Posts Tagged ‘Sweetwater’
Sweetwater — How to Defeat an anti-SLAPP Motion with Inadmissible Evidence
An anti-SLAPP motion can be viewed as a somewhat one-sided mini-trial, where the plaintiff is required to show sufficient evidence to establish a likelihood of succeeding on their claims. It’s one-sided because the plaintiff’s evidence is “accepted as true,” and the defendant’s evidence is considered only to determine if it establishes an affirmative defense as a matter of law.
But therein lies the rub. The plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to establish a probability of success, while at the same time being prevented from gathering that evidence due to the discovery stay the motion imposes. Perhaps more frustrating, the plaintiff may have the evidence, but the evidence is inadmissible due to issues that could be easily addressed with a little discovery. For example, a plaintiff was provided with a company email from and anonymous source that clearly defames him, but that email is inadmissible hearsay unless and until he conducts discovery to authenticate it. Should such a case be dismissed pursuant to an anti-SLAPP motion even though the supporting evidence exists, but is not yet admissible?
In the decision of Sweetwater Union High School District v. Gilbane Building Co., the California Supreme Court came up with a brilliant way to address this conundrum. Sweetwater clarifies that the inquiry is not whether the proffered materials are themselves admissible in their present form, but whether the facts asserted are reasonably capable of being admitted at trial. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Understanding Anti-SLAPP Evidence
Another great victory by Morris & Stone, and an important lesson on anti-SLAPP evidence.
Our tale begins with a father who loved his daughter. We’ll call him Dad, and his daughter will be Rose.
Dad thought married life was good, and he and his wife begat their wonderful daughter Rose. But his wife (we’ll call her Mom) apparently saw greener grass, and divorced Dad to marry New Guy, meaning that Rose would now be spending time with New Guy.
Reports from Rose about her time with New Guy were disturbing. She claimed that New Guy had spanked her, and one time she returned home with a badly bruised arm she blamed on New Guy. During the ongoing custody battle, Dad reported his concerns about New Guy to the court in various court documents, stating that based on what Rose was reporting, he was being too forceful with Rose. Dad freely admitted he had no personal knowledge of any of this; he was only reporting what Rose was telling him. What else was he supposed to do?
Click "Amazon Music" for all episodes of California SLAPP Law Podcast