while Judge John P. Howard questioned whether further fact-finding was warranted. On January 31, 2023, Joe Tacopina became Trump's lead lawyer in the case. On February 10, Tacopina indicated that Trump would be willing to provide a DNA sample, stating that "Mr. Trump's DNA is either on the dress or it is not," but stipulated that an appendix from Carroll's report (regarding her own DNA) must first be proffered and dictated that Trump's DNA would be submitted for the "sole purpose of comparing it to the DNA found on the dress". Stating that Trump had known about the DNA request for over three years, Carroll's lawyer asserted that the motion was a "bad-faith effort to taint the potential jury pool, upend this Court's discovery orders, and delay these proceedings". On February 15, Judge Kaplan dismissed Trump's offer as an out-of-line delay tactic. Further, the judge argued that the presence of Trump's DNA would not conclusively prove whether a rape occurred as no sperm cells were noted in the report. On February 16, Trump's lawyers requested that two separate sexual-assault allegations from Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff (who both allege that Trump began groping them without permission) and the Access Hollywood tape involving him be barred as evidence in the Carroll trial (the latter having been cited by Carroll's lawyer as evidence of a larger pattern of sexual misconduct). Carroll's counsel requested that the women who made the other two allegations be allowed to testify in her case as they demonstrate a "consistent pattern". In mid-February, the defense sought to conduct an expert-witness medical examination on Carroll (barred from directly evaluating the rape claim but seeking to evaluate whether their was resulting emotional damage). Following a conflict regarding scheduling and the availability of specific doctors, the defense counsel determined that was unethical to proceed with the evaluation "as limited by the current court order" and requested a two-week delay. On February 23, Trump's lawyers requested that the defamation claim in the second lawsuit be dismissed, arguing that his Truth Social post from October was merely a response regarding the first lawsuit which mostly repeated previous positions (despite making original incursions), and was thus protected under supposed "absolute litigation privilege" provided by New York State Civil Rights Law § 74. See also List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump References Footnotes Citations 2019 scandals Donald Trump controversies Scandals in the United States Sexual