Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic LLC, 659 F.Supp.3d 1189

Plaintiff Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems employee, was accused by non‑party Joe Oltmann of participating in and rigging the 2020 election; Oltmann’s allegations were amplified online and by public figures.
Defendants Make Your Life Epic, d/b/a ThriveTime Show, and host Clayton Thomas Clark repeatedly hosted Oltmann on their podcast and Reawaken America Tour events and published statements implying Coomer committed election fraud and treason.
Coomer alleges he suffered job loss, repeated death threats, diagnosed anxiety/depression, and reputational and economic harm from those accusations.
Defendants filed a Colorado anti‑SLAPP special motion to dismiss under C.R.S. § 13‑20‑1101; Coomer opposed and submitted several declarations. Defendants moved to strike portions of those declarations.
The court applied Colorado’s anti‑SLAPP statute in federal court, found the gravamen of Coomer’s claims concerned a public issue (election security), resolved most strike objections against defendants, and proceeded to the step‑two merits analysis.
The court held Coomer met the step‑two burden (reasonable likelihood of success) on defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy; the special motion to dismiss was denied. The motion to strike was granted in part (one Halderman sentence) and denied in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Colorado anti‑SLAPP in federal court	Apply the statute here; the special‑motion mechanism is available	Assumed applies; did not contest application	Court followed persuasive Ninth Circuit reasoning and applied Colorado anti‑SLAPP in federal court
Step One: Were defendants' statements "in connection with a public issue"?	Statements concerned election security/public concern; gravamen is public discussion of elections	Statements targeted Coomer as a private individual; collateral allusions to public matters insufficient	Court found the gravamen concerned election security and that step one was satisfied
Step Two (merits): Did Coomer show a reasonable likelihood of success on defamation?	Submitted evidence of falsity, publication by defendants, actual malice, and damages	Blamed Oltmann as original source; argued some statements were opinion or nonactionable	Court found Coomer met each element by clear and convincing circumstantial evidence; defamation claim likely to succeed
Evidentiary challenge: Motion to strike declarations	Declarations are admissible in substance for anti‑SLAPP step two	Many declaration passages lack personal knowledge, are hearsay, legal conclusions, or inadmissible opinion	Court denied most strike requests, but struck one Halderman statement as unhelpful; otherwise allowed declarations to be considered

Salazar v. Pub. Trust Inst., 522 P.3d 342 (Colo. App. 2022) (explaining anti‑SLAPP purpose and two‑step framework)
Baral v. Schnitt, 376 P.3d 604 (Cal. 2016) (California standard on taking plaintiff’s evidence as true for anti‑SLAPP step two)
Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., 956 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2020) (discussion on applying state anti‑SLAPP statutes in federal court)
Planned Parenthood Fed'n Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018) (discovery and procedure when anti‑SLAPP motion mounts factual challenges)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment evidentiary principles applied analogously)
Brokers' Choice Am., Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 861 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir. 2017) (elements of defamation on matters of public concern)
Burns v. McGraw, 659 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1983) (failure to investigate obvious sources evidences reckless disregard)
Jet Courier Serv., Inc. v. Mulei, 771 P.2d 486 (Colo. 1989) (elements of civil conspiracy)
Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1988) (evidence that would not assist the factfinder may be excluded)