In California, the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law protects individuals from lawsuits that attempt to silence free speech or legitimate petitioning. Knowing how the burden of proof works in these cases is key because it affects how a case moves through the court system.
The defendant’s burden
When a defendant files an anti-SLAPP motion, they must show that the lawsuit targets their protected activities, such as free speech or petitioning the government. If the court agrees these activities factor in, the case moves to the next phase. This step is important because it saves the defendant from long, costly litigation if they prove the law protects their actions.
The plaintiff’s burden
Once the defendant shows that the case involves protected speech, the plaintiff must prove the lawsuit has merit. They need to provide evidence that their claim has legal grounding and is not simply an attempt to silence the defendant. For instance, the plaintiff may need to demonstrate harm or damages caused by the defendant’s actions to move the case forward. If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the court will dismiss the case.
The importance of timing
Timing plays an important role in anti-SLAPP motions. The defendant must file these motions early in the process. Once filed, discovery (the process of gathering evidence) stops until the court rules on the motion. This prevents the plaintiff from expanding the case without first overcoming the anti-SLAPP hurdle and helps stop abusive tactics designed to wear down the defendant.
Final thoughts
California’s anti-SLAPP law strikes a careful balance between protecting free speech and allowing valid claims to proceed. Each party has specific burdens to meet, and understanding these legal standards is essential for anyone involved in an anti-SLAPP case.