Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr Mann, through [his lawyers] Mr Fontaine and Mr Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding. … The Court does not reach this decision lightly.

They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavouring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.

Dr Mann’s assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel’s conduct borders on frivolity… the record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding… Dr Mann’s counsel’s bad faith misconduct is an affront to the Court’s authority and an attack on the integrity of the proceedings warranting sanctions.

The misconduct of Dr Mann and his counsel
(1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent and intent;
(2) subjected a jury not only to false evidence and grievous misrepresentations about a crucial part of Dr Mann’s case, but also to additional trial proceedings for correcting the record and the jury’s impressions thereof that otherwise likely would have been unnecessary;
(3) further complicated a trial already rife with convoluted and difficult legal and factual issues; and
(4) burdened Defendants and the Court with the time-and resource-intensive task of ascertaining the true extent of the misconduct and determining appropriate remedial measures for the same, all without any meaningful acknowledgement of the nature of the misconduct by Dr Mann or his attorneys.

July 2012: Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) published a blog post criticising Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ chart, controversially comparing him to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky by stating that Mann had “molested and tortured data”. Shortly after, Mark Steyn referenced Simberg’s post on the National Review’s blog, labelling Mann’s work as “fraudulent”.October 22nd 2012: Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit in the District of Columbia Superior Court against Mark Steyn, the National Review, Rand Simberg and the CEI, alleging that their statements were defamatory.

December 22nd 2016: The DC Court of Appeals ruled that Mann’s case against Simberg and Steyn could proceed, stating that a “reasonable jury” could find against the defendants.

May 2019: National Review‘s Special Motion to Dismiss prevailed in large part, with the court dismissing Mann’s libel claim based on Editor Rich Lowry’s ‘Get Lost’ post and the broader intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against National Review. However, the defamation claim based on Mark Steyn’s blog post was not dismissed, allowing that part of the case to continue.

March 19th 2021: The DC Superior Court granted summary judgment in favour of the National Review, stating that actual malice could not be imputed to the company based on the state of mind of an independent contractor like Steyn.

January 16th 2024: The rescheduled trial commenced. After deliberations, the jury found that both Simberg and Steyn had defamed Mann. The jury awarded Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer, $1,000 in punitive damages from Simberg and $1 million in punitive damages from Steyn.

March 11th 2024: National Review filed a motion in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to recover a portion of the legal fees incurred during the litigation, seeking over $1 million from Mann.

January 7th 2025: The court issued a decision awarding National Review $530,820.21 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

March 4th 2025: The Superior Court of the District of Columbia reduced the punitive damages against Mark Steyn from $1 million to $5,000, deeming the original award “grossly excessive and unconstitutional”.

March 12th 2025: The court sanctioned Michael Mann’s legal team for misconduct during the trial, ordering it to pay a portion of the defendants’ legal fees. The court cited improper conduct during discovery and trial proceedings as the basis for these sanctions.