Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(172,815 posts)
Mon Jun 8, 2026, 06:14 PM 8 hrs ago

Judge orders Trump lawyers to explain why they shouldn't be sanctioned for blowing off key deadline

Source: Law & Crime

Jun 8th, 2026, 4:21 pm


A Florida attorney handling multiple defamation lawsuits on behalf of President Donald Trump has been ordered to explain why he shouldn't be sanctioned for "apparent disregard of court deadlines.". A Monday order from U.S. District Judge Roy Altman to Alejandro Brito and his co-counsel Edward A. Paltzik and Daniel Z. Epstein contemplated a scenario in which the Trump-appointed jurist could grant the British Broadcasting Corporation's pending motion to dismiss by treating it as "unopposed."

Law&Crime previously reported on a joint request from Trump and the BBC to set a discovery hearing, one that would in part address virtually the "same records" former special counsel Jack Smith pursued against Trump to prosecute him for Jan. 6. The theory of Trump's lawsuit is that the BBC should be on the hook for some $10 billion because "Trump: A Second Chance," a Panorama documentary, "falsely depicted" him telling his supporters, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

The BBC admitted that the documentary "gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action" by editing together "excerpts from different points in the speech" out of sequence. When the lawsuit followed nonetheless, the BBC moved to throw out the "entire" case for failing to state a claim and for jurisdictional defects. Further, the BBC sought documents it said would tend to show that it's substantially true that Trump "fomented the violence" on Jan. 6.

To that end, the defendants dug in on discovery, subpoenaing 47 third parties — including Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner — for "[a]ll Documents and Communications Concerning the attack on the U.S. Capitol following the 'Stop the Steal' rally on January 6, 2021" and all the documents the parties provided to or received from the Jan. 6 Committee, Smith, congressional committees, among other entities. Trump's legal team was supposed to file its response to the BBC's dismissal motion on Friday. But the filing never came, the judge noticed, and now there's a mess to clean up.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-orders-trump-lawyers-to-explain-why-they-shouldnt-be-sanctioned-for-blowing-off-key-deadline-in-presidents-own-defamation-lawsuit/



Full headline: Judge orders Trump lawyers to explain why they shouldn't be sanctioned for blowing off key deadline in president's own defamation lawsuit

REFERENCES

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143597721 (has earlier references)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143633451
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143674733
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge orders Trump lawyers to explain why they shouldn't be sanctioned for blowing off key deadline (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 8 hrs ago OP
Dismiss, with prejudice! dickthegrouch 8 hrs ago #1
I can't see the judge dismissing the case over this. onenote 8 hrs ago #2
There were apparently other issues that came up last week BumRushDaShow 7 hrs ago #3

dickthegrouch

(4,706 posts)
1. Dismiss, with prejudice!
Mon Jun 8, 2026, 06:54 PM
8 hrs ago

Sanction for filing a frivolous case.
Sanction for attempted extortion.
Sanction for failing to reciprocate in the discovery process.
Recommend for disbarment on the basis of the facts currently available as to the status of the case.

onenote

(46,281 posts)
2. I can't see the judge dismissing the case over this.
Mon Jun 8, 2026, 06:54 PM
8 hrs ago

Why? Well, because the BBC hasn't requested it be dismissed for Trump's failure to timely file his opposition to the motion to dismiss. And more significantly because the two procedural motions filed the day the opposition was due -- one seeking leave to file excess pages and one seeking leave to attache documents to the opposition under seal -- were consented to by the BBC and, in fact, the BBC and Trump agreed that the BBC also would get era pages to respond to Trump's opposition.

BumRushDaShow

(172,815 posts)
3. There were apparently other issues that came up last week
Mon Jun 8, 2026, 07:40 PM
7 hrs ago
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143674733

But this OP isn't talking about the "sanction" being a "dismissal". It's a finger wagging exercise that is documenting what is becoming an accumulation of demerits.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge orders Trump lawyer...