing that failure to cooperate with the discovery process could lead to severe sanctions, including the possible dismissal of the case.
The legal dispute stems from a BBC Panorama documentary titled "Trump: A Second Chance" that spliced together comments Trump made during his January 6, 2021, rally prior to the U.S. Capitol riot. The broadcaster acknowledged the misleading edit, prompting apologies and the resignations of top BBC executives, though the network denies defaming the former president.
BBC attorneys pressed the court to compel Trump's appearance after a previously agreed-upon October 16 deposition was canceled. Trump's legal team cited matters of national importance, though BBC attorney Charles Tobin argued that Trump prioritized campaign events in Georgia instead. Tobin emphasized that with two months remaining in the discovery period, the network had not yet been able to depose the central figure of the lawsuit.
Judge Lett expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of document production from Trump's legal team, warning that they had 30 days to turn over relevant material. "The court is not satisfied that anyone is doing a thorough job," she told Trump attorney Alejandro Brito, adding that this represents the last opportunity to comply before potential penalties take effect.
During the same hearing, attorneys debated whether former special counsel Jack Smith should be subpoenaed for a deposition. The BBC argued that Smith possesses unmatched authoritative knowledge regarding the events of January 6, while Trump's lawyers countered that Smith's testimony would be duplicative and unnecessary.
In a separate judicial development in Minnesota, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an aggressive legal effort to disqualify two federal judges from handling separate immigration-related cases. Federal prosecutors filed motions seeking the recusal of U.S. District Judges John Tunheim and Patrick Schiltz, arguing that their participation in a September 17 New York Times interview violated objective standards for judicial impartiality.
The DOJ motions point to critical comments made by the judges regarding administration policies, with prosecutors alleging the remarks display a lack of neutrality. Conversely, a spokesperson for Minnesota’s U.S. District Court defended the judges, noting that legal-ethics experts confirmed the interviews aligned with advisory opinions allowing federal judges to speak on core judiciary matters and the rule of law.
Defense attorneys strongly criticized the government's push to remove the Minnesota judges, characterizing the recusal efforts as a baseless distraction. Meanwhile, Judge Schiltz scheduled a hearing on the government's recusal motion for next month, while Judge Tunheim has not yet taken action regarding his proceedings.