Court clears path for discovery in suit against Trump
A New York appeals court denied President Trump’s request to suspend a defamation suit against him Thursday, clearing the way for an exhaustive inquiry of how he handled accusations of sexual misconduct during the 2016 campaign.
The ruling allows Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” to gather evidence on Trump’s alleged misconduct with at least 10 women who went public with their accusations when he was running for president.
In October 2016, Zervos alleged that Trump tried to force himself upon her in 2007 at a dinner in the bungalow where he was staying at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
Trump responded by charging that Zervos and all of the other women were lying. Zervos sued Trump for defamation a few days before his inauguration, seeking a retraction, an apology and unspecified damages.
A judge rejected Trump’s request to dismiss the suit in March, saying, “No one is above the law.”
On Thursday, the appellate panel refused to postpone discovery in the case while Trump appeals the lower court’s refusal to drop the case. The discovery process could ultimately include a deposition of Trump.
Zervos will now be able to enforce her subpoena for a trove of Trump campaign documents. She has sought all records concerning accusations that Trump “subjected any woman to unwanted sexual touching and/ or sexually inappropriate behavior.”
The subpoena demands all of the campaign’s records on the “Access Hollywood” tape of Trump saying in 2005 that women let him grab their crotch because he’s a celebrity.
It also seeks financial records on Trump’s dining expenses the night that Zervos says he pressed himself against her in an attempt to initiate sex at the hotel.
“It is important that Trump provide answers through the discovery process a.s.a.p.,” attorney Gloria Allred said on Twitter.
Allred filed the lawsuit for Zervos but no longer represents her.
Marc Kasowitz, an attorney for Trump, called the appeals court ruling incorrect.
“It is also completely and unjustifiably contrary to the stays the courts uniformly granted when deciding whether a lawsuit against President Clinton could proceed in federal court,” he said, alluding to the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
“There is no valid reason in this case — in which plaintiff is seeking merely $3,000 in damages, and which plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly insisted was brought for political purposes — for the court not to grant the requested stay in order to take the time to first decide the threshold constitutional issue that is at stake.”