Plaintiffs in high-stakes CNN defamation suit want to grill Jake Tapper again
The legal team representing the U.S. Navy veteran suing CNN for defamation says Jake Tapper refused to answer key questions "aimed at punitive damages discovery."
The legal team representing the U.S. Navy veteran suing CNN for defamation has requested the court to compel anchor Jake Tapper to sit down for an additional hour of deposition after he refused to answer key questions "aimed at punitive damages discovery" during the first go-round.
Zachary Young alleges that CNN smeared his security consulting company, Nemex Enterprises Inc., by implying it illegally profited when helping people flee Afghanistan during the Biden administration's military withdrawal from the country in 2021. Young believes CNN "destroyed his reputation and business" during a segment that year on Tapper's program "The Lead."
A high-stakes civil trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 6 in front of Judge Henry in the Circuit Court for Bay County, Florida.
Tapper sat down for a deposition last week but was instructed by CNN’s counsel not to answer a variety of questions, according to a court filing obtained by Fox News Digital.
CNN FACES DEFAMATION SUIT OVER AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL STORY: 'EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL MALICE'
Young’s attorney, Vel Freedman, wrote that "CNN’s counsel directed Tapper not to answer more than 30 questions" in the course of less than two hours.
"The end result was that CNN prevented Plaintiffs from (1) gathering basic financial information (e.g., Tapper’s salary); (2) exploring issues the jury might need to assess a punitive damages award (e.g., Tapper’s opinion on what financial penalty might deter CNN from future misconduct); and (3) from even asking for clarification of Tapper’s answers or getting complete answers to the questions the witness did answer (e.g., interrupting the witness mid-answer saying: ‘Just answer the question as asked)," Freedman wrote.
Freedman then offered "some of the more egregious examples of CNN’s improper instructions" that resulted in a request to spend more time grilling Tapper.
CNN instructed Tapper "not to answer questions about his salary," "not to answer questions about financial penalties that directly tracked the Court’s order," "not to answer questions that sought to explore other punitive damages related issues" and "not to answer questions seeking to follow up on his responses."
Freedman argued that Tapper’s salary is "relevant information for Plaintiffs, and speaks to CNN’s resources and their profitability," and exploring the "bounds of what penalties might be required to sufficiently penalize CNN and deter similar misconduct in the future."
"CNN instructed Tapper not to answer innocuous foundational questions that were intended to lead to information relevant to assessing and calculating punitive damages," Freedman wrote.
"During the deposition, Tapper would at times respond with answers injecting topics or issues into the deposition," Freedman continued. "When counsel tried to follow up on those answers, or seek clarity or further explanation of them, CNN’s counsel objected."
Freedman continued: "Another example occurred when Tapper injected comments made before the deposition commenced into the deposition. When Plaintiffs asked for clarification and follow up, CNN instructed Tapper not to respond, prejudicing Plaintiffs from making a full record for the jury."
Freedman wrote that in another instance, "CNN’s counsel cut Tapper off mid-sentence to stop him from testifying about something CNN didn’t want him to, despite the issue not being privileged."
Specific examples of Freedman’s claims were heavily redacted in the deposition transcript.
"For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court compel CNN to produce Mr. Tapper for one additional hour, order him to respond to questions aimed at punitive damages discovery, and permit reasonable follow up and clarification from Tapper’s answers," Freedman wrote.
CNN’s legal team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The CNN segment at the center of the suit, which was shared on social media and also repackaged for CNN's website, began with Tapper informing viewers that CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt found "Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success."
CNN ACCUSED OF WITHHOLDING CRITICAL DOCUMENTS NEEDED TO DETERMINE VALUE AHEAD OF DEFAMATION TRIAL
Tapper tossed to Marquardt, who said "desperate Afghans are being exploited" and need to pay "exorbitant, often impossible amounts" to flee the country. Marquardt then singled out Young, putting a picture of his face on the screen and saying his company was asking for $75,000 to transport a vehicle of passengers to Pakistan or $14,500 per person to end up in the United Arab Emirates.
"Prices well beyond the reach of most Afghans," Marquardt told viewers.
No other people or companies were named other than Young, who alleged that CNN, using the terms "black market," "exploit" and "exorbitant," inaccurately painted him as a bad actor preying on desperate people.
Internal communications between CNN employees that were revealed during the discovery process have indicated editors were concerned about the segment, but aired it anyway. Other internal communications revealed CNN employees used profanities and disparaging language when privately discussing Young.
What's Your Reaction?
