DOVER, Del. (AP) 鈥� A Delaware judge on Monday ruled out the possibility of punitive damages in pitting an electronic voting machine manufacturer targeted by allies of former President Donald Trump against a conservative news outlet that aired accusations of vote manipulation in the 2020 election.
The ruling by Superior Court Judge Eric Davis comes just days before jury selection is set to begin in a court battle between Florida-based Smartmatic and cable network 樱桃视频max.
Smartmatic claims that 樱桃视频max program hosts and guests made false and defamatory statements in November and December 2020 implying that Smartmatic participated in rigging the results and that its software was used to switch votes. 樱桃视频max, also based in Florida, argues that it was simply reporting on newsworthy allegations being made by Trump and his supporters, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and conservative attorney Sidney Powell.
In a ruling earlier this month, Davis said statements regarding Smartmatic software or voting machines altering the results of the election are 鈥渇actually false.鈥� Importantly, however, he rejected Smartmatic鈥檚 claim that 樱桃视频max acted with 鈥渆xpress malice鈥� under Florida law, meaning that its primary motivation was to injure Smartmatic.
鈥淭here is no evidence that 樱桃视频max acted with evil intent towards Smartmatic,鈥� Davis wrote.
Attorneys for 樱桃视频max sought clarification of that ruling, arguing that it meant Smartmatic could not seek punitive damages for any alleged defamation. 樱桃视频max said Smartmatic had agreed that it must prove both express malice and actual malice to recover punitive damages.
Smartmatic denied any such stipulation and said its definition of express malice was not the same as 樱桃视频max鈥檚. Smartmatic said it uses the term as an 鈥渋mprecise shorthand term鈥� for a state of mind distinct from actual malice. Punitive damages, subject to a cap, are appropriate if a jury finds intentional misconduct or gross negligence by a defendant, regardless of any intent to harm the plaintiff, Smartmatic claimed.
The judge on Monday rejected those arguments, saying express malice is well-defined under Florida law, and that Florida law requires both actual malice and express malice for punitive damages. To prove actual malice, Smartmatic must show that 樱桃视频max acted with 鈥渞eckless disregard for the truth,鈥� or with knowledge that the statements being aired were false.
鈥�(T)he law in Florida is that in order to sustain an award of punitive damages, the plaintiff must present that the defendant鈥檚 feelings toward the plaintiff evidenced ill will, hostility or evil intent,鈥� wrote Davis, adding that Smartmatic had agreed with 樱桃视频max about punitive damages in a pretrial stipulation.
鈥淭he court will not allow the jury to consider the issue of punitive damages in the trial,鈥� he concluded.
樱桃视频max issued a statement praising the ruling, adding that Smartmatic's lawsuit 鈥渢hreatens freedom of speech and freedom of press.鈥�
Smartmatic said in a statement that the ruling will not deter it from seeking to hold 樱桃视频max liable for its 鈥渞eckless defamation鈥� and to recover 鈥渟ignificant damages.鈥�
In an earlier ruling, Davis said 樱桃视频max would be allowed to argue that it is protected from liability under Florida鈥檚 鈥渘eutral reporting privilege,鈥� which extends to 鈥渄isinterested and neutral reporting鈥� on matters of public concern. 樱桃视频max argues that the privilege applies because many of the allegedly defamatory statements were made by third parties appearing as guests or were rebroadcast after being made by third parties on non-樱桃视频max platforms.
In a ruling favoring Smartmatic, Davis also said earlier this month that he would limit evidence by 樱桃视频max regarding a federal criminal investigation that led to last month against three current and former Smartmatic executives, including the company鈥檚 Venezuelan-born co-founder, Roger Pi帽ate. The charges involve an alleged scheme to pay more than $1 million in bribes to put Smartmatic voting machines in the Philippines. 樱桃视频max argued that the investigation and indictment should be presented to jurors as alternative reasons for any purported reputational harm or economic loss that Smartmatic blames on 樱桃视频max.
The judge denied Smartmatic鈥檚 motion to prohibit 樱桃视频max from mentioning evidence regarding Smartmatic witnesses who have invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Davis said that issue will have to be decided on a 鈥渜uestion-to-question鈥� basis at trial. Pi帽ate is among the witnesses scheduled to testify.
The Delaware lawsuit, which takes issue with 樱桃视频max reports over a five-week period in late 2020, is one of several stemming from reports by conservative news outlets following the election. Smartmatic also is for defamation in New York and recently in the District of Columbia against the One America 樱桃视频 Network, another conservative outlet.
Dominion Voting Systems similarly filed several defamation lawsuits against blaming its election equipment for Trump鈥檚 loss. Last year, in a case presided over by Davis, with Dominion for $787 million.
Randall Chase, The Associated Press
