The reply brief directly responds to 3M’s argument that the anti-SLAPP statute is not applicable because the speech at issue did not concern a matter of “public concern,” but was instead directed primarily toward a private commercial interest. According to the Davis defendants, 3M’s argument fails because it never identified any commercial interest of Davis toward which the statements were directed and because, in the view of the Davis defendants, the statements “on their face involved matters of public interest as defined by the Act and federal constitutional law.”
Turning to the merits of the claim, the Davis defendants argue that the plaintiff’s burden is much more than “minimal,” and that it has not been satisfied. They argue that 3M is not likely to succeed on the merits of its defamation claim because the challenged statements: (a) have not been shown to be false; (b) there has been no showing of actual malice; (c) constitute protected opinion; and/or (d) there has been no showing of damages. They repeat their argument that the anti-SLAPP applies to the non-defamation claims and argue that, like the defamation claim, 3M has not shown a likelihood of success sufficient to overcome dismissal.
Finally, argues the Davis defendants, 3M failed to comply with the Court’s November 15 Order because its brief continues to request the same expansive discovery it initially requested.