55 Trial Lawyer • Fall 2023 See Sheets 56 privilege, which is an absolute privilege for statements in the course of or incident to judicial proceedings, including prelitigation communications that are related to a lawsuit. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the defendant’s special motion to strike. Posting to private Facebook group of information about public officials’ employers, where officials had voted on highly-publicized issue affecting many people, held protected activity under ORS 31.150, Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, and reasonable public officials would not suffer severe emotional distress on account of such posting where the information was already readily publicly available and the officials had publicized the identities of their employers. Dehart v. Tofte, 326 Or App 720 (2023); Tookey, J. The defendants were represented by Athul Acharya. The plaintiffs were members of the Newberg School Board who voted to ban all Pride Flags and Black Lives Matter signs from school district facilities. Following the ban, the defendants posted information about the plaintiffs’ employers in a private Facebook group. The plaintiffs then sued the defendants under Oregon’s “anti-doxing” statute, ORS 30.835, which creates a cause of action for “improper disclosure of private information” that causes severe emotional distress that a reasonable person would also suffer. The defendants filed a special motion to strike under ORS 31.150, Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their conduct was in furtherance of their free speech rights on a public issue or an issue of public interest, and that the defendants’ speech would not cause a reasonable person serving as an elected official to suffer severe emotional distress. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed. First, the court held that the defendants’ conduct was in furtherance of the exercise of their constitutional right of free speech, even though the speech was attempting to embarrass or coerce the plaintiffs into rescinding the ban, including by encouraging people to boycott the plaintiffs’ employers. Second, the speech was in connection with a public issue and an issue of public interest, as the plaintiffs were public officials who were in the public eye as a result of their stance on an issue that affected a large number of people. The ban itself was an issue of significant public interest, having received local and national media attention. The court held that the plaintiffs had not made a prima facie case that a reasonable person in their position would suffer severe emotional distress. The court emphasized that the information about the plaintiffs’ employers that the defendants posted to their Facebook group was readily publicly available on the internet, that the plaintiffs had actively publicized the identities of their employers, that the plaintiffs were public officials, that the Facebook group was private, and that there was no evidence that anyone had actually contacted the plaintiffs’ employers or stalked or committed violence against the plaintiffs. Health care providers have a duty to restrain or admit patients to mitigate risks of physical harm to others. Maltais v. PeaceHealth, 326 Or App 318 (2023), Ortega, J. Greg Kafoury represented plaintiff. The plaintiff is the mother of an adult son with paranoid schizophrenia and severe intellectual disabilities. After her son began exhibiting worsened psychosis, including threatening to harm himself and wishing to stab his family members, the plaintiff took her son to the defendant’s emergency department, where he was interviewed and released. Later, the defendant’s psychiatrist confirmed that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==