A defamation trial between U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young and CNN took a dramatic turn on Wednesday morning, as the Florida judge overseeing the case grew visibly frustrated with both parties. The heated exchange, which unfolded during a discovery hearing, was especially intense toward CNN’s lead counsel, David Axelrod, prompting the judge to accuse the network’s lawyers of “misrepresentations” and “shenanigans” during the proceedings.
The case revolves around a November 2021 segment on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper, in which Young, a security contractor who helped extract people from Afghanistan during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal, was portrayed as an “illegal profiteer” preying on “desperate Afghans.” Young argues that the broadcast damaged his reputation by falsely depicting him as charging exorbitant fees during a critical moment of crisis in Afghanistan.
During the seventh day of proceedings, the tension boiled over as Young’s attorney, Devin “Vel” Freedman, requested permission to reopen the plaintiff’s case after discovering a crucial document just before the trial’s closing. This document, which had surfaced unexpectedly, was a communication between Helios Global — a company Young had worked with — and CNN. It suggested that Young had lost his security clearance in 2022, an important detail that was not previously disclosed during discovery.
CNN’s legal team, led by Axelrod, had earlier argued that the consulting agreement Young signed with Helios Global was evidence that he was able to secure work after the allegedly defamatory broadcast aired. However, Young’s legal team contended that the agreement was merely signed to maintain his security clearance, and no substantial work resulted from it. Freedman argued that CNN had knowledge of the lost security clearance but failed to disclose it to the court, which could have been pivotal in undermining the network’s defense.
The tense legal exchange led to Judge William Henry, of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court, losing his patience with the attorneys. “We don’t lawyer like this around here,” he told the lawyers, warning that he would not tolerate the “shenanigans” that had unfolded in the courtroom. The judge’s frustration was particularly evident when he directed his ire toward CNN’s lead counsel, David Axelrod, over what he perceived as misleading tactics.
Judge Henry criticized Axelrod for making what he called “blatant misrepresentations” and accused the defense of attempting to downplay or obscure key facts in the case. The judge’s exasperation reached its peak when Axelrod attempted to clarify his position, only to be cut off with a sharp retort.
“I’m tired of these blatant misrepresentations that are being made,” Henry said, his voice rising in anger. “And they’re being made by both of y’all. And maybe they’re not 100% lies. Maybe they’re leaving out a little bit of the truth. And making representations, so you can carefully say: ‘Well, I didn’t exactly say that.’”
The source of the conflict centered around the document in question, which Freedman argued had not been disclosed in time for it to be properly considered during the trial. This late revelation, he claimed, showed that CNN had knowledge that Young had lost his security clearance — information the plaintiff did not have at the time and that had not been shared during discovery.
In response, Axelrod claimed that Young was attempting to circumvent his discovery obligations by withholding the document, asserting that the plaintiff had access to it. This led to a tense back-and-forth, which triggered the judge’s outburst.
After taking a brief recess to review the communications at the heart of the dispute, Judge Henry returned to the courtroom with a scathing critique of CNN’s conduct. He accused the network of engaging in discovery practices that violated court rules, stating that their actions were no better than those of the plaintiff’s side, which had also been criticized for similar tactics.
“You represent to me this morning: ‘We didn’t accuse him of anything beyond a security agreement.’ But that was clearly the implication,” the judge remarked, adding that he found it troubling that the document had been admitted into evidence despite the late disclosure. “Had I known it’d been discovery being conducted after the deadline, there’s no way in hell that the document would have been admitted into evidence.”
Judge Henry did not hold back when addressing Axelrod’s repeated insinuations that Young was lying about his security clearance status. “How many times have you called him a liar?” the judge demanded.
He then went on to call for an apology from Axelrod, noting that the attorney’s conduct had been detrimental to Young’s case. “I think an apology, from you, is clearly in order, to Mr. Young, for the number of times in front of this court — and streamed around the world — that you called Mr. Young a liar for failing to disclose a document that wasn’t — that you have no proof was in his custody or control,” Henry said.
In the end, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, allowing Young’s legal team to introduce the surprise document and question a Helios Global representative about it in front of the jury. However, the judge also reserved the right to issue sanctions regarding the discovery dispute, leaving open the possibility of further repercussions for CNN’s legal team.
READ NEXT: CNN Cites Sharia Law In $1 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Defense
