Trump Lawsuit Against BBC Faces Dismissal Risk Over Deposition Question
A former White House attorney's public prediction highlights how a president's compliance with court-ordered discovery could determine whether the case proceeds or collapses on procedural grounds.
Former White House attorney Ty Cobb said on CNN Thursday night that President Trump would likely either skip a court-ordered deposition or leave before its completion, a move Cobb predicted would lead to the eventual dismissal of Trump's lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), according to a report by The Hill.
Cobb, who served as special counsel to President Trump during the first administration's response to the Mueller investigation, made the remarks after a federal judge ruled that Trump must sit for a deposition as part of the BBC litigation. The specific judge and court were reported by The Hill but the case's docket number and filing court were not named in the available source material. The full docket record would identify the presiding judge, jurisdiction, and precise discovery order.
Trump filed the lawsuit against the BBC, a British public broadcaster with a U.S. Presence, alleging the outlet published content that harmed him. The specific claims, causes of action, and dollar amounts sought are contained in the complaint filed with the court. The complaint is a public record and would detail the legal theories underpinning the suit.
Cobb told CNN host Erin Burnett that a president skipping or abandoning a court-ordered deposition would expose the case to dismissal under standard federal civil procedure rules. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action, when a party fails to comply with a discovery order. Whether the presiding judge would apply that sanction, or a lesser one, is unknown without reviewing the specific order and any subsequent filings.
The prediction from Cobb carries weight in legal commentary circles because of his direct White House experience, but it remains a prediction. Cobb does not represent the president in this matter. Who currently represents Trump in the BBC litigation is not specified in the available source material. The court's docket would name counsel of record for both parties.
Depositions of sitting presidents have a documented legal history. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Clinton v. Jones (1997) that a sitting president has no categorical immunity from civil litigation arising from unofficial acts, including the obligation to participate in discovery. That precedent directly applies to the BBC case if the conduct at issue predates or falls outside official duties, though whether the court has addressed that question in this proceeding is unknown from available records.
If Trump were to skip the deposition and the judge moved toward dismissal, that outcome would end Trump's ability to pursue the BBC claims in that court, barring an appeal or refiling. A voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, a sanctions-based dismissal by the court, and an appeal of any dismissal order each carry different procedural consequences, all of which would be reflected in court filings.
The BBC has not issued a public statement on Cobb's prediction, based on available source material. The BBC's legal response to the underlying complaint, including any motion to dismiss, would be on record with the court and would outline the broadcaster's defenses.
Several material facts remain unknown from available public records. These include the specific federal district where the lawsuit was filed, the case number, the date of the deposition order, whether Trump's legal team has filed any motion to quash or limit the deposition, and whether any compliance deadline has been set by the court. All of these details are contained in the case docket, which is publicly accessible through the federal PACER system under the case name and number.