2. Catherine Engelbrecht

As an individual Defendant, Catherine Engelbrecht testified as the founder and president of TTV. Tr. 827:21–23. She thereby has “visibility into all the organization’s operations and activities,” “oversee[s] the organization’s strategy[,] finances[,] [and] communications.” Tr. 828:16–829:13.

Engelbrecht grew up in Texas. Tr. 1749:23–24. She began her career at her family’s manufacturing business and eventually started TTV in 2009. Tr. 1750:18–1752:14. Engelbrecht established TTV for the purpose of facilitating citizen service, especially in election related activities. Tr. 1752:15–1753:16, 1757:13–1758:13.

Engelbrecht grew up in Texas. Tr. 1749:23–24. She began her career at her family’s manufacturing business and eventually started TTV in 2009. Tr. 1750:18–1752:14. Engelbrecht established TTV for the purpose of facilitating citizen service, especially in election related activities. Tr. 1752:15–1753:16, 1757:13–1758:13.

Engelbrecht has some experience working with large data, and the NCOA specifically, through her association with a FinTech healthcare company. Tr. 1764:17–19. While Engelbrecht’s experience may give her some understanding of the data and processes used in this case, Engelbrecht is not an expert witness. The Court does not give any weight to her testimony on data analytics or the accuracy and reliability of NCOA datasets beyond it being Engelbrecht’s own personal understanding of the data and processes. Moreover, to the extent that Engelbrecht equated authorizing OpSec’s analysis of the NCOA data and voter registration list with conducting an actual analysis, the Court finds this testimony to be of little weight. See, e.g., Tr. 1900:9–1901:23. In fact, no evidence besides Engelbrecht’s own trial testimony connects Engelbrecht to OpSec’s data procedures or statistical processes.

The Court concludes by acknowledging Engelbrecht was impeached a number of times at trial. See, e.g., Tr. 855:19–860:20 (indicating an inconsistency between Engelbrecht’s trial and deposition testimonies regarding whether TTV had evidence of illegal voting), 934:17–936:4 (showing an inconsistency in Engelbrecht’s trial and deposition testimonies regarding whether TTV should have made a statement that their voter challenge list was “99.9 percent” accurate). Even in the instances where the Court does not find Engelbrecht’s prior testimony to be blatantly inconsistent with her trial testimony, the Court cannot ignore that many of Engelbrecht’s skillful answers were obviously self-serving—and to the detriment of her overall candor. Thus, the Court considers Engelbrecht’s testimony, but also closely scrutinizes the documentary evidence and Engelbrecht’s prior testimony to best make factual findings infra about the Section 230 challenges and other intimidating behaviors alleged.