A federal judge who recently declined to dismiss a defamation lawsuit against an Oklahoma podcaster for his alleged lies about election-rigging has now refused to pause the litigation while the defendant appeals.

On March 7, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez found Eric Coomer, the former director of product security and strategy for voting technology supplier Dominion Voting Systems, is likely to prevail on his defamation claim against podcaster Clayton Thomas “Clay” Clark. In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, Clark promoted an unproven rumor that Coomer had allegedly confessed to ensuring former President Donald Trump would not win reelection. 

Clark subsequently appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and asked Martínez to halt the proceedings in the trial court. But on Monday, Martínez indicated he would not grant the request in Clark’s interlocutory, or mid-case, appeal.

“Defendants cite to no Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court decision authorizing interlocutory appeal of the denial of their Special Motion to dismiss this action,” he wrote in a May 1 order.

Following Trump’s 2020 loss, Denver-based Dominion was ensnared in allegations that it was involved in a conspiracy to rig the vote. The company fought back against its accusers, with Fox News recently settling for nearly $800 million for its role in propagating unfounded claims that Dominion swung the election to President Joe Biden.

Coomer has also filed multiple lawsuits against conservative personalities over conspiracy theories implicating him.

The litigation before Martínez centers around Colorado podcaster Joe Oltmann, who appeared on Clark’s “Thrivetime Show” alleging he personally heard Coomer say, on a conference call with activists, that Coomer had ensured Trump would not win reelection.

“You have these people like Eric Coomer that are attempting to overthrow what appears to be the will of the people by switching the votes,” Clark responded. He added that Oltmann was “exposing the truth” and Coomer “actually said that.”

“After more than fifteen years as a respected professional at the top of his field, Dr. Coomer’s reputation has been irreparably tarnished,” Coomer’s attorneys wrote in his ensuing defamation lawsuit against Clark.

Clark filed a motion to dismiss under Colorado’s “anti-SLAPP” law, which stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” The General Assembly enacted the law in 2019 to provide a mechanism for quickly disposing of lawsuits that are grounded in protected First Amendment activity – specifically, the rights to free speech and to petition the government.

Martínez denied the motion, finding the allegations credible that Cark and Thrivetime promoted false statements about Coomer maliciously.

Clark then appealed to the 10th Circuit and asked Martínez to halt the proceedings in the trial court. Because the anti-SLAPP law governs whether a person can be held liable for their conduct under the First Amendment, Clark argued his appeal could decide whether the lawsuit is viable to begin with.

Although the anti-SLAPP law authorizes an immediate interlocutory appeal to Colorado’s state appellate court, Martínez noted he is operating according to federal rules. While some types of appeals can occur before a case reaches its conclusion, Clark’s appeal did not fall into that category.

“For these reasons, the Court concludes – until the Tenth Circuit holds otherwise – that the March 7 Order is not among the ‘small class’ of orders for which interlocutory review is authorized,” the judge wrote.

The case is Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic, LLC. et al.