Gaudette v. Mainely Media, LLC, 160 A.3d 539

Background

In 2015 Mainely Media reporters published articles about renewed allegations that Norman Gaudette (a former Biddeford detective) had sexually abused teenage boys; the articles reported interviews with alleged victims and a former officer, Terry Davis, including Davis’s account of a 1991 grand jury proceeding.
The Gaudettes sued Mainely Media, LLC, and two reporters for invasion of privacy, false light, defamation, and related torts, alleging intentional or reckless disregard for truth.
Mainely Media filed a special motion to dismiss under Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S. § 556, which the Superior Court denied.
The Superior Court found the question whether news articles constitute “petitioning activity” under the statute unsettled but ruled the plaintiffs had shown the reporting lacked reasonable factual support.
The Law Court reviewed the denial de novo and concluded Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute does not extend to newspaper reporting that is not the newspaper’s own petitioning activity or a vehicle for a third party’s petitioning.
Because the Court held the statute inapplicable to these articles, it affirmed the trial court’s denial without addressing the statute’s second-step factual inquiry.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mainely Media’s articles constitute "petitioning activity" under Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute	The reporting sought to encourage governmental review and public consideration, so it qualifies as petitioning activity	Articles merely reported events and others’ petitioning; the newspaper was not petitioning on its own behalf	The anti-SLAPP statute does not apply because the articles were not the newspaper’s own exercise of the right to petition nor a vehicle for a party’s own petitioning
Whether, assuming petitioning activity, Gaudette met prima facie burden showing the activity lacked reasonable factual support	Gaudette argued the articles were false or published with reckless disregard	Mainely Media argued Gaudette failed to show lack of reasonable factual support	Court did not reach this issue after holding the statute inapplicable
Whether precedent treating third-party communications as petitioning (e.g., attorney statements) controls for newspapers	Plaintiff relied on cases where statements to media were treated as petitioning	Defendant argued agency/attorney-client contexts differ from independent journalism	Court distinguished attorney/media cases and declined to extend anti-SLAPP protection to ordinary news reporting
Scope of anti-SLAPP protection for press reporting	Plaintiff urged broad protection to reach reporting that prompts governmental action	Defendant argued statute protects petitioning on one’s own behalf, not neutral reporting of others’ petitioning	Held anti-SLAPP protects only the moving party’s petitioning; neutral news reports do not qualify

Key Cases Cited

Nader v. Me. Democratic Party, 66 A.3d 571 (Me. 2013) (sets anti-SLAPP two-step framework)
Town of Madawaska v. Cayer, 103 A.3d 547 (Me. 2014) (permits interlocutory appeals; appellate review de novo)
Schelling v. Lindell, 942 A.2d 1226 (Me. 2008) (broad interpretation of petitioning activity; applied anti-SLAPP to letter to editor)
Maietta Constr., Inc. v. Wainwright, 847 A.2d 1169 (Me. 2004) (applied anti-SLAPP to letters to officials later published)
Fustolo v. Hollander, 920 N.E.2d 837 (Mass. 2010) (state high court held reporter’s articles were not petitioner’s own petitioning)
Gaudette v. Davis, 160 A.3d 1190 (Me. 2017) (same day decision referenced for anti-SLAPP standards)
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2011) (describes the substantive purpose of the right to petition)
Morse Bros. v. Webster, 772 A.2d 842 (Me. 2001) (legislative history on anti-SLAPP purpose)