CNN moved last week to keep the fact that correspondent Alex Marquardt received a raise and promotion out of an upcoming defamation trial against the network, but U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young’s legal team believes CNN rewarding its reporter after a motion for punitive damages was filed is highly relevant.
CNN promoted Marquardt in 2023 to chief national security correspondent, an elevation from senior national security correspondent. The promotion came well after Young alleged that CNN “destroyed his reputation and business by branding him an illegal profiteer who exploited desperate Afghans” during a Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” which was shared on social media and also repackaged for CNN’s website.
Marquardt’s report is now at the center of a high-stakes defamation lawsuit that is set to head to trial in January. CNN filed a motion in limine, arguing that Marquardt’s contract negotiations are “irrelevant” and should be excluded from trial.
“Plaintiffs apparently intend to introduce evidence information concerning CNN report Alex Marquardt’s contract negotiations with CNN and his subsequent promotion in 2023, two years after CNN published the publication at issue in this case. However, evidence related to Mr. Marquardt’s contract negotiations and promotion is not germane to any element plaintiffs must prove to sustain their defamation case,” CNN’s lawyers argued in a filing obtained by Fox News Digital.
“Nor such is evidence relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages, given that Mr. Marquardt’s contract negotiations and promotions significantly post-dated publications,” CNN’s legal team continued. “Punitive damages may be imposed only if the defendant acted with ‘gross negligence’ or engaged in ‘intentional misconduct’ at the time the tort was allegedly committed.”
Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman disagrees and believes Marquardt’s work and position history, “including promotions that postdate the events at trial,” go directly to his background as a witness. His “bias as both a very senior CNN employee… and as evidence that he has been rewarded and may be loyal” are relevant to the jury’s ability to assess his credibility, Freedman argued.
“Moreover, the fact that CNN was aware of Marquardt’s alleged misconduct in this litigation, investigated it, put his contract negotiations on hold, and then promoted him to chief national correspondent is admissible evidence that goes directly to the entitlement of punitive damages,” Freedman wrote.
“Marquardt, as the architect of the segment, is a central witness in this case,” Freedman added. “Plaintiffs are entitled to question him about his background and employment history.”
At a recent hearing, it was disclosed that CNN paused Marquardt’s contract negotiations after Young filed a motion for punitive damages and then promoted the reporter after negotiations were put “on hold for a bit.” Freedman believes Marquardt’s promotion, raise and loyalty to CNN are “essential facts necessary for the jury to evaluate his credibility.”
“Marquardt’s contract freeze and then promotion is also plainly relevant under First DCA precedent because the ‘attitude and conduct of the enterprise upon discovery of the misconduct’ are important considerations in determining whether punitive damages are warranted,” Freedman wrote.
“CNN rewarded the primary reporter responsible for the segment with a promotion. It is difficult to think of evidence more relevant to CNN’s attitude concerning its own misconduct,” Freedman continued. “In determining punishment and deterrence, a company’s response to allegations of wrongdoing is incredibly important.”
Young’s counsel added that “whether CNN rewarded Marquardt in the face of these allegations is not tangential relevance, as CNN claims, but a cornerstone of the reprehensibility analysis.”
“If CNN did not act to punish wrongdoing — and instead rewarded its principal architect with a promotion and a salary increase – a punitive damage award is all the more necessary to deter wrongdoing in the future,” Freedman argued.
CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Freedman declined comment.
Judge William Henry indicated he would rule as fast as possible.
A civil trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 6 in the Circuit Court for Bay County, Florida.
The CNN segment at the center of the suit began with anchor Jake Tapper informing viewers that Marquardt found “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”
CNN FACES DEFAMATION SUIT OVER AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL STORY: ‘EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL MALICE’
Tapper tossed to Marquardt, who said “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country. Marquardt then singled out Young, putting a picture of his face on the screen and saying his company was asking for $75,000 to transport a vehicle of passengers to Pakistan or $14,500 per person to end up in the United Arab Emirates.
“Prices well beyond the reach of most Afghans,” Marquardt told viewers.
CNN’s on-screen chyrons declared they “face black market, exorbitant fees,” but Young says he never took money from an Afghan citizen, who needed a sponsor to cover the cost.
“CNN can’t point to any evidence… there can’t be any evidence because it didn’t happen,” Freedman told the judge at a previous hearing.
No other people or companies were named other than Young, who alleged that CNN, using the terms “black market,” “exploit” and “exorbitant,” inaccurately painted him as a bad actor preying on desperate people.
Internal communications between CNN employees that were revealed during the discovery process have indicated editors were concerned about the segment but aired it anyway. Other internal communications revealed CNN employees used profanities and disparaging language when privately discussing Young.
