Opposition to Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion
Written by
Jessica E
March 19, 2025 · 8 min read
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
Case No.
Assigned To:
Dept
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
Action Filed:
TAC Filed:
Trial Date:
Hearing:
Time:
Dept.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
New Hampshire v. Maine, (2001) 532 U.S. 742 ………………………….
Navellier v. Sletten, (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82 ………………………………….
Flatley v. Mauro, (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 ……………………………………..
Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53 ….
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, (2011) 563 U.S. 27 ………………………………
STATUTES
Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 ……………………………………………………..……
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff respectfully submits this Opposition to the Defendant’s Second Anti-SLAPP Motion. This case arises from an employment dispute wherein the Plaintiff asserts claims of wrongful investigation, wrongful expulsion, and discriminatory practices orchestrated by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA). At the heart of the Plaintiff’s complaint are assertions the that HFPA engaged in a systematic campaign aimed at silencing dissent and concealing misconduct. Subsequently, these actions have significantly harmed the Plaintiff’s reputation and employment prospects.
Initially, the Defendant filed its first Anti-SLAPP Motion, contending that the Plaintiff’s claims were categorically barred as mere exercises of free speech and petitioning activities, protected under Section 425.16 of the Code Civil Procedure. Not long after, however, the Defendant’s conduct took an unexpected turn when it pursued a Motion for Protective Order. In doing so, the Defendant sought to strictly limit access to documents related to its internal investigation by claiming that such materials were confidential owing to the privacy rights of accusers and witnesses. This abrupt reversal – advocating both for the public disclosure of information as protected speech and for the imposition of confidentiality to shield those very disclosures reveals a contradictory policy.
Through diligent and exhaustive discovery efforts, the Plaintiff has obtained a significant body of evidence which unequivocally demonstrates that the Defendant selectively invoked confidentiality. This evidence includes internal communications, emails, and investigation reports, that collectively refute the Defendant’s claim that its actions were purely an exercise of protected free speech. Instead, the documents reveal calculated maneuvers intended to mask wrongful conduct, thus rendering its dual assertions logically and legally untenable.
The importance of opposing the Defendant’s second anti-SLAPP Motion extends far beyond the immediate determination of Plaintiff’s claims. A ruling in favor of the Defendant’s contradictory positions would not only undermine the integrity of this judicial proceeding but would also set a dangerous precedent, encouraging the misuse of Anti-SLAPP statutes as litigation shields for entities seeking to evade accountability. Upholding the consistent application of legal principles and ensuring transparency in the employment context are paramount to maintaining public confidence in our judicial process.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the Defendant’s second Anti-SLAPP Motion in its entirety and grant any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History and Initial Motions
In an earlier phase of these proceedings, the Defendant filed its first Anti-SLAPP Motion, contending that the Plaintiff ’s claims were protected by Section 425.16 of the Code Civil Procedure as a matter of free speech and petitioning activity.
Shortly thereafter, the Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order, demanding that all documentation relating to its investigation remain confidential to protect the privacy rights of its employees, accusers, and witnesses.
B. Events Leading to the Current Motion
The Defendant publicly disseminated details relating to the investigation into the Plaintiff’s actions which directly contradicted the confidentiality demanded in its Protective Order.
Subsequent discovery unearthed a substantial body of evidence, including internal communications, emails, and investigation reports,
revealing that the Defendant selectively chose to publicize the investigation when politically and strategically advantageous.
The discovery evidence shows that the Defendant’s public pronouncements were designed not to foster transparency, but to shield its misconduct, thereby undermining its reliance on the protections provided under Section 425.16 of the Code Civil Procedure.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Anti-SLAPP Framework Under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16
Section § 425.16 of the Civil Procedure Code is designed to protect free speech and petitioning on matters of public interest. However, this protection is not absolute and does not extend to conduct that is abusive, fraudulent, or contrary to public policy.
The statute establishes a two-step inquiry: first, to determine whether the speech at issue is of public concern, and second, whether the plaintiff has adequately demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its claims.
As emphasized by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, the burden is on the defendant asserting anti-SLAPP protection to prove that their statements are not subject to further litigation—and that the claimant has no probability of success. Failure to meet this burden invalidates the anti-SLAPP shield.
B. Statutory and Case Law Considerations
- Contradictory Positions and Judicial Estoppel
In New Hampshire v. Maine (2001) 532 U.S. 742, the Court discussed the doctrine of judicial estoppel, holding that a party should not be allowed to assume inconsistent positions in legal proceedings. HFPA’s simultaneous reliance on public disclosure as protected speech and demand for confidentiality is similarly inconsistent and should render its position indefensible.
- Discovery Evidence as a Refutation of Anti-SLAPP Claims
The case of Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82 further reinforces that when discovery produces evidence that refutes the claimed protection of free speech, the anti-SLAPP motion must fail. In this matter, the discovery evidence has established that HFPA’s public disclosures were not consistent with a genuine confidentiality claim.
- Limitations on Protected Speech Under Anti-SLAPP
In Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, the court held that illegal or wrongful conduct falls outside the ambit of protected speech. HFPA’s breach of its own confidentiality policies and its manipulative conduct should not be sheltered by the Anti-SLAPP statute.
- Misuse of Anti-SLAPP Laws
The decision in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53 warns against using the Anti-SLAPP statute to stifle legitimate claims and evade discovery. HFPA’s contradictory maneuvers in these proceedings exemplify the misuse of the statute as a litigation weapon rather than a genuine protective measure for free expression.
IV: ARGUMENTS
CONTRADICTORY POSITION OF THE HPFA
The Defendant’s Second Anti-SLAPP Motion asserts that its public discussion of the Plaintiff’s investigation is a legitimate exercise of free speech under Section 425.16 of the Code Civil Procedure. Simultaneously, its Motion for Protective Order argues that the very same investigation must be kept confidential to protect the privacy rights of participants. This selective invocation of confidentiality is inherently contradictory. As emphasized in New Hampshire v. Maine, parties should not be allowed to advance inconsistent legal positions within the same proceedings. The Defendant’s inability to reconcile these positions severely undermines the credibility of its arguments.
By advancing two mutually exclusive positions, the Defendant displays a clear inconsistency in its legal policy. The credibility of its anti-SLAPP assertion collapses when juxtaposed with its demand for protective confidentiality. Given that the Defendant’s public disclosures have already compromised the supposed confidentiality, it can offer no credible basis for its reliance on Section 425.16 of the Code Civil Procedure.
DISCOVERY EVIDENCE
Discovery has unearthed extensive evidence that unequivocally demonstrate HFPA’s selective public disclosures. This evidence negates any argument that the investigation was conducted under a bona fide expectation of confidentiality. As outlined in Navellier v. Sletten, where discovery evidence played a critical role in refuting anti-SLAPP claims, here the evidence shows that the Defendant’s actions were designed to conceal wrongful conduct rather than protect free speech.
The discovery materials clearly indicate that HFPA’s internal investigation details were publicly disseminated, contradicting the confidentiality asserted in its Protective Order. This factual record further undermines its claim that the Plaintiff’s allegations should be dismissed as protected free speech.
PUBLIC INTEREST AND FREE SPEECH
The Defendant’s attempt to use the Anti-SLAPP statute to shield its conduct is fundamentally flawed. While section 425.16 of the Code Civil Procedure protects expressions on matters of public interest, limitations exist where conduct is wrongful or intended to manipulate legal outcomes. As held in Flatley v. Mauro, wrongful conduct does not merit protection under the statute, and HFPA’s actions,particularly its breach of confidentiality,fall squarely within this exclusion.
The public interest executive in this case is not served by allowing the Defendant to evade accountability through selective interpretations of free speech. Instead, transparency and accountability must prevail, ensuring that HFPA cannot exploit anti-SLAPP protections to cover its own litigative misconduct.
POLICY CONSIDERATION
It is worth noting that a ruling in favor of HFPA’s inconsistent and self-serving position would create a dangerous precedent, encouraging other entities to invoke anti-SLAPP protections selectively and shield themselves from discovery in future labor and employment disputes. Maintaining the integrity of the judicial process requires that parties adhere to consistent and honest legal strategies.
As highlighted in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, the misapplication of anti-SLAPP statutes risks undermining the very purpose of such protections. The law is intended to suo moto prevent frivolous litigation and abuse, not to serve as a cover for wrongful or deceptive conduct. The Defendant’s misuse of the statute must therefore be firmly rejected.
IV: CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Asi respectfully requests that this Honourable Court denies the Defendant’s Second Anti-SLAPP Motion in its entirety on the grounds that HFPA’s contradictory positions and compelling discovery evidence render its claims baseless and recognize that HFPA’s selective invocation of confidentiality fundamentally undermines its claim to protected free speech under Section 425.16 of the Code Civil Procedure.
Date:
_____________________________ Street
Santa
Pro Per
Meet the Author
Distinguished linguist at Legal Writing Experts
Jessica is an expert legal writer with a remarkable blend of legal knowledge and linguistic precision. She earned her Juris Doctor degree from Duke University, where she attended on a prestigious Law Faculty Merit Scholarship. At Duke, Jessica demonstrated her exceptional abilities by serving as an editor of the Duke Law Review.
After graduating, Jessica further refined her skills during a two-year appellate clerkship at a distinguished law firm in North Carolina. Throughout law school, she enhanced her research and writing expertise as a research assistant and writer for various legal firms. Jessica’s deep understanding of legal language and meticulous attention to detail make her an invaluable asset to our legal writing services.