 |
Former attorney Phil Ross defended himself during a nearly two-week trial over allegations that he and another defendant defamed Seguin guardian Tonya Barina by statements they made for a 2020 Netflix documentary on guardianships. |
A Bexar County jury awarded nearly $8.5 million in damages to Seguin guardian Tonya Barina in her defamation lawsuit over a Netflix documentary that falsely portrayed her as exploiting an elderly man.
Jurors deliberated into Monday evening before reaching the verdict after a nearly two-week trial over “Guardianship Inc.,” a 2020 episode of Netflix’s “Dirty Money” documentary series. Although Netflix and the documentary’s producers settled with Barina before trial, former San Antonio attorney Phil Ross and Jo Ann Rivera, Ross’ former associate, remained in the case and represented themselves at trial.
The lawsuit stemmed from a yearslong legal battle over the guardianship of one-time San Antonio businessman Charles Thrash, Barina’s great-uncle. Also named as defendants were Laura Martinez, whose marriage to Thrash was later annulled, and her children, Brittany, Michelle and Joe Martinez. Ross represented the Martinez family during the guardianship litigation before surrendering his law license in lieu of discipline stemming from his role in the guardianship.
Before the case went to the jury, state District Judge Nadine Nieto directed a verdict against the Martinez family after none of them presented a defense at trial.
The jury found Ross, Rivera, the Martinez family and Netflix defamed Barina by falsely portraying her as exploiting Thrash and awarded her $6 million in actual damages and almost $2.5 million in punitive damages.
Assigning blame
After finding Barina had been defamed, jurors assigned percentages of responsibility to each defendant and to Netflix, which settled before trial.
They assigned responsibility as follows: Ross, 30%; Netflix, 27%; Laura Martinez, 20%; Rivera 10%; Brittany Martinez, 8%; Michelle Martinez, 4%; and Joe Martinez, 1%.
Before closing arguments, Nieto declined to remove Netflix from the apportionment question despite a request from Barina’s lawyers. But because Netflix resolved Barina’s claims before trial, no liability can be attached to it.
The jury also awarded punitive damages of $1 million against Ross, $200,000 against Rivera, $500,000 against Laura Martinez and $250,000 each against Brittany, Michelle and Jose Martinez.
“This verdict totally vindicates Tonya Barina and establishes she took no money from Charlie Thrash, nor was she ever involved in guardianship abuse,” her lawyers, Glenn Deadman and Carl Kolb, said in a statement. “The verdict shows that Ross, Rivera and the Martinez clan intentionally defamed Ms. Barina.”
Ross said he and Rivera intend to seek a new trial or appeal, arguing the judge improperly excluded evidence and that the verdict was unsupported by the evidence.
‘Crime of 21st century’
The lawsuit centered on “Guardianship Inc.,” a documentary that featured the Thrash guardianship and another case while portraying guardianship abuse as “the crime of the 21st century.” Barina alleged the episode falsely depicted her as exploiting Thrash and destroyed her reputation and banking career. The documentary was later taken off the air.
Thrash, now 88, owned a San Antonio automotive repair shop and amassed an estate valued at $3 million to $6 million before he was placed under a court-ordered guardianship after being diagnosed with dementia.
The guardianship sparked years of contentious litigation between Barina and Ross, who represented Laura Martinez and her family in challenging the court-appointed guardians.
Among the statements jurors were asked to consider were Ross’ assertions that what was happening to Thrash was “a crime,” that he was the victim of “textbook” guardianship abuse and that his estate was being exploited by the people appointed to manage it.
Jurors also considered whether Rivera defamed Barina by promoting the documentary and related allegations on a Facebook page called “The Journey of Charlie Thrash.” Barina alleged the posts republished the documentary’s false claims and further damaged her reputation.
Closing arguments
During closing arguments, Ross told jurors he was exercising his constitutional right to free speech and that his statements in the documentary were true, not defamatory. He said he had no role in producing the documentary beyond giving interviews.
Ross argued the verdict would have consequences beyond the case, saying it could discourage people from speaking to journalists.
“Whatever happens in this trial is going to send a message to anybody that wants to talk to a reporter,” he said.
Rivera likewise denied defaming Barina, saying she neither created false statements nor acted with malice.
“I’m not responsible for this,” Rivera said during her closing arguments. “I didn’t defame her. I haven’t been malicious. I didn’t create lies.”
Kolb argued the documentary omitted an important part of the story. About 10 months before it aired, a probate judge sanctioned Ross and Laura and Brittany Martinez in connection with the guardianship litigation. Kolb said leaving out those findings made the documentary misleading.
Deadman said that after Ross and the Martinez family lost in the courts, they went to “the court of public opinion” to get Barina removed as guardian.
Deadman also urged jurors not to be swayed by Ross’ free-speech argument, saying the case was about accountability for false statements rather than the right to speak.
“Put a number in there that will redeem this lady’s reputation and get it published throughout the world,” he said. “Send a message.”
Full Article & Source:
San Antonio-area woman wins nearly $8.5M after jury finds Netflix documentary defamatory
