BREAKING: Dominion’s Eric Coomer Case Thrown Out of Court in Florida… “The Court Is Ordered to Terminate Deadlines… And Close This Case”

A Florida court threw out the case against former Dominion employee Eric Coomer on Tuesday.

Eric Coomer filed this defamation action on June 24, 2022, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The case was transferred to a Florida Court in January 2024.

From today’s decision:

Byrne and Coomer have each filed motions for summary judgment, and their papers cite both Colorado and Florida law. As it relates to Court’s determination of the cross-motions for summary judgment, the only relevant difference between the law of the two states is that under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure.

The court document continues:

To prevail on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special damages or the existence of special damages…

…Actual malice requires proof that the defendant published the challenged statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for whether it was false…

…Thus, the issue is not whether “a reasonably prudent [person] would have published, or would have investigated before publishing,” but rather whether the defendant “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication, or was highly aware of its probable falsity[.]”

More…

Coomer must not only prove the existence of actual malice but must do so by clear and convincing evidence. While not impossible to satisfy, the clear and convincing standard has been described as “heavy,” as “daunting,” as involving a “high standard of proof,” and as “significantly more onerous” than the preponderance of the evidence standard…

…Where actual malice must be established by clear and convincing evidence, the Court must determine at summary judgment whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find actual malice under that heightened standard.

More…

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann’s story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann’s story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne’s subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne’s statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne’s subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion:

As the Court noted in a recent order granting summary judgment for The Washington Post in a defamation case brought by the Trump Media and Technology Group, a defamation plaintiff faces at least two significant hurdles. First, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice, and second, the plaintiff must do so by clear and convincing evidence. See Trump Media & Tech. Group Corp. v. WP Co. LLC, 838 F. Supp. 3d 1213, 1220, 1224 (M.D. Fla. 2026) (Barber, J.). The actual malice and clear and convincing evidence standards are extremely difficult to meet. That is particularly the case because actual malice includes a conceptual hurdle that bears emphasizing – a defamation plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant actually knew his or her statements were false or seriously doubted their truth.

Requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence that a defamation defendant actually knew his or her statements were false, or seriously doubted their truth, is very different from the familiar “reasonable person” standard, which asks what an objective reasonable person knew or should have known…

…Coomer faces the burden of providing evidence (1) that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Byrne not only should not have believed the story, but actually, subjectively did not believe it or at least seriously doubted it was true, and (2) that would allow the jury to find that conclusion about Byrne’s subjective belief was not merely probable (more likely than not), but highly probable and free from serious doubt.

Under these standards, and on the record in this case, Coomer has not met that burden…

…Of course, people with sincerely or even zealously held beliefs may make statements that are both untrue and inflict serious harm on others. Under the actual malice standard, unless it can be proven that the speaker subjectively believed his or her statements to be untrue, the law imposes no liability…

Trending: Investigate Your What? Elon Musk Gives Hilarious Response After Senator Alex Padilla Calls to “INVESTIGATE ELON MUSK”

…In short, if the law did not require “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant subjectively doubted or disbelieved the published statements, it is likely that Byrne’s motion for summary judgment would have been denied, and a jury would have had the opportunity to weigh in on this matter. However, under the law as it currently stands, Coomer’s evidence is insufficient to meet these standards and summary judgment for Byrne is therefore required.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

1. “Patrick Byrne’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 334) is GRANTED.

2. “Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” (Doc. 333) is DENIED AS MOOT…

…7. Following entry of judgment, the Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and thereafter close this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 27th day of October,
Tom Barber
United States District Judge

Here is the full document of today’s decision.

Skip to PDF content

Skip to PDF content

It should be noted that Eric Coomer still has a defamation case against Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit, President Trump, and several other conservatives.

The trial was delayed in Colorado.

Patrick thanked his attorneys Stefanie Lambert and Peter Ticktin.