Court Denies Discovery Request in Trump Defamation Suit Against Wall Street Journal

, the publisher of the Wall Street Journal. The case stems from an article published by the Journal that linked President Trump to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump filed the complaint on July 18, 2025, alleging defamation. On April 13, 2026, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

The dismissal was based on Trump's failure to plausibly allege that the defendants acted with actual malice. The following day, on April 14, 2026, Trump filed a motion seeking leave to conduct limited discovery. The motion asked for information on how each defendant acted with actual malice, how the defendants purposefully avoided the truth of the statements at issue, and how the defendants allegedly obtained the letter and verified its contents, including Trump's signature.

The court rejected the request. It cited Supreme Court precedent stating that the doors of discovery do not unlock for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. The ruling stated that discovery follows the filing of a well-pleaded complaint and is not a device to enable a plaintiff to make a case when the complaint has failed to state a claim.

In defamation cases involving a public figure plaintiff, courts have recognized a powerful interest in ensuring that free speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity of defending expensive yet groundless litigation. The actual malice standard was designed to allow publishers the breathing space needed to ensure robust reporting on public figures and events.

Forcing publishers to defend such suits through expensive discovery proceedings would constrict that breathing space. The costs and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through that stage of litigation could chill free speech nearly as effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether, according to the ruling citing an Eleventh Circuit decision.

The court determined that allowing discovery on actual malice, where the initial complaint fell short of stating a claim, would constitute the type of expensive yet groundless litigation that the standard was intended to prevent.