Meghan Markle could be hauled into court and forced to reveal private messages for a showdown with her half-sister Samantha Markle.
Samantha, 58, who claims that her 42-year-old half-sister defamed her in her bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview back in 2021, and also in her and Prince Harry's Netflix docuseries that came out a year ago, appeared in court this week to attempt to secure her defamation trial.
The hearing, which took place on November 8, at the Federal Court in Tampa, Florida, saw Samantha tell reporters that she is "optimistic" about her chances of success. Which comes as she seeks damages in excess of £61,000 ($75,000).
Samantha claims that Meghan's remarks caused her to lose sales of her book, The Diary of Princess Pushy's Sister.
And if the trial does happen to go ahead in 2024, with a date reportedly set in July, Meghan will have until January 2 to undergo "discovery". This would entail the former Suits star being forced to unearth private text messages, emails, and other documents that might be relevant to the case.
Samantha brought the defamation case against Meghan back in March 2022, one year after her Oprah interview and months before the Netflix docuseries dropped. In the case, Samantha alleged the Duchess had defamed her by giving information to an unauthorised biography called Finding Freedom and by discussing their relationship with Oprah on live TV.
She then accused Meghan and Harry's docuseries, which dropped onto the streaming platform Netflix a year ago, of spreading "malicious, hurtful, and damaging lies". The amended version of her suit was filed within hours of a two-week deadline a judge had set after previously granting Meghan's motion to dismiss the original claim.
Samantha alleges Meghan made comments seeking to "demonise" her and portray her as a "liar and fame seeker" in her show. She also claims some of Meghan's fans launched "hate-filled smear campaigns" against her.
However, Michael Kump, representing Meghan, denied that any statement from Meghan were libelous and said the case has no basis. He said: "This has always been a lawsuit in search of a viable claim. The case has failed because it runs head first up against defamation law and the First Amendment."
