This article is about Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC,( which he filed claiming that BBC news defamed him in their reporting, by deceptively editing a video of Trump .)
The lawsuit is now at the stage of discovery, and the BBC’s lawyers are demanding to depose witnesses, which means interviewing Trump in person.
Trump is refusing to cooperate.
The judge says he will “sanction” Trump.
My question is : What does this mean–what powers does the judge have? And how can he enforce them?
Failing to comply with the court’s schedule for discovery in the case, Lett wrote Friday “will lead to sanctions.”
/quote
Sanctions in such a scenario could be adverse rulings on costs, or adverse rulings on evidence, for instance a preclusion according to which future evidence would not be admitted. See here:
Normally, refusal to be disposed if subpoenaed could be contempt of court, but I suppose presidential immunity would protect Trump in this regard. Sanctions that operate within the pending litigation, such as adverse costs orders or preclusion of evidence, would, however, be possible.
Disclaimer: I’m a lawyer, but not an American one, so I’m taking this from principles of law that are similar across jurisdictions as well as from the civil procedure rules I linked to.
TL;DR version (as it sounds to me): the judge can make rulings about the evidence that would lead to Trump losing the case, and rulings about who pays court costs and attorneys’ fees that could cost Trump money, so not only would he not win any money, but would walk away with less than he came in with (always assuming they can figure out a way to make him actually pay).
Follow-up question: Trump’s favorite tactic in cases of adverse decisions by a court is to keep appealing upward until the decision is reversed. Since this is a civil case, and the adverse rulings would be the results of Trump’s own (in)actions, what can he do about it if this goes badly for him?
I suspect as an owner of assets personally - golf courses, -lagos, penthouses, etc - his assets are available for seizure and forced sale if it comes down to that. Technically some are owned by Trump Enterprises, so that would mean his share of the enterprises would be available for seizure.
Recall the case of the guy who was harrassed by a bank that mistakenly foreclosed on him, costing him money. He took them to court, they ignored him… until he got a judgement and a bunch of US marshalls helped him start carrying out computers and office furniture from one of the branches.
Well, that’s not exactly a particularly screwed tactic but rather precisely what the appeals process exists for. Anyway, AIUI, sanctions rulings under rule 37 are not appealable separately, but the final judgment determining the litigation in which the sanction was imposed is, just like any other judgment. So if the trial court holds that because of Trump’s refusal to be disposed, certain facts are deemed uncontested, and Trump loses the case on this ground, he could appeal this judgment to the Court of Appeal of the relevant circuit (Eleventh, in this case). Since such appeals are on matters of law only, he’d have to argue that in doing so, the District Court misapplied the federal rules on evidence.