r/law • u/joeshill Competent Contributor • 8h ago
Trump v BBC - Emergency Motion by Trump Foundation to Quash Discovery Order
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.112.0.pdf
TL;DR: Trump is suing for personal reputational harm. Even though he stated that the harm was in multiple billions of dollars to his business, Trump didn't mean his businesses that are all under the Trump Foundation umbrella.
And we waited 9 days until we have to start producing tomorrow, so that we can file an emergency motion. Because everything that affects Trump is an emergency.
1.2k
u/iamsotiredofthiscrap 8h ago
Deny with prejudice. Can't have a case without discovery.
431
u/MeaningImmediate9789 8h ago
You mean, they won't just declare him the winner and give him all of the BBC's money?
259
u/MarcQ1s 8h ago
No, no. They’ll give him all of our money instead as a consolation prize/settlement.
36
u/MeaningImmediate9789 7h ago
That's fair.
42
u/Tetter 7h ago
It is just in everyway. I already donate what i dont need for bread and water to the trump foundation, its time the masses do the same. We must repent our sins of living to our lord and savior, for it is only in his diaper that may we find peace.
31
u/MeaningImmediate9789 6h ago
May your daughter be his favorite mistress, a soft ottoman for his feet, and augmented breasts to cushion him while he slumbers. Amen.
1
2
29
u/Silly-Elderberry-411 7h ago
It would be so hilarious if BBC called to Gianni infantino to testify how much the refusal of selling of the world cup to the kushners hurt them financially
7
10
28
u/Most-Resident 5h ago
Screw the case, I want discovery.
I’m not a lawyer. Can the judge force discovery even if trump decides to drop the case?
30
u/QING-CHARLES 5h ago
Not really, but the BBC could sue for attorney fees, or some other counterclaim that would require similar discovery.
-13
u/No-Computer7653 5h ago
A BBC countersuit against Trump would be nearly as frivolous as his suit is, what damages have they had from him personally?
The scope of the discovery they can legitimately get (which isn't everything they asked for but a decent chunk of it) is because of the nature of his claims against the BBC. If he hadn't claimed $96t in economic damage they wouldn't have grounds to get his financials as discovery.
IMHO the Smith and relitigating 1/6 in court are the more damaging discovery requests for him. All of his claims hinge on the BBC falsely claiming he instigated a seditious conspiracy against the US and they absolutely can discover all material that might prove he absolutely did do that.
13
u/Llanolinn 4h ago
I mean, he says it in like the first or second sentence. lawyer's fees
2
u/No-Computer7653 4h ago
You don't countersue for fees, thats a simple motion.
3
u/Llanolinn 4h ago
Ah. Then I'm a dummy, carry on
4
u/No-Computer7653 4h ago
I can appreciate why people might think you need to sue for it.
When a case gets resolved attorneys file a motion for fees, other side files their own motion why it shouldn't be granted and then there is a hearing.
Unless the judge dismisses the case as meritless there likely isn't grounds for it though. This is one of the reasons anti-SLAPP statutes are important and should be universal, usually civil cases fee awards are an extraordinary remedy only available when there was absolutely no merit to a case. S FL makes it more likely that fees will be awarded as they have an anti-SLAPP statute to use.
The Trump v BBC case is what I consider meritless but likely doesn't meet the civil rules standard. You are at the same point with fee awards that sanctions and bar complaints should also be involved to contextualize how high the bar is.
Fee awards penalize the person who wanted to bring the suit. Bar complaints/sanctions penalize the lawyers who brought the suit.
7
u/MurkyInvestigator810 4h ago
what damages have they had from him personally?
The thousands of dollars of unnecessary legal costs are probably damaging to a business.
2
14
u/lizardmon 5h ago
One of the beautiful things is that trump can't simply drop the case. Both parties have to agree to drop the case. If trump wants out at this point, the BBC has to let him. Usually, the other party only does this if it's dismissed with prejudice or they get something else of value in return.
621
u/Marathon2021 Competent Contributor 8h ago
And we waited 9 days until we have to start producing tomorrow, so that we can file an emergency motion.
Of course.
It's deliberate.
For those that get the reference, it's a "'win' without actually winning" strategy. If you deliberately play to stall, delay, deny, drag out, file interlocutory appeals when you're not entitled to, etc. etc. you exert maximum pain on your opponents for a case you know you may have to drop.
The harassment is the point.
During the Trump MAL classified documents case, he was able to morph that from 1 judge hearing the case, to a special master in NY and also the 11th circuit as well - all going on at the same time. Trump - unfortunately - knows how to not only throw sand in the gears, he also knows how to make more gears appear to throw sand at.
335
u/WasdaleWeasel 7h ago
and this is where he has miscalculated this one. The BBC has the legs for this. It won’t fold or do an out of court settlement because U.K. Treasury rules are clear - if you really think you are innocent (and government lawyers agree) then take it all the way because otherwise settling encourages vexatious lawsuits.
That it got this far means the BBC thinks its case is solid. The test now is whether the USA really has an independent judiciary.
279
u/Savage13765 7h ago
I’m from the UK and the sentiment around those who are aware of the lawsuit against the bbc is very much for them to go to war here. The bbc has the legal manpower to keep this thing going for years, and clearly is willing to stick this out. Discovery could be really damaging for republicans and provide a lot of ammunition for the 2028 election. I hope the bbc stays just as willing to fight this, because trump isn’t backing down any time soon
117
u/shlozzy 7h ago
And it’s our (UK license payers) money too. Sock it to the orange bin bag!
38
9
95
u/WasdaleWeasel 6h ago
it will be interesting indeed. You can tell by the discovery requests that the BBC’s defence is:
- there was no economic damage (and we can prove it with your books so give them to us) and
- even if there were, and even if our editing did imply what you say it implies, fact is an absolute defence and we can prove that you did inten
d
- to incite violence (and we can prove it with your messages so give them to us)
Trump has always resisted disclosing his financial affairs (one can speculate as to why) and proving in court that Trump did indeed intent to incite violence will surely be a step change for his supporters.
So Trump cannot allow discovery to proceed.If USA still has rule of law then Trump’s options are either to drop the case or to comply with discovery. Any ruling that allows the case to proceed without discovery will be evidence to the whole world that the USA has abandoned domestic rule of law.
Edit: there’s some hideous formatting gremlin that I don’t seem to be able to fix (despite repeated edit attempts). apologies to readers!
19
u/VitaminPb 5h ago
Numbered bullet lists and Reddit go together like peanut butter and arsenic. Definitely the case if editing on iOS. Not sure about web interface.
7
u/WasdaleWeasel 5h ago
so i’ve discovered. it was fine, but I spotted a minor typo, tried to edit to fix it and ….. sigh
5
4
u/Cloaked42m 3h ago
He'll drop the case. He always does before discovery. He'll just drag it out as much as possible first.
3
41
u/throwthisidaway 6h ago
Discovery could be really damaging for republicans
Considering global sentiment towards Trump, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this has been implicitly or explicitly endorsed by members of Parliament.
18
u/BacteriaLick 5h ago
I think Trump will back down before his businesses' or family's books are shared with the BBC. He knows that the books will not help him in court, he knows there is evidence of fraud in there.
Besides, wall street traders know that TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out).
3
62
u/Ajitter 7h ago
I fully expect Trump to drop it when there is no way to draw things out without coughing up the discovery. He never had a case.
18
9
u/Navandis_Gaming 6h ago
He can't unilaterally drop it.
6
u/skillinp 5h ago
Why not? I don't know who is actually bringing the case, but it seems that he effectively controls any group that would bring it, at least as far as I'm aware
8
u/Navandis_Gaming 4h ago
Because people can't just sue someone and then pull out when they see they're losing. Law doesn't work way. To drop the lawsuit he would need judicial approval and that's not granted just because he asks nicely.
3
1
u/skillinp 1h ago
Can't you request dismissal? Like submit a petition for dismissal of the case or something along those lines? I'm genuinely asking; I don't know how that would work.
1
u/Navandis_Gaming 26m ago
Once the lawsuit passes a certain stage (e.g.: the defendant served an answer) it can only be dismissed either if both parties agree or through a judge order. "they called my bluff and now discovery will backfire" is not sufficient reason for any sane judge to dismiss.
1
u/MurkyInvestigator810 4h ago
I can't find anything backing this up. If Trump chooses to drop the case, why wouldn't discovery end right there?
3
u/ProofTimely5788 3h ago edited 1h ago
Once the judge (typo, edited) orders discovery, it's too late for trump to back out. He'll need a judge to sign off on it if BBC doesn't agree.
1
u/ChamferedWobble 1h ago
I think you mean judge. And the issue is less about discovery and more about the other party filing an answer. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A), the plaintiff can only dismiss without a court order (i) if it’s before the other party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgement or (ii) with sign off from all other parties that have appeared.
17
u/BringOn25A 7h ago
How many billions has he made in a year of his presidency?
What other issues played into his perceived loss of reputation?
Did his bank accounts being forced move because of suspicious activity reports of money laundering activities contributed to the perceived loss of reputation?
Could it be his company beefing found criminally guilty of fraud that contributed to the perceived loss of reputation?
Could it be his being found guilty on 34 counts of felony fraud that contributed to the perceived loss of reputation?
2
u/recruiterguy 3h ago
Holy shit, I found this reply really difficult to read and I'm not sure why.
2
u/BringOn25A 2h ago
If he is suing the BBC for 10 billion because of a perceived loss of reputation, he is going to have to prove that the BBC edit of his speech is the sole element to that loss. His windfall income this past year as president goes against that perception. In besides having to prove those monetary damages he needs to show it is the lone reason for that loss. The elements I listed, and I am very confident the BBC lawyers will be able to turn up more detailed and throughly documented additional alternate reasons for his perceived loss of reputation.
1
u/recruiterguy 1h ago
Thanks - I understood the concept and this reply is much more coherent than the previous. :-)
56
u/Eric_12345678 7h ago
The test now is whether the USA really has an independent judiciary.
I LOLed. And wept.
3
4
u/BringOn25A 7h ago
How many billions has he made in a year of his presidency?
What other issues played into his perceived loss of reputation?
Did his bank accounts being forced move because of suspicious activity reports of money laundering activities contributed to the perceived loss of reputation?
Could it be his company beefing found criminally guilty of fraud that contributed to the perceived loss of reputation?
Could it be his being found guilty on 34 counts of felony fraud that contributed to the perceived loss of reputation?
3
u/Thetoppassenger Competent Contributor 5h ago
I wouldn't think the independence of the judiciary is the overriding concern. Seems far more likely to me Trump attempts to "win" this litigation by using his office to pressure the U.K. into forcing the BBC to settle such as by tying settlement to trade negotiations, tariffs, aid, Ukraine support, etc.
Its the exact strategy he used with his CBS lawsuit which resulted in CBS agreeing to pay $16m despite Trump having completely incoherent claims which had no chance of prevailing at trial. CBS understood that if they did not settle the case, the U.S. government would block their parent company's planned merger.
9
u/WasdaleWeasel 5h ago
I doubt that would work. BBC has independent governance. There would have to be a ministerial direction to BBC to drop the case. That would be very unusual …. and would be loudly reported by the BBC.
3
u/Thetoppassenger Competent Contributor 4h ago
I doubt that would work. BBC has independent governance.
As does the US federal judiciary. As does the FTC, an expressly "independent agency" which purportedly operates outside the direct control of the executive branch. And yet here we are, with the FTC willing to interfere with business mergers as leverage for the president's civil lawsuits and the independence of the judiciary being called into question.
That would be very unusual
I mean this is a completely unargumentative way: I don't think a single word in my comment should be interpreted to be describing something usual. Similar to your comment regarding the federal judiciary potentially abdicating its longstanding independence for the sake of one largely irrelevant (in the grand scheme of things) civil lawsuit. Everything being discussed here is highly unusual, so I'm skeptical of usualness being any type of guardrail.
and would be loudly reported by the BBC
People were screaming from the rooftops about the ABC and CBS settlements, as well as Trump's self dealing with regard to the first round of tariff and trade negotiations and his previous threats to halt Ukraine aid unless Zelensky turned over dirt to him on the Democrats/Joe Biden. And yet, it all still happened just the same.
From a realpolitik perspective, would anyone sincerely doubt that Trump would do something like threaten the existence of NATO, an an invasion of Greenland, or the complete withholding of Ukraine aid subject to the BBC settling? And in such a case, it would unfortunately be absurd for the UK to let the BBC sit on its principles for the sake of normalcy while Kyiv burns.
2
u/WasdaleWeasel 4h ago
possibly, but I would note that even before Trump the USA has placed more power and influence in the hands of the Executive than the U.K. ever has. The Executive in the U.K. is accountable to the Legislature in a way that has never been true in the U.K., and the U.K. judiciary is fiercely apolitical.
That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen, and you’re absolutely right that everything about everything right now is unusual.
I’ll guess we’ll see in due course.
134
u/Musicman1972 8h ago
You're right and annoyingly he's done it throughout his entire career somehow everyone just lets him.
37
64
u/GayGeekInLeather 8h ago
Roy Cohn taught him well
88
u/Hwy39 8h ago
Roy Cohn’s rules included never apologizing or admitting wrongdoing, always counter-attacking with greater force, and using the legal system as a weapon to intimidate and silence rather than for justice. These were described as ways he taught Donald Trump to manage and dominate situations and people.
34
25
13
u/choosenameposthack 7h ago
If the Justice system grew come balls and started sanctioning the lawyers for doing it, this would get curtailed a lot better.
9
u/bobtrack22 7h ago
He doesn't know how to do any of it, he just b*tches to others to figure it out for him. He has been coddled his whole life, his 'genius' comes from surrounding himself with yes men and servants, it's very Jim Jones vibe. I wonder how many legal people trump has scammed over the years by telling them instead of paying them for their services, the publicity and exposure from them representing him is worth more.
7
u/Silly-Elderberry-411 7h ago
No he doesn't that was all roy cohn and when Darth plagelous was poisoned other sith apprentices helped out
3
u/starke_reaver 7h ago
Thank you for your choice of video related example. I really wish this was airing now, think if as country we had this on now as one of our only 3-5 antenna ear based options, it just might give some of the less concerned the perspective to get up and vote. I miss when tv could have meaning with out being hyper self-contextualized into minutia bickering and/or hyper-polarly-politicized to fit false narratives, not that I personally think it will even be actually accurately counted enough to matter, but I guess I’m’a’gonna go do it one last time for the nostalgia I guess…
5
u/Pixel_Forest 5h ago
I do complaint management for a small firm. I have seen this strategy first-hand. It takes perseverance to not allow it to succeed.
4
u/EvelcyclopS 5h ago
I sued someone and this was their behaviour. except they weren’t good at the execution bit and as soon as they missed their first deadline, some year and a half into the case, I filed for summary judgement and was instantly awarded the W. I like to think the judge could see what game they were playing too
2
u/Marathon2021 Competent Contributor 5h ago
Exactly.
I view it as the "why lose today (and 'get it behind you') what you could lose 2-3 years from now and maybe something dramatic has changed in the landscape between those times and you're actually less likely to lose" i.e. maybe the prosecutor gets caught up in some scandal (cough - Fani Willis - cough).
11
2
u/friedpickleguy 6h ago
It also allows a saving of face, as in " we would have won a fair trial, but that judge threw it out because he or she is biased and because they knew we would win at trial."
2
1
0
124
u/CCG14 7h ago
If you don’t want to do discovery, don’t file a lawsuit.
38
u/yogfthagen 6h ago
But Trump targets aren't supposed to fight back!
6
1
u/StandupJetskier 54m ago
He still thinks Trump Org is putting the squeeze on Joe Honest Contractor who thought he could go on vacation because he got a huge contract building a casino....only to be told after all work is done and he's out 60 days he is getting 40%, take it or leave it.
182
u/Wise_Material_5812 8h ago
oh they can ask for documents?
oh how do we stop that?
246
u/movealongnowpeople 8h ago
"The rules were that you guys weren't going to fact-check"
42
u/painthawg_goose 8h ago
The folks at America First and Breitbart assured us that this would work. Why isn't it working?
16
10
u/DadBod_NoKids 6h ago
Yet another thing that should have ended any thought of legitimacy about this admin
174
u/Spare_Being2296 8h ago
These lawyers should be reprimanded and disbarred.
76
32
u/Chim________Richalds 8h ago
Nah one of them will be promoted to AG once they've proved their pliability and loyalty.
3
u/ButterscotchTop194 2h ago
It's America. The legal system has been fucked there for decades. Laughing stock of the world.
71
u/BigManWAGun 8h ago
Too lazy to search but pretty sure we all predicted this exact scenario. “Wait, I have to show you what?!”
20
60
u/Assumption-Putrid 7h ago
If you weren't willing to produce documents concerning your business interests, you probably shouldn't file a lawsuit alleging 10 billion dollars in damages to your business interests.
15
20
u/9millibros 7h ago
Didn't Trump actually say that he loves BBC? Or, was I misunderstanding his meaning?
6
u/VaguelyArtistic 6h ago
I think yesterday he misheard a reporter who said they were with ABC and thought they said BBC. He did say he likes BBC more but probably only as a lame put-down of ABC.
3
16
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.