Lafferty v. Jones

307 A.3d 923

222 Conn.App. 855

Erica LAFFERTY et al.

v.Alex Emric JONES et al.

William Sherlach

v.Alex Jones et al.

William Sherlach et al.

v.Alex Emric Jones et al.

(AC 45401)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 18, 2023

Officially Released December 19, 2023

Norman A. Pattis, Bethany, for the appellants (named defendant in each case).

Alinor C. Sterling, Bridgeport, for the appellees (plaintiff David Wheeler et al. in the first case, named plaintiff in the second case, and named plaintiff et al. in the third case).

Elgo, Suarez and Seeley, Js.

SUAREZ, J.

₈₅₈The defendant Alex Jones appeals from the judgments of the trial court, Bellis, J., granting the joint motion for contempt filed by the plaintiffs¹ for the defen- dant’s violation of the court’s orders to attend a deposition scheduled on March 23 and 24, 2022. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by holding him in contempt of court for ₈₅₉failing to appear at his deposition after the court was provided an affidavit and two letters from his physicians attesting that he was too ill to attend the deposition, and (2) violated his due process rights by not requesting additional information from his physicians regarding his medical condition prior to holding him in contempt.² We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The following facts, as found by the court or otherwise undisputed in the record, and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School (Sandy Hook), and thereafter shot and killed twenty first-grade children and six adults, in addition to wounding two other victims who survived the attack. In the underlying consolidated actions, the plaintiffs, consisting of a first responder, who was not a victim of the Sandy Hook shooting but was depicted in the media following the shooting, and the immediate family members of five of the children, one educator, the principal of Sandy Hook, and a school psychologist who were killed in the shooting, brought these separate actions against the defendant. See footnote 1 of this opinion.

In the complaints, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant hosts a nationally syndicated radio program and owns and operates multiple Internet websites that hold themselves out as news and journalism platforms. The ₈₆₀plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant began publishing content related to the Sandy Hook shooting on his radio and Internet platforms and circulated videos on his YouTube channel. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that, between December 19, 2012 and June 26, 2017, the defendant used his Internet and radio platforms to spread the message that the Sandy Hook shooting was a staged event to the millions of his weekly listeners and subscribers. The complaints each consisted of five counts, including causes of action sounding in invasion of privacy by false light, defamation and defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. On November 15, 2021, the court entered a default against the remaining defendants as a sanction for failing to fully and fairly comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The cases proceeded to trial for a hearing in damages, and, during the pendency of this appeal, a verdict was reached and a judgment was rendered in each case in favor of the plaintiffs.³

On March 11, 2022, prior to the hearing in damages, the plaintiffs properly noticed a videotaped deposition of the defendant to take place in his hometown of Austin, Texas. By agreement of the parties, the deposition was to be conducted on March 23 and 24, 2022. On March 22, 2022, the defendant filed a motion for a protective order, asserting that he was under the care of a physician for medical conditions that required immediate testing and that, in his physician’s opinion, he should not sit for the scheduled deposition. On the same day, the court held an emergency hearing on the ₈₆₁defendant’s motion, during which the defendant’s counsel, on behalf of the defendant who was not present for the hearing, submitted a letter from a physician, under seal, for an in camera review.⁴ After the court conducted an in camera review of the letter, the court stated, on the record, that it had "never seen [a medical letter] as bare bones as this one. This [letter] does not have any letterhead. It had no address on it. … It doesn’t indicate what kind of doctor it is. … The letter fails to address the length of the patient/physician relationship. It does not say that the physician examined [the defendant] or evaluated [him]. … [T]his is not actually a medical record, it is just this bare bones note." In addition, the court also noted that the physician’s letter, dated March 21, 2022, stated that the defendant "‘is remaining home’ under the doctor’s supervision." However, during the court proceeding, the plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the defendant was not, in fact, at home under his physician’s care but, instead, "[the defendant] appears to be on the air right now broadcasting his live show …." The court subsequently denied the defendant’s motion for a protective order and issued an order for the defendant’s attorney to disclose where the defendant’s March 22, 2022 broadcast took place. The defendant’s counsel later conceded that this denial of the defendant’s motion for a protective order constituted a court order for the defendant to appear for the March 23 and 24, 2022 deposition.

[1–3] On March 23, 2022, the defendant’s attorney filed a notice with the court stating that, while the March 22, 2022 hearing on his motion for a protective order was taking place, the defendant simultaneously conducted ₈₆₂his March 22, 2022 broadcast live at his studio in Austin, Texas. The defendant’s attorney also represented that the defendant’s studio was not located at his home. The plaintiffs further filed an emergency motion for an order to require the defendant to appear for the March 24, 2022 deposition on penalty of civil contempt and requested an order for a capias.⁵ On the same day, the court held a hearing and allowed the defendant to file an opposition to the plaintiffs’ emergency motion and to submit additional medical documents by the end of the day. The defendant responded, that day, by filing an objection to the plaintiffs’ emergency motion, and a renewed motion for a protective order with an attached affidavit from Dr. Benjamin Marble and a letter from Dr. Amy Offutt,⁶ recommending that the defendant not attend the deposition.⁷

₈₆₃At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued two orders on the plaintiffs’ motion. The court declined to issue a capias but ordered the defendant to appear at the March 24, 2022 deposition. The court also denied the defendant’s renewed motion for a protective order and reasoned that the defendant had not demonstrated that his alleged medical conditions were serious enough to excuse his attendance at his deposition. The court explained that "the [defendant’s] medical issues, while potentially serious, are not currently serious enough to either require his hospitalization, or convince him to stop engaging in his broadcasts. [The defendant] cannot unilaterally decide to continue to engage in his broadcasts but refuse to participate in a deposition. … [If the defendant] develops escalating symptoms such that he is hospitalized, that change in circumstances would excuse his attendance at the court-ordered deposition."

On March 24, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice with the court indicating that the defendant did not attend ₈₆₄the deposition scheduled for that day. On March 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for civil contempt against the defendant.⁸ On March 28, 2022, the defendant filed an objection to the plaintiffs’ motion for contempt. On March 30, 2022, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for contempt and, in an oral decision, granted the plaintiffs’ motion, stating that "the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant … wilfully and in bad faith violated, without justification, several clear court orders requiring his attendance at his depositions on March [23] and March [24]. That is, the court finds that [the defendant] intentionally failed to comply with the orders of the court and that there was no adequate factual basis to explain his failures to obey the orders of the court." The court further ordered that the defendant "has the ability to purge the contempt … when [he] completes two full days of depositions at the office of [the] plaintiffs’ counsel in Bridgeport. [The defendant] is to pay conditional fines of $25,000 each weekday beginning on Friday, April 1st, increasing by $25,000 per weekday … and it will be suspended on each day that [the defendant] successfully completes a full day’s deposition …."

[4] On March 31, 2022, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, the defendant filed a petition for an expedited public interest appeal of the trial court’s contempt finding with our Supreme Court and an emergency motion to stay the court’s order holding him in contempt until after our Supreme Court ruled on his petition.⁹ This ₈₆₅appeal followed. On March 31, 2022, the defendant also filed an emergency motion to stay the trial court’s orders, which the trial court denied. On April 1, 2022, the defendant filed, with this court, an emergency motion for review of the trial court’s denial of his request to stay the trial court’s orders pursuant to Practice Book § 61-14. On April 4, 2022, this court denied the defendant’s emergency motion for review of the trial court’s denial of his request for a stay. On April 5 and 6, 2022, the defendant appeared for a deposition at the offices of the plaintiffs’ counsel in Bridgeport, Connecticut. On April 6, 2022, the defendant filed a motion for an order declaring ...