Ex-Dominion Voting Systems exec scores procedural victories in 2 defamation cases

A former executive for Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems recently prevailed on multiple motions in a pair of federal defamation cases seeking to hold liable those who amplified unproven allegations that he, personally, rigged the 2020 presidential election against Donald Trump.

Eric Coomer, the former director of product security and strategy for voting technology supplier Dominion, has initiated several lawsuits based on a similar sequence of events: Conservative commentators and supporters of Trump repeated an inflammatory claim originally made about him by Colorado podcaster Joe Oltmann.

Days after the presidential election, Oltmann claimed he had recently listened in on an “antifa” conference call — a reference to anti-fascist ideology. On the alleged call, an unnamed participant referenced “Eric … the Dominion guy.” Oltmann claimed “Eric” said, “Don’t worry about the election, Trump is not gonna win. I made f-ing sure of that.”

Based on information found online, Oltmann concluded Coomer was the one who allegedly made the comments of election rigging. Oltmann repeated his story publicly, even after the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

Earlier this year, the state’s Court of Appeals permitted Coomer to proceed with his defamation claims against the Trump campaign and several Trump allies. Then, a federal judge green-lit for trial a similar lawsuit against Mike Lindell, the chief executive of MyPillow and a proponent of election-conspiracy claims.

Lindell moved last year to end the case in his favor without a trial, arguing the statements Lindell made in April 2022 — that Coomer was “corrupt,” “a criminal” and “did crimes against the United States” — were either constitutionally protected opinions or too vague to sustain a defamation claim. The motion further attempted to distance MyPillow, which is also named as a defendant, from Lindell.

Coomer responded that Lindell had neglected to challenge numerous other instances of alleged defamation, and maintained Lindell’s statements and promotions of Oltmann’s story were false assertions of fact.

“The notion that one person could rig the entire election is absurd on its face, and has been from the very beginning,” wrote Coomer’s attorneys. But “Lindell’s audience of election deniers certainly takes Lindell at his word, and calls for Dr. Coomer’s execution continue to this day.”

In an Aug. 29 order, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang denied Lindell’s motion. She agreed there were other defamatory statements at issue in the lawsuit that Lindell had not challenged, and a jury could view Lindell’s individual words as part of an “overarching and allegedly defamatory factual claim that Dr. Coomer rigged or otherwise interfered with the 2020 election.”

Wang — who Lindell called “disgusting” in his deposition for the lawsuit — added that a jury could find Lindell defamed Coomer with actual malice, meaning he accused Coomer of election rigging with “reckless disregard” for whether or not it was true.

“Record evidence of the legitimacy of the 2020 election and evidence that undermines the reasonableness of Defendants’ beliefs,” Wang wrote, “plays into the reckless-disregard component.”

Separately, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez permitted Coomer to amend his complaint against a different set of defendants: Oklahoma podcaster Clayton Thomas “Clay” Clark and his “Thrivetime Show,” who also gave Oltmann a platform to promote his unproven story of the antifa conference call.

Coomer moved to add a claim for exemplary damages — meaning those intended to punish the defendants — because Clark allegedly continued to defame Coomer even after he was sued and without evidence corroborating Oltmann’s story.

On Sept. 19, Martínez agreed Coomer could pursue additional monetary damages against Clark for promoting a narrative about Coomer he “must have realized as dangerous, done heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to consequences, or of the rights and safety of others, particularly the plaintiff.”

Earlier this month, Martínez also imposed financial sanctions on Oltmann, who is not a defendant but whose deposition was necessary for the litigation. The penalty stemmed from an order of U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella for Oltmann to produce documents related to the purported antifa call and to appear for a deposition at the courthouse in June.

Eventually, after Oltmann refused to answer certain questions, he walked out of the courthouse without authorization. Hours later, he appeared on a podcast asserting Coomer was trying to “weaponize the system.” He also called Starnella, who is Hispanic, a “radical left DEI,” which is the abbreviation for “diversity, equity and inclusion.”

Starnella recommended Oltmann be ordered to pay $300 plus the parties’ costs, noting he had a history of noncompliance in other venues.

“Mr. Oltmann has an apparent disdain for a system he asserts has been ‘weaponize(d)’ against him,” she wrote on June 14. “Moreover, Mr. Oltmann appears to insinuate that he can ward off the legal system by threatening violence.”

On Sept. 4, Martínez agreed Oltmann had repeatedly ignored court orders across cases and subsequently “boasted about it.” Martínez did not believe a $300 fine would get Oltmann’s “full and complete attention,” so he imposed a $1,000 fine per day until Oltmann complied with Starnella’s orders.

The cases are Coomer v. Lindell et al. and Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic, LLC. et al.