229 Conn.App. 487
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiffs are family members, a first responder, and school staff connected to the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre; they sued Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems (and related entities) for false-light invasion of privacy, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a CUTPA claim after Jones repeatedly promoted the theory that the shooting was a hoax.
- Extensive discovery battles focused on marketing/financial materials (Google Analytics, trial balances, subsidiary ledgers) that plaintiffs said were necessary to prove reach and motive; plaintiffs also obtained a protective order limiting public dissemination of designated deposition material.
- Defendants repeatedly resisted or produced incomplete discovery, produced altered accounting records (per the court), and publicly filed material designated as 'Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only' (a motion to depose Hillary Clinton that included protected deposition material).
- The trial court found wilful noncompliance with discovery orders and violation of the protective order, entered a liability default against the defendants, and proceeded to a damages hearing.
- A jury awarded $965,000,000 in compensatory damages; the court later entered common-law punitive awards (attorney’s fees) and $150,000,000 in statutory punitive damages under CUTPA. Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were defaults as sanctions for discovery and protective-order violations proper? | Lafferty: defendants wilfully withheld critical analytics and accounting records and violated the protective order, prejudicing plaintiffs; default was proportionate. | Jones: noncompliance was disorganization, not wilful; any protective-order breach was counsel’s error, not defendants’. | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion. Findings of wilfulness, prejudice, and that lesser sanctions were inadequate supported default. |
| 2. Effect of default on plaintiffs' burden regarding causation and damages | Lafferty: default conclusively established liability; plaintiffs only had to prove damages at hearing. | Jones: court improperly relieved plaintiffs of proving causation/linked harms. | Affirmed: default admits material facts and establishes liability; plaintiffs needed only prove damages. |
| 3. Motion for remittitur—was the $965M compensatory award excessive? | Lafferty: plaintiffs’ testimony and expert analytics proved widespread reach and severe emotional harms; award was within reasonable limits. | Jones: awards were speculative, driven by passion; plaintiffs failed to present medical/expert proof of emotional-distress magnitude. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence supported noneconomic damages and jury instructions limited jury to compensatory award. |
| 4. Was the CUTPA claim legally viable (did defendants act 'in the conduct of trade or commerce')? | Lafferty: defendants used lies as part of a commercial course of conduct to build audience and sell products; CUTPA applies to deceptive commercial practices even absent direct consumer relationship. | Jones: speech was noncommercial; lies did not advertise or misrepresent their products—CUTPA cannot reach this speech. | Reversed as to CUTPA: plaintiffs failed to plead acts 'in the conduct of any trade or commerce'—dissemination of unrelated false speech is not a CUTPA act as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafferty v. Jones, 336 Conn. 332 (2020) (prior Supreme Court discussion of sanctions and discovery context relating to these parties)
- Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 328 Conn. 60 (2018) (articulating the three-factor test for reviewing discovery sanctions)
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (2001) (courts should be cautious but may use discovery sanctions to control abuse)
- Whitaker v. Taylor, 99 Conn. App. 719 (2007) (default admits material facts and limits plaintiff’s burden post-default to proving damages)
- Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC, 331 Conn. 53 (2019) (CUTPA may reach wrongful advertising that directly injures nonconsumer plaintiffs, but requires a causal link to advertising/sales)
- Ashmore v. Hartford Hospital, 331 Conn. 777 (2019) (standard for remittitur and deferential review of trial court's denial)