The British Broadcasting Corp signaled some of its defenses against US President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit, telling a judge that the documentary at the center of the case was fair despite a misleading edit of one segment.

The BBC on Monday asked a federal judge in Miami to pause the exchange of evidence in the suit, filed last month, until a ruling is issued on the broadcaster’s motion to dismiss the case, which is due in March.

ALSO READ: Trump sues BBC for $10b over 2024 documentary edit

The BBC also said it will aim to move the case to New York from Florida if the suit isn’t dismissed, because the claims relate to a documentary that BBC “did not create in Florida, produce in Florida, or air in Florida.”

Trump sued over a misleading edit in a documentary before the 2024 presidential election that gave the impression he’d made a direct call for violence in a speech before the Jan 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by his supporters.

READ MORE: BBC board member Banerji resigns after Trump documentary edit

BBC Chairman Samir Shah acknowledged Nov 10 that the edited footage of Trump’s speech, aired on the Panorama program in 2024, wrongly gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.” Days later, the broadcaster issued a second apology, but rejected the president’s demand for compensation.

According to the filing Monday, Trump's lawsuit fails to meet the high bar necessary for alleging defamation against a public figure. The standard requires a showing of what’s known as actual malice, meaning the allegedly defamatory statement was made intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

READ MORE: BBC boss and head of news quit after criticism of Trump documentary edit

“The lack of actual malice is underscored by the fact that the brief clip, which shows less than 15 seconds of plaintiff's speech on January 6, is part of an hour-long film containing extensive coverage of his supporters and balanced coverage of his path to reelection,” the BBC’s lawyers wrote.

Trump’s legal team did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.