Trump lawyers call BBC's Panorama defence 'untenable'

Donald Trump's lawyers have said in a new US court filing that aspects of the BBC's defence against his multi-billion dollar defamation lawsuit contain "untenable", "misplaced" and "unpersuasive" arguments.

The US president is suing the BBC over how his 6 January 2021 speech was edited in a Panorama documentary.

Last month, the BBC asked the Florida court to delay the process of discovery, where each side provides the other with relevant documents and evidence.

The corporation argued that because it plans to ask for the case to be dismissed by 17 March, discovery should be delayed until the court rules on that issue. But Trump's team said on Monday that they disagreed.

The president's lawyers argued that the Florida court "has established a high burden for granting a motion to stay discovery", adding that it would be "premature" to delay.

They said: "In short, defendants' merits arguments amount to just denials, disputes, and predictions about what plaintiff will or will not prove later.

"That is not a 'clear indication' that the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, and provides no basis to impose the extraordinary remedy of a discovery stay."

Court papers filed earlier this month by the BBC showed the broadcaster will argue that the Florida court lacks "personal jurisdiction" over it, that the court venue is "improper", and that Trump has "failed to state a claim".

But in Trump's filing on Monday, his team maintained its argument that Floridians did have access to the BBC programme, Trump: A Second Chance?, which was broadcast in the UK just before the 2024 presidential election.

A BBC spokesperson said: "As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

"The court documentation is available online and we won't be adding further to what is said in these documents at this stage."

The BBC previously apologised to Trump over the Panorama edit, but rejected his demands for compensation and disagreed there was a basis for a defamation and and trade practices claim.

A proposed trial date in 2027 has been indicated should the case progress.