Judge Lett rules Trump must face the BBC deposition process

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · October 22, 2026

Donald Trump seeks $10 billion from the BBC but avoids discovery, leading Judge Enjoliqué Lett to order a deposition or risk dismissal of the suit.

Donald Trump is wrong to treat the rules of civil procedure as optional. He filed a lawsuit seeking $10 billion in damages. He now attempts to avoid the very process that determines if those damages exist. In a civil suit, the party that brings the claim must open their records and answer questions. You cannot demand a windfall from a defendant while shielding yourself from the truth. By attempting to evade his deposition, the president is not defending the office. He is attempting to break the machinery of the court.

The price of a plaintiff's claim

A deposition is an out-of-court statement made under oath in response to questions. It is recorded for use in later proceedings. It is the primary tool of discovery, the pre-trial phase where parties exchange evidence. As NBC News reports, the discovery period in this case is scheduled to close on December 18.

The record shows a pattern of avoidance. President Trump canceled a deposition scheduled for October 16. His lawyers cited "matters of national importance." The facts tell a different story. On that day, he attended a midterms campaign rally in Dalton, Georgia and a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. As The Guardian reports, BBC attorney Charles Tobin noted that the president prioritized party politics over the court's schedule.

This is a familiar script. In Trump v. CNN, the plaintiff initiated a defamation suit for a large sum, only to find that discovery exposes the plaintiff to questioning under oath. The president's team proposed moving the deposition to January. US Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett rejected the delay. She ordered the deposition to occur by December 11.

The law does not grant a plaintiff the right to pick and choose which parts of the process he likes. If you seek $10 billion, you are the "single most important witness." You do not get to hide behind a campaign schedule.

The reach of professional reputation

The dispute extends beyond the deposition to the walls of Mar-a-Lago. The BBC issued a subpoena for membership applications and fees at the club. Alejandro Brito, the attorney for the president, moved to quash this. He argued that the president's occupation is the president of the United States. He claimed the club has nothing to do with that occupation.

This argument fails the test of the record. The lawsuit alleges the BBC "intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively" doctored a speech. It claims this depiction injured the president in his "profession, occupation and trade." If the president claims his professional reputation was harmed, the court must be able to measure that harm.

Judge Lett ruled that the Mar-a-Lago records fall within the scope of discoverable information. She found that the club is intertwined with his profession. The way he conducts business at Mar-a-Lago reflects the reputation he claims was damaged. This is the same struggle seen in Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News, where the defendant struggled with the production of evidence and depositions during discovery.

The mechanism here is settled law. In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court established that a sitting president has no immunity from civil law litigation for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office. There is no temporary immunity. There is no delay of federal cases until the president leaves office. The president in this case is a plaintiff in a private civil matter. He is subject to the same discovery rules as any other citizen.

The risk of a dismissed suit

The court's patience has reached its limit. Judge Lett has warned that the lawsuit could be dismissed if the president does not produce the information the BBC is entitled to. The BBC has issued at least 47 subpoenas to private advisers and government officials. These include Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Bill Barr, and Pat Cipollone.

In contrast, the plaintiff has produced little. Judge Lett told Alejandro Brito that it "strains credulity" that a thorough search had been done to respond to requests. She stated the court is not satisfied that anyone is doing a thorough job. This mirrors the behavior in Trump v. Washington Post, where the plaintiff attempted to avoid the burdens of discovery and the scrutiny of a sworn deposition.

The president's team has 30 days to produce relevant documents. Judge Lett was clear: this is the last opportunity. Failure to do so could result in sanctions, including the dismissal of the suit for failure to prosecute. This is the same tension found in Trump v. E. Jean Carroll, where the plaintiff attempted to use claims of national importance to shield himself from discovery.

The BBC has admitted to splicing comments from the January 6, 2021, speech. They apologized for the error. They stated the broadcast gave the "mistaken impression" that the president made a direct call for violent action. But an apology is not a confession of defamation. For the suit to move forward, the plaintiff must prove actual damages. He cannot prove damages while refusing to be deposed.

The president's legal team will likely seek an emergency writ of mandamus to block the deposition and the Mar-a-Lago subpoena. They will argue that the burdens on a head of state violate the separation of powers. This will fail. The separation of powers is not a cloak for a plaintiff who wants the reward of a judgment without the burden of a deposition. If the president continues to obstruct the discovery process, the BBC will move to dismiss the action with prejudice. The court will likely grant it. A plaintiff who refuses to testify in his own case has no case.

Judge Lett rules Trump must face the BBC deposition process

The price of a plaintiff's claim

The reach of professional reputation

The risk of a dismissed suit

Sources