U.S. District Judge Roy Altman has temporarily blocked an order entered by Magistrate Judge Lett that required President Donald Trump to hand over financial records of his business empire to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
This week, the BBC was supposed to receive that financial data through discovery in Trump's ongoing $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the outlet, which claims a 2024 BBC documentary damaged his business and reputation by deceptively editing footage of his speech on January 6, 2021. Non-Party Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust sought an emergency stay of the order requiring financial disclosure arguing the irreperable harm casued by the disclosure of that information and Trump's intent to amend his complaint to eliminate allegations of harms to his business. The amended complaint will supposedly seek damages only related to the purported harm to Trump's reputation. The BBC, however, argues that Trump's financial records remain discoverable because his reputation is closely tied to his business interests. If the case goes forward, what Trump's reputation is and how it was harmed is sure to be interesting.
The order was filed yesterday. Judge Altman agreed with the non-party Trust's argument, calling it "compelling," and added that “If the plaintiff’s amendment obviates the need to compel a non-party to disclose confidential financial information, we think it’s prudent to enter a brief stay of the order until the amendment request is resolved.” Judge Altman's order postpones discovery of Trump's financial information until the court determines whether amendment of the complaint is appropriate and what effect, if any, the revised claims will have on the scope of discovery. No deadline has been set at the moment for when Trump has to file the updated complaint. Judge Altman's order can be found here.
10 comments:
Could you post a new link to the Order? The current one leads to this: "Notice - This document has been removed from Scribd."
Is there a typo in the blurb? I don’t understand the “we don’t think it’s prudent….” Who’s the “we?”
He just means the Court. He uses the royal we.
I updated the link but this should work: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.116.0.pdf. Thanks for alerting me.
This feels like non-news. The court stayed discovery that is likely to be irrelevant under a proposed amended complaint. Sort of non-controversial.
*obnoxiously
Roy and those, who control him, like the rest of the 45-47 bunch.
Yeah sure...
I’ve had much better trial and plea experiences with 45 than just about any other number.
@8:25. Agree wholeheartedly. Trump 1.0 (or, "45" if that's really what we're doing now) had serious humans recommending judicial appointments. Conservative, FedSoc people, for sure, but the fist term appointments were nearly all highly respected and undoubtedly qualified jurists.
Now - with 2.0 / "47" - the above is no longer true. At all. Project 2025 took care of that "problem."
Funniest part is the 1.0 appointees--dozens of them--who have enjoined or struck down 2.0 exec. actions and policies, only to then be openly castigated as "activists." And with "47" now claiming every time it happens that he just "didn't have good people advising him" on any of those appointments.
Congrats, GOP! This is what you voted for, or at least actively enabled. And congrats "moderate" Dems, too! What nice fodder (and a 4-year intensive planning period) the Biden presidency provided!
Post a Comment