A state appeals court has upheld a judge’s decision to convict a longtime Everglades scientist of contempt of court that could send him to jail.
In its ruling, the Third District Court of Appeal said Circuit Judge Carlos Lopez correctly determined that Tom Van Lent intentionally violated an injunction when he deleted or downloaded computer files belonging to the Everglades Foundation, where he worked for 17 years. Lopez also ordered Van Lent to pay $178,000 in attorney fees and spend 10 days in jail.
Van Lent referred questions to his attorney, Michael Rayboun, who declined to comment.
READ MORE: In fight over research, influential Everglades Foundation sues its former chief scientist
The Foundation sued their former chief scientist, regarded as one of the leading hydrologists in Everglades restoration, in 2022 after he quit following a long simmering disagreement over a controversial Everglades reservoir championed by the Foundation and Gov. Ron DeSantis.
On his last day, Van Lent tweeted that he was going to work for another nonprofit started by Marjory Stoneman Douglas — Friends of the Everglades — saying they put “facts over politics.”
Just over a month later, the Foundation sued, accusing Van Lent of stealing confidential information. They also obtained a court order barring him from downloading any files and to turn over all his devices.
During a bitter court battle, a computer forensics expert testified that Van Lent went on a downloading spree that included deleting over 760,000 items and 11,000 emails. Van Lent insisted he only deleted personal information or redundant files in an effort to clean up data. He also said he believed the order only applied to Foundation material and that he was not required to turn over personal information that included details about his finances and health.
Lopez disagreed, charged Van Lent with contempt, and as allowed by law, asked the Foundation’s attorney, Jorge Piedra, to prosecute the charge.
In his appeal, Van Lent challenged that decision saying it violated his rights to due process. Piedra aggressively cross-examined Van Lent during the trial and applied the same zeal to the contempt case.
Because he failed to challenge the appointment at the time, the appellate judges found Van Lent’s rights were not violated. And while some courts have questioned appointing opposing counsel to represent the court in a contempt case, the majority of judges said Piedra’s role was limited to calling and questioning witnesses — in this case, Van Lent.
The judges also found the evidence presented during the trial credible.
“Given Van Lent’s own testimony and the sheer amount of electronic data that was deleted in this case, we find ample competent substantial evidence for the trial court’s findings that Van Lent did not simply delete personal information and instead intentionally violated the temporary injunction by engaging in a scheme to misappropriate the Foundation’s confidential information and conceal his misconduct,” the judges wrote.
When contacted by WLRN, Friends of the Everglades Executive Director Eve Samples said in a statement that the nonprofit stood by Van Lent.
“This litigation is detrimental to the vital cause of Everglades restoration and was initiated after Dr. Van Lent raised scientific questions about the effectiveness of the $4 billion Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir project that the Foundation promoted,” she wrote. “Friends of the Everglades has steadfastly maintained that Dr. Van Lent never shared any ‘trade secrets,’ as alleged by the Foundation, and we remain baffled by this legal pursuit.”
This post was originally published on here
