Anti-SLAPP motions play a crucial role in protecting individuals from lawsuits meant to silence free speech. In these motions, the burden of proof shifts between the parties, impacting the case’s outcome.
Initial burden on the defendant
When a defendant files an Anti-SLAPP motion, the initial burden falls on them to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s lawsuit stems from an activity protected by free speech rights. This typically includes activities related to matters of public interest or the exercise of constitutional rights.
Plaintiff’s burden after the initial showing
Once the defendant meets the initial burden, the responsibility shifts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must now establish a probability of success on the merits of the case. This means they must present evidence showing that their claims are legally valid and supported by facts, sufficient to survive the Anti-SLAPP motion.
Evidence and legal standards
In an Anti-SLAPP motion, both sides rely on documentary evidence and legal arguments. The court evaluates the strength of the plaintiff’s claims, often before the discovery process begins. This early evaluation can lead to the dismissal of meritless lawsuits designed to suppress free speech.
Attorney’s fees and costs
If the defendant successfully shifts the burden and wins the motion, they may be entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs. This financial deterrent discourages plaintiffs from pursuing frivolous lawsuits solely intended to intimidate or silence.
Understanding how the burden of proof shifts in Anti-SLAPP motions is vital for both plaintiffs and defendants. It directly influences the legal strategy and the potential for success in cases involving protected speech.