General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California" [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I assume that such disclosure is what you mean.
Most courts do take discovery very seriously. The old days of trial by ambush are over. Litigants must make extensive disclosures, on pain of having sanctions applied, up to and including having the case determined against them without ever going to a jury.
Nevertheless, courts recognize that tax returns include a great deal of information that implicates privacy concerns. A party would have to make a strong showing of relevance to the case. For example, a contractor who was stiffed on a bill or a special prosecutor investigating something like the Bondi donations would have no legitimate basis for obtaining Trump's complete tax returns.
If some particular item on the returns were deemed potentially relevant, Trump might be ordered to produce the returns in camera, meaning that the documents are provided only to court personnel, not to the opposing litigants or their lawyers. For purposes of the case, the court might say only something like "The court has confirmed that Mr. Trump took a deduction of $___ for thus-and-such."
These are the standards that are applied to any ordinary litigant. That Trump is President would not give any special privileges, but the flip side is that no court would order disclosure out of a belief that the President's finances should be public knowledge. Disclosure would have to relate to the much narrower issues in the particular case that was pending before that judge. I won't rule it out completely, but it's very unlikely.