The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a response Monday to a motion from former president Donald Trump’s legal team asking a Florida judge to adjourn the trial date in his classified documents case.

Filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith, the DOJ’s response outlines various reasons as to why Trump’s motion, which his co-defendants joined, should be denied. Specifically, Smith addresses concerns regarding discovery raised by Trump’s counsel. He notes that contrary to the allegations made by the defendants regarding unsatisfactory discovery, the government has produced “extensive, prompt, and well-organized unclassified discovery.” According to the DOJ’s response:

The defendants provide no credible justification to postpone a trial that is still seven months away. They are fully informed about the charges and the theory of the Government’s case from a highly detailed superseding indictment and comprehensive, organized unclassified and classified discovery. Their unfounded claims of Government noncompliance with discovery obligations do not support their request. Their claims about their inability to review classified information are distorted and exaggerated, and, in any event, the Government expects that the CISO will resolve any remaining issues this week.

Trump’s motion was filed last week and specifically requests that the trial date be delayed “until at least mid-November 2024,” after next year’s presidential election. The motion alleges “ongoing non-compliance” by the Special Counsel’s Office regarding the discovery process.

Both filings relate to Trump’s indictment by US federal prosecutors who have been investigating his potential mishandling of classified government documents. In an August 2022 FBI raid, 15 missing boxes of classified documents were recovered in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, Florida residence. An order filed in July 2023 reviewed the timeline of the case and ultimately set the trial date for May 20, 2024.

This indictment is only one of the many criminal cases currently pending against Trump. In light of this, several entities have suggested that he should be barred from seeking office again, including a group of nine California lawmakers.