WOOHOO!! HERE’S THE COURT ORDER *ORDERING* TRUMP TO COUGH UP HIS FINANCIALS TO THE BBC, AND IT’S A DELIGHT!
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law
YES!!! A fantastic, upon-own-petard-hoisting order just dropped in the Trump v. BBC case! To refresh your memory, Trump sued the BBC for $5*Billion*, with a B, claiming that the BBC had defamed him in its coverage of Jan6, and that as a result he had suffered great financial harm.
Remember, the BBC is *not* in the U.S. and so *not* subject to Trump’s FCC and Carr’s strong-arm tactics, such as threatening to pull their broadcast license. So instead of capitulating like so many U.S.-based media outlets, the BBC served discovery on Trump, demanding his financial documents, to which they are entitled because Trump is claiming financial damages. Generally speaking you can’t just *claim* financial damages, you have to *prove* your financial damages. It’s the legal equivalent of “put up or shut up”.
Of course Trump refused, so the BBC filed a motion to compel discovery, and a hearing on that motion happened last week.
Notes from the Front members will recall that over the weekend I purchased the transcript of that hearing and sent it to them (and will also likely recall my mini-rant about how I paid a total of $237.83 for the transcript, including posting the receipt, but some people still complain about the $5 a month membership for Notes from the Front because, they ignorantly claim, “those are free documents”. No, they are not free. You have to pay for them, by the page, and I gladly do it to make them available to Notes from the Front members).
Anyways, I digress, my point is that Notes from the Front members have the transcript of the hearing, and now here is the order that resulted from that hearing.
And it’s a beaut!!
It’s only nine pages long, but it is jam-packed with so much delightful gooey goodness. And interestingly, a lot of that deliciousness is in the footnotes!
Like footnote #3, where we learn that even though the BBC and Trump had agreed that certain ancillary parties would be dropped from the suit, the judge still considers the subpoena *by those dismissed parties* to be at issue! This is the second time in a month that I have seen a judge either *re-animate* or *keep alive* a case or issue after Trump had either dismissed the case (the IRS debacle) or had attempted to end-run a subpoena (this case). These judges are on to him.
Then there is footnote #1, which tells us that Trump has now changed his demand for damages from $5Billion to *$10Billion*! Personally I believe this is an effort to force the BBC to settle, because Trump is getting desperate to get out from under this case, because…
Footnote #6: In which we learn that the Trump team has once again shot themselves in the foot, hoisted on their own petard:
“The Court notes that the Complaint alleges defamation per se which normally does not require an allegation of damages… However, the averments in the Complaint establish a claim of defamation generally; a cause of action that requires proof of actual damages.”
I repeat, “*requires* *proof* of actual damages.”
Let me ‘splain this for you:
When he filed the lawsuit, Trump alleged defamation per se. That means that the alleged defamation was so obvious, so obviously untrue and damaging on its face, that damages are *presumed*.
On the other hand, general defamation (not per se) *requires proof of damages*.
So, while Trump alleged defamation per se in the “here’s what law the BBC violated” section of his complaint, the actual narrative of his complaint establishes that he is *really* accusing the BBC of general defamation, so he has to *prove* his damages.
Of course, as I said, when the BBC served him with discovery (actually served his foundation, which encompasses more than 400 entities), he refused to produce the financial documents demanded in the discovery.
So the BBC filed that motion to compel the discovery.
First, during the hearing, Court was not amused and made clear that it was granting the motion to compel. (Transcript included for Notes from the Front members.)
And then the Court, in this lovely, lovely order, *ordered* Trump to cough it up, and gave him 10 days to start doing so. (Order also included for Notes from the Front members.)
In the order you will see that the Court says that the BBC’s motion is “granted in part”; that is only because the Court limited how far back the BBC’s request would apply – the Court says Trump has to produce financials from 1/1/23 forward (the BBC had originally asked for documents going further back).
My best guess is that Trump will now do one of two things, or both things: He will try to dismiss the case, or he will appeal the order, or both.
I say “try” to dismiss the case because a plaintiff has to *ask* to have their case dismissed and where, such as here, the case has already progressed to a certain point such that the *defendant* would be prejudiced if the case were dismissed (let’s face it, at this point Trump has basically defamed the BBC), the Court may *deny* a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. And this is the legal equivalent of “you made your bed, now lie in it”.
Notes from the Front members: the order is in your inbox now, along with that transcript in case you joined after I originally sent the transcript out. :~)
My reporting is 100% reader-supported. Here are ways that you can support my reporting:
– Join Notes from the Front: It’s just $5 a month, and you will truly be supporting what I do here, plus you get the documents that I include with each post. You can do that here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com
– Support my coffee habit here: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
– Share this post
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a sentence in a comment that includes the word “gooey”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just what gooey thing everyone is talking about! ;~)
(The above was provided by me, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – attorney and law professor emeritus.)
Source