Anti-SLAPP protection

Oklahoma’s anti-SLAPP statute is the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA). It was first passed in 2014.

Law summary

Oklahoma’s anti-SLAPP law is broad in scope, protecting communication pertaining to any judicial or legislative proceeding, a public meeting, and communication in connection with a matter of public concern.

Codified procedures in the OCPA cannot override or lessen any other defense, remedy, immunity, or privilege available under other constitutional or common law provisions.

The initial burden is on the defendant seeking dismissal to show that the plaintiff’s claim “is based on, relates to, or is in response to the [defendant’s] exercise of the right of free speech.” The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show “by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question.” If the evidence is satisfactory, the burden shifts back to the defendant to show “by a preponderance of the evidence” a defense to the plaintiff’s claims. If the plaintiff’s prima facie case fails, or the defendant shows a defense by a preponderance of the evidence, the suit is dismissed.

Legal actions

Oklahoma’s anti-SLAPP law outlines clear timelines:

• Motion to dismiss:  A defendant may file a motion to dismiss no later than 60 days from when the initial lawsuit was filed.
• Stay of discovery: After a defendant files a special motion, the court will stay all discovery. However, the court may permit limited discovery and delay the hearing date more than 120 days if the plaintiff demonstrates a good cause.
• Accelerated hearing: Within 30 days of the defendant’s filing, a court must rule on the motion to dismiss.
• Attorney fees: If the court dismisses a case pursuant to the OCPA, the court awards attorney fees and other court costs to the defendant. On the other hand, if the court determines the motion to dismiss is frivolous or intended to delay, the court awards costs and fees to the responding party.

Helpful cases

The following cases and respective decisions represent an effort among Oklahoma courts to interpret OCPA in a way that aligns with the state legislature’s intent. That is, to facilitate prompt resolution by imposing clear, non-discretionary clauses and deadlines.

Yates v. Gannett, Co. (2022)

A Tulsa police major appealed a trial court’s decision to dismiss his defamation lawsuit against media organizations USA Today, NBCUniversal Media, and Public Radio Tulsa for distorting his words and falsely inferring he was a “racist cop” in articles and headlines. In his appeal, the officer challenged the constitutionality of the OCPA, citing that the Oklahoma Constitution guarantees access to the courts. The court reasoned, “The judiciary is only bound to be open to persons with actionable causes.” Yates also argued OCPA was unconstitutional because it regulated or changed rules of evidence in judicial proceedings. The court also rejected this claim, concluding the law sets forth specific procedures for the handling cases involving the constitutional rights of people to petition and speak freely.

Thacker v. Walton (2021)

Rogers County commissioner Kirt Thacker ran to retain his seat and lost in the primary in the summer of 2014. He blamed the loss on the Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton and sued for defamation among other claims. In an appeal, the former county commissioner pointed to the language in Oklahoma’s anti-SLAPP statute, “as justice and equity may require,” which, according to his interpretation, meant a court may opt not to award fees to a moving party even if the party’s motion to dismiss a legal action under the OCPA is successful. The appellate court concluded attorney fees to a prevailing defendant are mandatory, and that the phrase “as justice and equity may require,” applies to other expenses incurred in defending against the legal action.

BS&B Safety Systems v. Edgerton (2023)

The Oklahoma Supreme Court determined a trial court must hold a hearing before it can deny a defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to OCPA. The statute states a motion to dismiss “shall” be set for hearing no later than 60 days. The court’s decision set the precedent that trial courts must hear motions related to OCPA and potential SLAPPs before ruling on them.

Legislative activity

Oklahoma’s Act became effective in 2014 and mirrors the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act, which was enacted in 2011.

Of note

Oklahoma received an A rating from the Institute for Free Speech.