e. Amy Holsworth

Plaintiff also called Amy Holsworth as an adverse witness.37 Holsworth was a contractor for TTV between September 2020 and July 2021, and thus was part of the team engaging in the Section 230 challenges in Georgia. Tr. 1370:7–9. She had knowledge of TTV’s election integrity hotline, which received “a substantial amount of phone calls.” Tr. 1371:1–5. She also was familiar with the whistleblower compensation fund. Tr. 1371:11–16. She rejected the suggestion that the announcement of the whistleblower fund increased calls to the hotline, and instead attributed the increase in calls to the proximity of the election. Tr. 1371:17–24.

As far as TTV’s Section 230 challenges are concerned, Holsworth served as the contact between the volunteer challengers and TTV. She made sure they understood the process and received their consent to submit challenges on their behalf. Tr. 1372:3–12. Another TTV team member actually submitted the challenges through the TTV email address. Tr. 1372:25–1373:25. As far as Holsworth was aware, TTV sent these emails containing the challenge letters directly to the counties without the volunteer challenger being part of the process. Tr 1373:18–21.

While Plaintiffs attempted to elicit testimony from Holsworth regarding TTV’s volunteer challenger in Muscogee County, they were unable to do so. While Holsworth identified the excel spreadsheet as TTV’s challenger list (Tr. 1374:1–10), she expressly testified that she did not recall the names of specific challengers on that list and, even upon reviewing the file, could not testify from personal recollection about the Muscogee County challenger without reading directly from the spreadsheet. Tr. 1374:4–8, 1375:15–24 (“I would have no idea without looking at the spreadsheet.”), 1376:5–7 (“[I]f it was on the spreadsheet then it was on the spreadsheet. I don’t—I don’t have any recollection of it being on the spreadsheet without seeing the spreadsheet.”). Thus, the Court does not find Holsworth’s testimony to support any factual finding regarding the TTV challenger volunteer in Muscogee County. The spreadsheet itself, moreover, was not admitted into evidence because of a lack of foundation.38 See Doc. No. [328] (excluding as denied from Plaintiff’s exhibit list “PX 86” which was a “[l]ist of voter challengers from TTV”).

The Court generally finds Holsworth’s testimony to be credible and will be afforded due weight and consideration. The Court will thereby appropriately weigh her testimony regarding the election integrity hotline and the whistleblower compensation fund, in addition to the mechanics of TTV’s process in submitting its Section 230 challenges through volunteers.