CNN seems to be desperately trying to stonewall the $1 billion defamation suit against them, forcing Navy veteran and Plaintiff Zachary Young to ask Florida’s court system to intercede. According to a motion to compel responses filed on Wednesday, CNN is refusing to turn over documents related to their internal journalistic conduct guidelines and their social media guidelines. Both could prove crucial to showing how CNN runs their process for vetting stories and if they were negligent in this instance.
This latest attempt to slow down the proceedings came as CNN was refusing to allow host Jake Tapper to be deposed, and amid allegations they were destroying evidence via deleting social media posts. The network was apparently also impeding financial discovery as it related to possible punitive damages, as reaffirmed by a Florida’s First District Court of Appeals
The filing breaks down how CNN was using months of delay tactics (something the network decried former President Trump for doing) to push a court-ordered deposition of their corporate representative outside of the fact-discovery period, then argue they wouldn’t turn over the guidelines discussed in the deposition because they were outside of facts discovery.
In September 2023, Young’s lawyers wanted to depose CNN’s corporate representative. For the next three months, CNN issued objections and “refused to offer” a date for a deposition to occur. Young’s lawyers were forced to “unilaterally” issue a notice of deposition, CNN still refused to cooperate.
This resulted in a court mediation conference in December 2023, where Judge William S. Henry of Florida’s 14th Judicial Circuit ordered the deposition be put off until issues involving scope were resolved. The resolution, occurring on March 1, 2024, pushed the deposition beyond the January 15, 2024, closer of facts discovery. The deposition was eventually ordered for June 5 and 6.
During the deposition, Young’s legal team became aware of the existence of CNN’s internal documents on journalistic and social media guidelines. And after numerous requests for the documents (CNN refusing because they’re outside facts discovery), they’re requesting the court order the network to turn them over.
“CNN should not be permitted to move for protective orders, delay the consequential deposition to in the case, and then try and use their self-created-delay to stop any follow up discovery after the corporate representative revealed the existence of documents relevant to plaintiffs’ case, that he reviewed before testifying, and relied on while testifying,” the filing argued. Adding:
The court has the inherent power to ensure that discovery deadlines do not operate in a manner that thwarts the interests of justice. Indeed, it would be absurd to think the Court’s orders forced Plaintiff’s to abandon any relevant documents they might discover by virtue of the corporate representative depositions. In sum, given that the deposition itself occurred post-deadline due to this Court’s orders, fairness dictates that the documents referred to in that deposition should be subject to production too.
In a separate Wednesday filing, Young’s legal team requested the court step in and order CNN to comply with turning over documents necessary for financial discovery in regards to possible punitive damages. “Despite an appellate court’s affirmation of Plaintiff’s right to plead punitive damages, CNN continues to stonewall discovery efforts into its ability to pay punitive damages award based on its pending motion for rehearing,” the filing read. They also noted that “CNN’s intransigence threatens to derail the trial schedule,” which was currently slated to begin January 6, 2025.
It’s important for Young’s team to get the access to CNN’s journalistic conduct guidelines so it could be determined how CNN’s alleged defamation of their client came about and if the journalists involved deviated from the process.
As NewsBusters previously reported, CNN has argued in court that their internally lauded Triad (a team of editorial, legal, and standards and practices professionals) reviewed the story before it was brought to air.
In a now-deleted YouTube view obtained by NewsBusters, Triade member Drew Shenkman explained to a class of journalism students about how things worked at CNN. “So, the journalists are trained and we train them and saying, you know, ‘hey, this needs legal review because it's alleging someone of murder or this needs legal review because we're saying the president of the United States did something bad.’ And so then they push that to us for the legal review,” he said (bold added to highlight).
Shenkman also boasted about how the lawyering that does into their stories makes them better:
Now, I have an advantage because I have a legal privilege with journalists…And having that point of view, having that kind of information, not only helps me as a lawyer, but actually has, in many instances, helped make our journalism better because I can look at it from a different point of view and say, “Well, have you asked this person this question or what is this person say,” and they might say, “Well, I hadn't thought of that.” And so then they're gonna go and do that; and more often than not, we will end up with a better story because of the lawyering that goes into it.
Ironically, he also cautioned the student about how: “…the most precarious thing is a story that has a big allegation of wrongdoing, right? Let's say somebody has broken some sort of law, right?”
So, how did CNN's allegedly defamatory report get to air?
