After at least five attempts to demand President Donald Trump sit for a deposition in his own lawsuit, Mary Trump’s legal team revealed that the parties “are at an impasse” as the calendar turns ever closer to the end of discovery.

The letter noted that discovery in the case is set to close in October, making the president’s deposition — of uncertain status for up to 10 weeks now — timely and fit to take place on dates from Aug. 11-22 or Sept. 7-19.

“[T]he parties are at an impasse with respect to scheduling President Trump’s deposition prior to the discovery deadline,” the letter said. “While President Trump is obligated to sit for a deposition, as the Court has already recognized, Defendant has been unable to secure President Trump’s agreement—despite at least five requests in the past 10 weeks—to appear for a deposition on any specific date or dates before the close of discovery.”

As Mary Trump’s team stated she “would sit for a deposition in close proximity to President Trump’s deposition,” Trump attorney Michael Madaio disputed the defendant’s “characterization of the parties’ deposition discussions” as stonewalled.

Trump, the president, is just busy, Madaio said.

“President Trump has not refused to appear for a deposition, and counsel is working to identify mutually agreeable dates with President Trump,” the letter said. “As the current President of the United States, President Trump has unique and pressing obligations that necessarily require careful coordination of his schedule.”

“While President Trump has not yet provided specific dates of availability, discussions remain ongoing. Defendant, for her part, has not provided her availability to date despite request, but President Trump will continue to work with Defendant to identify an agreeable date,” the plaintiff’s attorney continued. “President Trump also intends to serve a deposition notice for Defendant shortly.”

The joint submission to New York Supreme Court Justice Robert R. Reed further noted that the parties are waiting on the court’s decision as to Mary Trump’s last-ditch bid to compel the discovery of documents on the “valuation” of her grandfather Fred Trump Sr.’s estate.

“On June 20, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to Reargue its Rule 14 submission seeking to compel President Trump to produce documents relevant to Defendant’s fraudulent inducement affirmative defense,” the parties summarized. “That motion was fully briefed as of July 25, 2025, and is awaiting the Court’s decision.”

The defense has called the “Estate Valuation Materials” crucial to Mary Trump’s ability to prove that she was fraudulently induced into a 2001 Trump family settlement, making a “confidentiality provision” she signed void and exposing her uncle’s breach of contract case as nothing but a castle built on sand.

To date, Reed multiple times denied the defendant the discovery she seeks, even though she claims it is “relevant, indeed central, to a live affirmative defense in this case.”

“Defendant seeks the ‘Estate Valuation Materials’ because they are necessary to demonstrate that she was deliberately misled into entering into the settlement agreement by Plaintiff’s misrepresentations about the value of assets at issue in the underlying estate litigation,” Mary Trump’s most recent filing said. “Those materials are plainly relevant and discoverable under the CPLR.”

The president has claimed that his niece, the New York Times, and Times reporters Susanne Craig, David Barstow, and Russell Buettner “maliciously conspir[ed] against him” in an “insidious plot” to expose his confidential tax records and accusing him of “outright fraud” in the Pulitzer Prize-winning story headlined, “Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father.”

Madaio weeks ago asked Reed to reject Mary Trump’s motion to reargue her discovery position just as the judge has done “two other times already.”

While Mary Trump has claimed the judge “overlooked or misapprehended material facts regarding the state of the pleadings, as well as governing law,” when he refused to allow discovery two months ago and hamstrung her “fraud defense,” the Trump team answered that Reed should simply stick with his prior reasoning and put a definitive end to the defendant’s fishing expedition.

Years earlier, Reed decided that Mary Trump “clearly and unambiguously released [Trump family] defendants from unknown claims, including fraud claims” when she signed the 2001 agreement, meaning her then-lawsuit should fail along with her discovery quest.