Denied

I'm sure he did.

Mehta ordered Trump to begin describing the basis for his claim that he is immune from the lawsuits because his actions on Jan. 6 were part of his official duties as president. Trump had urged Mehta to sideline the lawsuits in part because he argued that disclosing details about his claim of presidential immunity could undermine his criminal defense.

  Politico

Because why?

Mehta, however, said questions about Trump’s immunity in the context of his lawsuits can be addressed without requiring him to admit to any particular actions he took on Jan. 6 — from the drafting of his speech at the Ellipse that day to his tweets and public commentary — that might also be relevant to his criminal case.

I'm apparently too dense to understand his angle. I know it's there. I can't see it.

“[B]oth cases center on the former President’s actions in the lead up to and on January 6, 2021,” Metha [sic] agreed. “But Defendant overstates the significance of that factual overlap in the present posture of these matters.”

[...]

Only one category of evidence in the civil case might implicate Trump’s Fifth Amendment rights, Mehta continued: his tweets from Jan. 6. But Mehta said he will not require Trump to admit whether he drafted any particular tweet, alleviating the concern that he might be forced to admit to conduct that could incriminate him.

It's a shame that a person has to juggle two cases that could each incriminate him in the other.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on the immunity issue in the criminal case.

They've already aided him by taking the case and delaying hearing it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.