Dennis Walker v. Larry Schion, 420 S.W.3d 454

Walker, a Jacinto City police sergeant, sued Schion for defamation (and other torts Walker did not appeal) after Schion criticized Walker to the police chief and city council following the arrest of Schion’s son.
Schion moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (anti‑SLAPP), supporting the motion with evidence that his statements were protected petition/speech.
Walker opposed the motion relying solely on his own affidavit and sought limited discovery to depose Schion and the police chief for evidence of malice.
Schion objected to Walker’s affidavit on multiple grounds; the trial court sustained the objections, striking all of Walker’s evidence, granted dismissal, and awarded attorney’s fees to Schion.
On appeal Walker challenged (1) the dismissal as lacking clear and specific evidence of defamation elements and (2) denial of his request to depose Schion for evidence of malice. He did not appeal the evidentiary ruling striking his affidavit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in granting CPA dismissal of defamation claim	Walker: his affidavit provided clear and specific prima facie evidence of each defamation element	Schion: Walker’s affidavit was inadmissible and the CPA dismissal proper	Affirmed — court may not consider Walker’s affidavit because trial court sustained objections and Walker did not challenge that ruling on appeal
Whether trial court erred by denying limited discovery (deposition of Schion) to prove malice	Walker: needed to depose Schion to obtain evidence of malice and defeat the CPA motion	Schion: discovery under the CPA is permissive and trial court has discretion	Affirmed — denial of discovery reviewed for abuse of discretion; no abuse shown because all of Walker’s other evidence was excluded so a deposition of Schion could not change the outcome

Rehak Creative Servs., Inc. v. Witt, 404 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (articulating the clear‑and‑specific evidence standard under the CPA)
Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (elements of defamation for public‑figure/public‑concern speech include falsity and actual malice)
Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2009) (denial of discovery reviewed for abuse of discretion)
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (discovery rulings generally reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (scope of discovery is within trial court’s discretion)
Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Hall, 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (same)