Well. Trump Was Deposed, In NYSD Case, About Stealing "Electric Avenue". But He Will Not/Cannot Explain... Who Might Know Anything. Vexatious Deposition Tactics.

Not surprising. But it is plainly bad faith, under the federal rules of civil procedure to have the president of an entity come to an hours long deposition, without preparing. To testify under oath that he isn't a "responsible officer", and he "doesn't know" who might be -- even though the entity is called "Trump for President 2020."

It is also bad faith, not to disclose that the entity was dissolved about a year prior -- likely right after Mr. Grant served it papers, in this suit. Here is the letter requesting an extension, to get Dan Scavino. . . properly served a subpoena:

. . .There have been two previous extensions for Defendants to locate and produce a corporate representative of Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which were so ordered by the Court on June 14 (ECF Doc. No. 67) and July 13, 2022 (ECF Doc. No. 69).

The extensions both followed President Trump’s deposition, which occurred on June 9, 2022. [It is clear from the context, here that Tangerine himself said he did not know who would be a qualified representative of his own organization.]

On August 16, 2022, for the first time, Defendants represented that they would not be able to locate a corporate representative to testify on behalf of the Company and thus would not be producing a 30(b)(6) witness or witnesses to respond to Plaintiff’s deposition notice (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1). Then, on August 18, 2022, Defendants disclosed that the Company dissolved in October of 2021. . . .

Given these recent developments, Plaintiffs seek a 45 day extension to serve a subpoena on Dan Scavino, the former deputy chief of staff under President Trump’s administration and social media director for the Trump campaign. Mr. Scavino is reported to have frequently authored and/or reviewed Mr. Trump’s tweets and Defendants have represented that Mr. Scavino had a role in the alleged tweet containing the infringing video. Defendants have also represented that Mr. Scavino was not employed by the Company. Plaintiffs have requested Mr. Scavino’s last known address from Defendants and Defendants have responded by providing Plaintiffs with Mr. Scavino’s attorney’s contact information. . . .

Now you know. What a wise-guy / mob-boss approach he takes. . . to everything. Anyone who would vote for him now. . . is purely voting for. . . mob rule. Ugly.

But I remain very comfortable about the mid-terms, and yet another blue wave in the Senate / Congressional races. Grin.

नमस्ते