Taus v. Loftus - 40 Cal. 4th 683, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 775, 151 P.3d 1185 (2007)

Rule:

In order to establish a probability of prevailing on a claim, Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1), a plaintiff responding to an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion must state and substantiate a legally sufficient claim. Put another way, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited. In deciding the question of potential merit, the trial court considers the pleadings and evidentiary submissions of both the plaintiff and the defendant, § 425.16, subd. (b)(2); though the court does not weigh the credibility or comparative probative strength of competing evidence, it should grant the motion if, as a matter of law, the defendant's evidence supporting the motion defeats the plaintiff's attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim. Section 425.16 subjects to potential dismissal those causes of action as to which the plaintiff is unable to show a probability of prevailing on the merits, requiring a trial court to determine only if the plaintiff has stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim.

Facts:

Plaintiff, an unnamed subject in a study on recovered memory of childhood abuse, sued defendants, authors and publishers of articles criticizing the study. The complaint asserted that defendants improperly invaded the subject's privacy and committed other tortious conduct by investigating the subject's background and discovering and disclosing information concerning her private life without her consent. The trial court denied the motions in large part, concluding that the bulk of plaintiff's claims should be permitted to go forward. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that most of the claims set forth in the complaint should be dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute, but also concluded that the suit could proceed with regard to four aspects of defendants' conduct that were challenged in the complaint. Following the Court of Appeals’ decision, only defendants sought review in the court. The petition for review contended that although the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the bulk of plaintiff’s claims, the appellate court had erred in permitting any aspect of the action to go forward. The state supreme court granted review.

Issue:

Did the Court of Appeal correctly determine that the plaintiff’s suit could proceed as to the four points challenged by defendants?

Answer:

No, with respect to three claims. Yes, with respect to one claim.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal as to the conclusion that the action could go forward with regard to disclosure, at a conference, of the subject’s position in the military; disclosure, at an unrelated deposition, of the subject’s initials; and collection of information from court files. The Court affirmed as to the conclusion that the action for intrusion into private matters could proceed based on alleged misrepresentations. The Court found that defendants’ activities were clearly in furtherance of their exercise of free speech in connection with a public issue within the meaning of § 425.16. Further, the subject did not establish a prima facie case on any cause of action arising from three of the four incidents as to which the Court of Appeal had allowed claims to continue. Thus, anti-SLAPP motions should have been granted on claims arising from those incidents. The subject did satisfy her burden, however, as to a claim of intrusion into private matters based on evidence that one defendant misrepresented herself as a colleague of the study’s author, a psychiatrist, in order to obtain information from the subject’s former foster mother. That conduct, if proved, would be a particularly serious type of misrepresentation and significantly different, for purposes of the intrusion tort, from the more familiar practice of a news reporter or investigator in shading or withholding information regarding his or her motives when interviewing a potential news source.