Alex Jones Contempt Affirmed

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a contempt order against Alex Jones for failing to appear for a scheduled deposition in the Sandy Hook litigation

The defendant Alex Jones appeals from the judgments of the trial court, Bellis, J., granting the joint motion for contempt filed by the plaintiffs for the defendant’s violation of the court’s orders to attend a deposition scheduled on March 23 and 24, 2022. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by holding him in contempt of court for failing to appear at his deposition after the court was provided an affidavit and two letters from his physicians attesting that he was too ill to attend the deposition, and (2) violated his due process rights by not requesting additional information from his physicians regarding his medical condition prior to holding him in contempt. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Illness explanation

The defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by holding him in contempt of court for failing to appear at his deposition after his counsel provided the court with an affidavit and two letters from his physicians attesting that he was too ill to attend the deposition.11 Specifically, the defendant argues that the court improperly substituted its judgment about his health for that of his physicians. We are not persuaded.

Not too sick to broadcast

In the present case, the court denied the defendant’s motions for a protective order after reviewing, among other evidence, a letter and an affidavit from Dr. Marble, and a letter from Dr. Offutt, recommending that the defendant not attend the deposition due to a medical condition. The initial letter from Dr. Marble indicated that the defendant was ‘‘remaining home’’ under the care of his physician. The plaintiffs’ counsel, however, alerted the court that the defendant was broadcasting his radio program live from his studio on March 22, 2022, when he purportedly was at home under the care of his physician. After the court issued an order requiring the defendant’s attorney to disclose where the defendant’s March 22 broadcast took place, the defendant’s attorney confirmed that the defendant was, in fact, engaging in his live broadcasts from his studio at the same time his attorney was arguing in court that he was too ill to attend his deposition. In its denial of the defendant’s motion for a protective order, the court reasoned that ‘‘the [defendant’s] medical issues, while potentially serious, are not currently serious enough to either require his hospitalization, or convince him to stop engaging in his broadcasts. [The defendant] cannot unilaterally decide to continue to engage in his broadcasts, but refuse to participate in a deposition.’’ We agree with the trial court that the undisputed fact that the defendant chose to host a live radio broadcast from his studio at the time of the scheduled hearing on his motion for a protective order significantly undercuts his claim that he was too ill to attend the deposition. We conclude that the court reasonably inferred, on the basis of the facts before it, that the defendant’s failure to attend his deposition on March 23 and March 24, 2022, was wilful. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant in contempt of its orders.

No need for a second opinion

The defendant has not provided us with any persuasive authority to support his argument that, because the court found the representations of his physicians to be lacking, it was obligated to affirmatively seek additional evidence concerning the defendant’s medical condition prior to making a determination as to whether he wilfully disregarded the court’s orders to attend the deposition. We conclude that the defendant’s novel claim requires scant analysis.

(Mike Frisch)