Judge orders Trump to hand financial records of 400+ companies to BBC

Full text

MIAMI, Florida– A federal magistrate judge ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump must turn over detailed financial information in connection with his defamation lawsuit against the BBC.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett concluded that Trump’s sweeping complaint put injury to his businesses at the forefront and made their vitality a fair subject for the BBC to demand information about.

“All of President Trump’s brand, properties and businesses are impugned or said to have been impugned. Reputational, economic damages, all of that is now at issue in this case,” Lett said at the conclusion of a three-hour hearing.

Her decision opened the door for the BBC to explore the finances of more than 400 companies owned by a Trump family trust, but Trump can appeal the ruling to U.S. District Court Judge Roy Altman, a Trump appointee.

Leaving court, Trump attorney Al Brito declined to comment on Lett’s decision or whether Trump will appeal.

Trump’s lawyers had tried to head off the ruling by backing away from some of his initial damage claims, giving up on assertions that the 2024 BBC documentary had caused him economic injuries and diminished the value of his companies.

Brito told Lett the president’s approach to the case has “evolved” and he is now pursuing only damage to his reputation — not his businesses — as a result of how the BBC spliced together portions of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021 speech. Trump contends that the edit made it sound like he called for violence when he did not.

“The damages are limited in a way that is different from when the case was originally filed,” Brito said in court. “Even if there has been a harm to the brand, we are not pursuing that as part of our damages….It’s a far more narrow scope of what this case is about.”

A lawyer for the BBC, Chuck Tobin, said the distinction Trump’s lawyers were seeking to draw between his reputation and his business was meaningless.

“He ran for president of the United States on a platform of the art of the deal,” Tobin said. “You cannot separate the man and his reputation from his operation of his businesses.”

Lett said she lacked the power to drop the allegations of business damages from the complaint.

The hearing could serve as a reminder to Trump that the headline-grabbing lawsuits he’s fond of filing against media outlets are a two-way street, giving the press added leverage to pry into his business dealings and controversial episodes he might prefer to consign to history.

During the first hearing on the BBC suit since Trump filed it last December, it was evident that the BBC is trying to make it more painful for the president to continue with the litigation. Tobin revealed that the BBC is pressing for Trump to answer the network’s questions under oath.

“They have ignored our request to schedule the president’s deposition,” the attorney said. “They’re dragging their feet on giving me a date for the president’s deposition.”

If the suit continues, Trump is virtually certain to be required to sit for a deposition. However, the BBC has moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the UK-based broadcaster lacks enough of a presence in south Florida to give the court here jurisdiction over the network. Altman has yet to rule or schedule a hearing on that motion.

Lett delivered a split decision Tuesday on other issues in dispute in the case: whether and to what extent the BBC can demand information and testimony about what Trump intended on Jan. 6 and how people interpreted it.

Brito said Trump’s intent and how others described the impact of his words were irrelevant because the suit focuses solely on the words Trump used. “What matters is what he said relative to what was broadcast that he said. That’s it. There’s nothing more that needs to be examined,” the attorney argued.

Brito also repeatedly seized on the written apology BBC Chairman Samir Shah issued to Trump last November, acknowledging that the program “gave the mistaken impression that you had made a direct call for violent action.”

“He acknowledged the falsity,” Brito said.

But another lawyer for the BBC, Sasha Dunning, noted that Shah described the editing issue as unintentional. And she said the intended gist of Trump’s speech is fair for the BBC’s defense team to explore, pointing to Trump’s denial in the suit that he did anything to foment the assault many of his supporters carried out on the Capitol.

“It’s what his implication is, what the speech meant, how it was heard by his supporters that remains directly at issue…He has to show that he did not foment violence that day,” Dunning said.

Lett sided with the BBC’s attorneys on the central point, while declaring that the network went too far in some requests to delve into the findings of various investigations into Jan. 6.

“All of the impressions that were received by President Trump’s statements on Jan 6 are at issue,” the judge said. “The full relitigation of Jan. 6 is not at issue.”

Trump’s lawyers tried in recent months to have Lett thrown off the case because as a private lawyer she represented a British private investigation firm Trump sued in connection with a so-called dossier it produced about his alleged ties to Russia. Lett and Altman rejected that request.

The BBC’s full court press against Trump also includes asking a federal judge in Washington to release more details on Trump’s fight to prevent his staffers from testifying before a grand jury investigating his actions related to the 2020 election.

Judge James Boasberg previously released to the media some details on those closed-door legal fights, but the BBC says it is entitled to more to defend itself in the Florida suit. The Justice Department told Boasberg last week that it opposes any further disclosures.