How to Avoid Liability for Being a Good Citizen
By : Courtney David Mills , Attorney View Bio
People say that no good deed goes unpunished . Sometimes in our litigious society , this proverb becomes a reality . Fortunately , Indiana has an obscure law that protects citizens who are dragged into litigation for exercising their rights . This law protects people from being sued for legitimate exercise for their first amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of petition . Such protections cover a wide range of activities , including teachers and physicians who report suspected child abuse , witnesses who report suspected criminal activity , a whistle blower targeted by their former employer , or an aggrieved citizen that writes an editorial criticizing a corporation . These protections are covered under Indiana ’ s Anti-SLAPP Act (“ ASA ”; Ind . Code § 34-7-7-1 , et seq .).
SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation . In other words , a SLAPP action is an abusive lawsuit that seeks to punish or discourage citizens from speaking out on an issue of public interest . Such lawsuits are often not about seeking justice , but are instead designed to force a defendant into expending large sums of money in defending itself in court . In the context of the ASA , many of the terms are given broad definitions and application . For instance , the ASA protects both individuals and corporations . The ASA covers not only verbal conduct ( i . e . traditional speech ), but also petitioning activity ( i . e . filing complaints with a governmental agency ). If a person is sued for legitimately exercising their rights ( i . e . a SLAPP action ), that person can seek protection under the ASA .
There are generally three components of a successful ASA defense . First , the action must be based on protected activity ( i . e . speech or petitioning activity that is connected to a public issue or issue of public interest ). Private matters are typically not protected under the ASA . Second , the speech at issue must have been made in good faith with a reasonable basis in law and fact . Knowingly and falsely accusing a spouse of child abuse during child custody proceedings is not protected activity . Third , the action must be otherwise lawful . Filing a false police report ( which is unlawful ) is not protected activity .
The ASA also has several key components that make it an attractive litigation tool . First , upon filing an ASA Motion to Dismiss , all discovery ( other than discovery related to the ASA Motion ) is automatically put on hold pending a ruling on the ASA motion . This provision protects defendants in SLAPP actions from enduring further abusive ( and often expensive ) discovery tactics . Also , there is a 180 day time limit for a ruling on an ASA motion . This limitation ensures the litigation process is swift . Finally , a party who prevails on an ASA motion is entitled to reimbursement of all attorney fees and expenses . The provision under the ASA is non-discretionary and expansive . It covers all legal fees , appellate fees , and collection fees . This provision is designed to discourage SLAPP actions and to make-whole the victim of such actions .
In conclusion , Indiana ’ s ASA is a great tool for protecting defendants have been wrongly sued for exercising certain constitutionally protected rights . The trouble with SLAPP actions is often in the eye of the beholder . The person / entity bringing the SLAPP action rarely sees their claim as an abusive lawsuit . Instead , the person bringing the SLAPP actions sees themselves as the victim . SLAPP plaintiffs may include parents who believe they were wrongfully accused of child abuse or corporations that believe they were wrongfully defamed in the media . The courts must sort out the legitimate claims from the SLAPP actions . These difficult cases often remind us that legitimacy is sometimes in the eye of the beholder .
16 Riley Bennett Egloff LLP - February 2017