Pulitzer Prize Board members dump broad discovery demands on Trump for tax returns, psych records, and any prescription
Source: Law & Crime
Dec 15th, 2025, 12:13 pm
Pulitzer Prize Board members filed court documents in Okeechobee County, Florida, on Thursday, containing a litany of broad discovery demands in an attempt to beat back President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit over Russia probe reporting awards.
The 12-page document was submitted by the law firms of Ballard Spahr and Atherton Galardi Mullen & Reeder on behalf of 20 defendants.
The defendants include: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation president Elizabeth Alexander, The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum, longtime Boston Globe editor Nancy Barnes, former Columbia University president Lee C. Bollinger, author and journalist Katherine Boo, Poynter Institute president Neil Brown, former USA Today Editor-in-Chief Nicole Carroll, former Columbia Journalism School dean Steve Coll, New York Times opinion columnist Gail Collins, Vice President and Editor at Large for Standards at the Associated Press John Daniszewski, Editor and Vice President at the Philadelphia Inquirer Gabriel Escobar, UCLA historian and professor Kelly Lytle Hernandez, longtime Pulitzer Prize Deputy Administrator Edward Kliment, New York Times columnist Carlos Lozada, former Los Angeles Times Executive Editor Kevin Merida, Pulitzer Prize Administrator Marjorie Miller, USC professor Viet Thahn Nguyen, CEO and co-founder of The 19th Emily Ramshaw, New Yorker editor David Remnick, and Harvard University philosophy professor Tommie Shelby.
The "first set of requests for production of documents" gives Trump 30 days, as of Dec. 11, to respond and contemplates the plaintiff's attorneys at Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., raising privilege claims.
Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pulitzer-prize-board-members-fight-back-with-wide-ranging-discovery-demands-including-about-trump-finances/
Full headline: Pulitzer Prize Board members dump broad discovery demands on Trump for tax returns, psych records, and 'any' prescription meds history
Link to FILING (PDF) - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26377795/pulitzer.pdf
REFERENCES
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143382693
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143200824
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143069598
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143248643
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142944514
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142914398
BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)dweller
(27,853 posts)Coming in 3 2 1
✌🏻
erronis
(22,677 posts)dweller
(27,853 posts)same thing
✌🏻
Brother Buzz
(39,578 posts)My Magic 8 Ball is suggesting the marmalade shartcannon is gonna quietly pull up stakes and slink away from this lawsuit.
erronis
(22,677 posts)BlueKota
(5,053 posts)tanyev
(48,672 posts)
Deuxcents
(25,544 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(27,388 posts)calimary
(89,047 posts)riversedge
(79,488 posts)My guess is that Trump will fold. Too many secrets will come out.
Trump's Pulitzer lawsuit just backfired spectacularly, the board is demanding his tax returns, psych records, and meds to prove his "damages," and he's got 30 days to comply or fold like his other media suits.
Link to tweet
?s=20
Occupy Democrats @OccupyDemocrats
·
8h
BREAKING: Pulitzer Board turns the tables on Trump in defamation lawsuit demands discovery of ALL his finances and medical records in explosive legal fight.
Donald Trump thought he could bully and intimidate the Pulitzer Prize Board into submission. Instead, the Board just hit back hard.
According to a new report from Law & Crime, members of the Pulitzer Prize Board are fighting Trumps lawsuit with sweeping discovery demands that could pry open one of his most closely guarded secrets: his finances. After Trump sued the Board for standing by Pulitzer-winning reporting on his links to Russia reporting that he despises the Board is now insisting that if Trump wants to litigate, hes going to have to play by the rules and answer uncomfortable questions under oath.
Trumps lawsuit claims the Board defamed him by refusing to retract awards given to journalists whose reporting detailed his ties to Russia. But the Board isnt backing down. Instead, its lawyers are demanding broad discovery, including documents and testimony that go directly to Trumps wealth, business interests, medical history, and credibility areas that have long proven hazardous terrain for the president.
In court filings, the Board argues that Trump himself made his finances relevant by repeatedly injecting claims about his success, reputation, and damages into the case. In other words: if Trump says the reporting hurt his standing, then the truth about his money matters a lot.
Legal experts say this is a classic be careful what you wish for moment. Trump has spent years attacking journalists, institutions, and independent watchdogs, assuming intimidation would be enough. But discovery cuts both ways. If this case proceeds, Trump could be forced to turn over records he has spent decades concealing and sit for depositions that cant be spun away with late-night rants on social media.
The Pulitzer Boards message is unmistakable: theyre not afraid of Trump, and theyre not rewriting history because he doesnt like it. The awards were granted, the reporting stands, and now Trump may have to answer in a courtroom, not on Truth Social.
This legal counterpunch also exposes the deeper irony of Trumps crusade. A man who claims to champion free speech is trying to punish journalists for doing their jobs while crying victim when those journalists, and the institutions that defend them, refuse to cave.
If Trump thought this lawsuit would intimidate the press, it may end up doing the opposite. By opening the door to discovery into his finances and credibility, hes handed his critics exactly what theyve been asking for: accountability.
And this time, it wont be decided by a rally crowd or a rage post itll be decided under oath............
Link to tweet
?s=20
wolfie001
(7,100 posts)[img]
[/img]Alice Kramden
(2,880 posts)I wish a past litigant had done this sooner
ScratchCat
(2,688 posts)Why hasn't the suit already been dismissed on its face? He has no standing to sue them in any way, shape or form for not "retracting" prizes awarded to critics of him. The suit doesn't even make legal sense.