As the case in civil court turns on a preponderance is the evidence, trump offered no evidence to refute the claim. His liability was assured but this. The real question is why didn’t he mount a defense. My guess — more costly to be cross examined in open court under oath than pay a few million dollars.
Not putting on a defense were this criminal makes sense. As that burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. But for civil procedure — trump offered zero evidence. No defense was mounted.
What evidence can he produce if he doesn’t know when the incident supposedly happened? That’s my point. What is he supposed to testify to? He can’t possibly refute any of her claims because he has no idea when it occurred.