U.S. Navy Veteran suing CNN scores another victory

U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young scored another victory Friday ahead of his high-profile defamation lawsuit against CNN. A Florida judge has ruled that the network's expert witnesses could not testify that there was no loss of income or profits as a result of his programming. of the case.

Young claims CNN slandered him by suggesting he illegally profited through a “black market” when the Biden administration helped people leave Afghanistan during its 2021 military withdrawal. I am doing it. The veteran believes CNN “ruined his reputation and business” with that year's show. It was shared on social media on Jake Tapper's show “The Read” and repackaged for CNN's website.

According to the court, Young's lawyers argued that Brian Bass, whom CNN wanted to use as an expert, was not a professional expert based on CNN's “qualifications and methodologies, and that his opinion was that of another proprietary expert.” He argued that he should not be able to testify that “the amount is an accumulation of Filings obtained by Fox News Digital.

U.S. Navy veteran who sued CNN scores important legal victory ahead of high-stakes defamation trial

Judge William Henry said CNN argued that Bass' “qualifications and methodology were sound, his opinions were sound, and his testimony was not an accumulation of the opinions of other experts.” I rebelled.

Judge Henry cited Florida's standard that expert opinions and testimony “must be relevant and reliable,” and argued that Mr. Bass “regards Mr. Young's loss of income and profits and mitigation of damages.” He noted that he was hired by CNN to provide an opinion and as a rebuttal witness to the plaintiffs' experts. . ”

“In forming his opinion, Mr. Bass considered documents and depositions produced by the plaintiff regarding his past income, including tax returns, employment contracts, bank statements, and other financial reports and records,” Judge Henry wrote. wrote.

CNN faces defamation lawsuit over Afghanistan withdrawal story: 'evidence of actual malice'

A photo of plaintiff Zachary Young was aired by CNN during the segment in question. (CNN/Screenshot)

Mr Justice Henry further stated that Mr Bass, after analyzing these items, found that Mr Young had “not experienced a reduction in his personal income or business profits as a result of the defendant's publications'' and that “the reduction in income was due to the termination of his employment contract. “As a result, the plaintiff is not seeking any additional claims.” Mr. Young “did not invest in any new business activities after publication,” and that “the economic loss experienced by plaintiff is likely due to factors other than publication.”

“Plaintiffs primarily attack Mr. Bass' ability to testify, on the basis that he gave an improper opinion as to the cause of damages, and that Mr. Bass is liable and subsequently calculates lost profits.'' should have done so,” Judge Henry wrote.

Meanwhile, CNN argued that, according to the judge, damages necessarily require “some sort of 'connection' between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's harm.”

“Three things follow naturally from this case law: First, the plaintiff must present testimony and evidence linking the alleged fraud to the damages claimed. Second, the expert testifying must be competent to form an opinion, whether or not it is an issue in the calculation of damages or causation; and third, causation is may be presented through one or more witnesses or other evidence,” Judge Henry wrote.

“For example, if the company with which the plaintiffs had a contract terminated the contract because of the publication, the causal element for the lost profits part is not that the company's general witness canceled the contract for some reason. , an expert who said he had terminated his contract because of the publication,” he continued. “In this case, Mr. Bass would have the ability to carry out calculations of lost profits or income, and the items he examined for this purpose would generally be of the type used to form such an opinion. To some extent, Mr. Bass's decisions calculate certain items. Similarly, it would be properly within his power to exclude any efforts (or lack thereof) made by the plaintiff to obtain work after publication without mitigating damages. Mr. Bass will be able to express his opinion reasonably.”

However, Judge Henry ruled that Bass went too far in concluding that the defendant's publications had no effect on the plaintiff's income.

“Sure, he could talk about expiring contracts and lack of recurring revenue, but his bottom line was essentially, 'Plaintiffs say no one will talk to or hire him because of the publications. “He did not lose any income because of the publication,” Justice Henry wrote.

Defamation lawsuit against CNN could expose company's financial secrets as court aims to expose net worth

CNN host Jake Tapper and correspondent Alex Marquardt in the segment at the center of the defamation lawsuit. (CNN/Screenshot)

“This kind of conclusion might be appropriate if he was doing forensic consulting work or acting in a private setting as a certified financial analyst for a company. The purpose of expressing an opinion was essentially to say, “I don't believe.'' The plaintiffs said that no one would talk to them because they showed me that people don't talk. But that doesn't pass the evidence gathering,” he continued. “To this end, he will act as an arbiter of truth and reliability, which is a jury's job and Mr. Bass is not qualified to do so.”

The judge said: “What did Bass consider? What the documents demonstrated regarding pre-publication income and the prospect of continuing income; which items of income were non-recurring and were not expected future income. or testify about what the plaintiff did or did not do.'' “to derive income after the date of publication,'' but “to conclude that plaintiffs have suffered zero loss of income/profit as a result of publication is too speculative and, for the reasons set out above, beyond Mr. Basu's qualifications.'' .”

Mr Justice Henry continued: “However, to conclude that the loss of income and profits suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of publication was zero is highly speculative and, for the reasons set out above, beyond Mr. Bass's qualifications.'' ” he added.

Judge Henry previously denied CNN's motion for summary judgment, allowing Young to “proceed with his claim for punitive damages” and declaring that the court found that Young “did not receive any money from the Afghans.” did.

The civil trial is scheduled to begin on January 6th in Bay County, Florida Circuit Court before Judge Henry.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP