Candace Owens vs. the Macrons: Discovery, Medical Exams, and the Limits of U.S. Defamation Law, By Charles Taylor (Florida)

When French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against American commentator Candace Owens, the story immediately drew headlines for its unusual subject matter: Owens' repeated public claim that Brigitte Macron was "born male."

This week the case took an even stranger turn. Owens told her audience she would seek a court-ordered medical examination of Brigitte Macron and subpoena her medical records, purportedly to prove that the First Lady's sex at birth matches Owens' statements or their falsity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAiShYLJi5k.

Setting aside the political spectacle, the key question is what U.S. civil procedure actually allows when a defamation suit moves into discovery, the phase where each side gathers evidence.

Discovery: Broad, But Not Without Limits

In U.S. federal and most state courts, discovery is indeed broad. Parties can demand documents, depose witnesses, and submit written questions (interrogatories). The idea is to ensure that each side has access to all relevant facts before trial.

However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Delaware's rules, which closely track them, limit discovery to evidence that is both relevant to the claims or defences and proportional to the needs of the case. Courts also guard certain private information, particularly medical records, with additional protections.

Physical and Mental Examinations: Rule 35

Owens is hinting at Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination. But the standard is high:

The party's physical condition must be "in controversy."

The moving party must show "good cause" for the examination.

These terms have been interpreted narrowly. Courts typically order such exams only when a plaintiff's physical or mental health is itself a central issue, such as in a personal injury lawsuit, a workers' compensation claim, or a case alleging emotional distress.

In a defamation case, the truth or falsity of the defendant's statements is central. But that does not mean the plaintiff's private medical history is automatically "in controversy" simply because the defendant made a salacious claim. In fact, U.S. courts have repeatedly held that a plaintiff does not place their entire medical history at issue simply by suing for defamation.

Likelihood of Success for Owens' Request

To persuade a court, Owens would need to argue that Brigitte Macron's biological sex is both:

1.Directly relevant to the truth or falsity of Owens' statements, and

2.Impossible to prove or disprove by less intrusive means.

Even if a court accepted that the claim of being "born male" goes to the heart of the defamation allegation, judges are extremely reluctant to compel a private medical exam when other forms of proof, birth certificates, contemporaneous records, family testimony, or photographs, could establish the facts.

In addition, Delaware law and U.S. privacy protections (including HIPAA) give patients strong rights to control disclosure of medical information. Courts often issue protective orders or simply deny overreaching requests.

What the Macrons' Lawyers Can Do

Brigitte Macron's attorneys have several avenues to resist:

Move for a protective order under Rule 26(c), arguing the request is invasive and not proportional.

Offer alternative evidence, such as certified birth records or sworn testimony, to satisfy any legitimate evidentiary need without exposing private medical data.

Emphasise the First Amendment's "actual malice" standard, which focuses on Owens' state of mind — whether she knew her statements were false or recklessly disregarded the truth — rather than the plaintiff's medical details.

Given those standards, most legal analysts expect a judge to reject a demand for a compulsory physical examination as unnecessary and overly intrusive.

Defamation and Free Speech

This dispute highlights a tension at the heart of U.S. defamation law. The First Amendment protects vigorous debate, but not knowingly false statements of fact that damage reputation. Public figures like the Macrons must meet the high "actual malice" bar set by New York Times v. Sullivan.

That means Owens' own intent, what she knew and whether she acted with reckless disregard for the truth, will likely determine the case. Discovery will focus less on Brigitte Macron's body and far more on Owens' communications, sources, and editorial process.

Owens' public vow to "demand Brigitte sit down for an exam with an independent doctor" may play well to an online audience, but under U.S. civil procedure it is largely a rhetorical flourish. Discovery is broad, yes, but courts safeguard personal medical information unless it is truly central to a legal claim.

In a Delaware courtroom, the real battle will almost certainly be over actual malice, not anatomy. The high-stakes spectacle may generate headlines, but the law is far more mundane, and far less likely to indulge a political show trial over someone's private medical records.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/candace-owens-fights-back-defamation-lawsuit-says-she/