Meghan Markle is working to block attempts to depose Prince Harry, according to reports. The Duchess of Sussex is responding to legal action by her half-sister.
Samantha Markle is suing Meghan over her interview with US television host Oprah Winfrey.
The royal engaged in a wide-ranging discussion, alongside her husband, with Ms Winfrey early last year.
It is understood that Samantha is also suing Meghan over material published in the “Finding Freedom” biography.
Newsweek reports that her lawyers are looking to depose Meghan’s father, Thomas, between October 5 and 21.
They are also reported to be seeking testimony from Prince Harry and Oprah.
The Duchess’s legal team has hit back, arguing that she did not make the statements in the biography, which was written by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.
They added that Meghan’s comments regarding her relationship with Samantha in the now famous Oprah interview were “non-actionable opinion that are also substantially true”.
Her lawyers submitted a filing which read: “A deposition of Mr Markle at this juncture, along with other discovery, would be an unnecessary spectacle and waste of the parties’ time, money, and resources.
READ MORE: Picardo calls for Gibraltar’s self-determination
It added that “the list of potential witnesses is substantially longer than in Prince Andrew’s sexual abuse lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre”.
The Duke of York has strenuously and vehemently denied the allegations made against him by his US accuser.
The paper quoted further filing by Meghan’s legal team about the long list of those Samantha’s legal team is said to be intent on deposing.
This read: “In addition to the parties, she [Samantha] identified a whopping 19 non-party witnesses, including Prince Harry, Meghan’s mother, Oprah Winfrey, and several journalists/media personalities who reside in the United Kingdom, including Scobie and Durand, the authors of Finding Freedom.”
The Duchess’s legal team have also asked the judge to halt the process of collecting and releasing evidence, known as discovery.
They argue this should be passed until after a ruling on whether the legal action should be thrown out altogether.