I have not read the lawsuit, but did read the linked article. Excerpts from the DC Judge’s decision suggest his real reason for denying the subpoenas: protect the feds from having either to admit openly that the US government developed, or at least were aware of, election interference software and methods the CIA or DoD used to alter elections in Central America; or, claim Secrecy Privilege (i.e., admit it tacitly).
“irrelevant to this case because it is not the actual basis for Lindell’s statements about Dominion...”
One defense of a libel claim is that the claim is factually true; another is that the Defendant believed it to be true at the time. Evidence and testimony that show the claim was true, or even plausible, is thus material to the case. The Defendant need not have based his alleged libel on some other source, even one that turned out to be inaccurate, or if Defendant even knew of the actual evidence at the time, for new corroborative factual information to be relevant.
Example: Let’s say that someone believed rumors that a rich investor is engaged in child sex trafficking, published claims to that effect, then was sued for libel by that individual. Twelve years before the alleged libel, local law enforcement investigating victim complaints developed massive evidence of guilt. Due to the investor’s role in spying and blackmailing foreign spies via the trafficked children, the feds quashed the case and covered it up — but new victim complaints brought it all to the surface after the “libel”. What judge would declare that evidence “irrelevant” to the Defense, because it was not the Defendant’s actual basis for his “libelous” statements? What sort of Judge would refuse a subpoena for testimony of the original investigators about the old suppressed case? We know what sort...
Frankly a lot of judges. Related crimes from a decade ago don’t mean a crime was committed recently. We see that a lot in criminal cases where a guy robbed a bank a decade ago be held irrelevant to whether the accused robbed a bank last week.
Sort of like this. https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2024/04/19/trump-defense-seeks-to-limit-evidence-of-civil-fraud-bad-faith-litigation-at-criminal-trial/?slreturn=20240509121319