In 2012, plaintiff Charles Tenborg, an environmental scientist who had experience in hazardous waste management, was mentioned in the article “Hazardous waste chief skirts law,” which was published online by CalCoastNews. The article alleged that Tenborg illegally received a no-bid contract with the Integrated Waste Management Authority in violation of state law, had been fired from his previous position with the county, was “encouraging [clients] to break state law,” and was illegally transporting hazardous waste. It also featured photos of Tenborg and a manager from Integrated Waste Management Authority, as well as a stock image of a yellow barrel labeled “radioactive.” However, Tenborg claimed the article was malicious, defamatory, and false. He also claimed that CalCoastNews refused to retract the story after the article was brought to the immediate attention of its owner, Karen Velie, and Senior Correspondent Daniel Blackburn. Tenborg sued the operator of CalCoastNews, CalCoastNews/UncoveredSLO.com LLC; Velie; and Blackburn. Tenborg alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted defamation. Plaintiff’s counsel defeated defense counsel’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion in 2014, and the denial of the matter was affirmed on appeal in 2015. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial on March 6, 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the writers of the article did not research facts that could have been verified nor obtain appropriate records. Counsel also argued that the writers did not seek sources with direct knowledge nor did they allow Tenborg a chance to defend himself against their allegations. Thus, counsel argued that the article contained false information and juxtaposed a picture of radioactive waste next to Tenborg’s photo, even though Tenborg and his company never handled radioactive waste. Plaintiff’s counsel presented evidence to the jury demonstrating that Tenborg’s contract with Integrated Waste Management Authority was of a type that did not require a public bid, that Tenborg’s resignation letter proved that he was not fired, and that Tenborg complied with all applicable laws while transporting waste. In addition, multiple governmental witnesses confirmed Tenborg’s position on those matters. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that the article did not offer contrary evidence. Tenborg claimed that Velie contacted him no more than three times before the article’s publication and that he referred questions that he could not answer to the appropriate people. He also claimed that Velie never asked about licensing, his past employment, or any alleged illegal transportation of waste. He further claimed that before the article was published, he spoke with Velie two times by telephone, as shown by AT&T phone records presented by plaintiff’s counsel, and that in neither call did Velie ask him any questions regarding the challenged part of the article. Velie and Blackburn claimed that the article was to be the first in a series that never came to completion and that some of the allegations would have been proven in later articles in the series. Velie contended that she investigated Tenborg for about eight months while Blackburn investigated tips about the manager of Integrated Waste Management Authority’s past employment. She testified, in contrast with her answer in discovery, that she relied on attorneys who helped with the website, as well as relied on former employees of the city of San Luis Obispo and Integrated Waste Management Authority employees. Velie also testified that when she received the retraction letter, the website’s editor allegedly told her to leave the article because of a pending lawsuit. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that although Velie claimed a myriad of sources were used for information for the article, Velie often testified that she could not remember who gave her what information and could not provide her notes after they were allegedly lost because of a broken computer. Counsel also noted that defense counsel did not call any of Velie’s alleged sources as witness at trial. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel showed the retraction letter in court, noting that it did not threaten a lawsuit, and noted that the website editor later testified that he never instructed Velie to leave the article online., Tenborg claimed that after the article appeared in a waste industry newsletter, he was contacted by colleagues from across the state about the allegations. He alleged that as a result, he ultimately had to sell his business after his reputation suffered and that he was forced to sell it for $1.3 million, about $1.1 million less than it was valued. Thus, Tenborg sought recovery for his emotional distress, loss of reputation, and presumed damages. He also sought recovery of more than $1 million in damages for the loss of future revenue and $500,000 in punitive damages. Defense counsel argued that Tenborg was not injured greatly and that Tenborg should have “thicker skin.” Counsel also argued that if damages were awarded, Tenborg should be awarded no more than $10,000.