Page v. Parsons, 249 Or. App. 445

Plaintiff Gerald A. Page, as trustee, sued defendants for wrongful use of a civil proceeding, abuse of process, and intentional interference with prospective economic relations based on opponents’ handling of Ballot Measure 37 waivers.
Defendants moved to strike under ORS 31.150, arguing claims arose from protected statements or conduct in public proceedings and were thus privileged.
The trial court granted the motion to strike and dismissed claims without prejudice, followed by a supplemental judgment awarding defendants attorney fees.
Discovery was automatically stayed by the motion to strike, but the court could allow specified discovery for good cause; plaintiff sought limited, particularized discovery.
The court denied the motion for specified discovery, then later awarded defendants attorney fees under ORS 31.152(3).
Plaintiff appeals the dismissals and attorney-fee award, challenging the denial of discovery and the fee-shift under the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 31.150 et seq. requires multiple hearings	Page contends a second evidentiary hearing was required for proof after denial of discovery.	Parsons/Gardener argues the statute contemplates a single hearing with a two-step test and discretion on discovery.	No, a single hearing suffices; no additional hearing was required.
Whether the court properly denied specified discovery	Discovery was needed to prove essential elements solely within defendants’ control.	Motion for specified discovery was overly broad and not particularized; no good cause shown.	The denial of specified discovery was within the court's discretion.
Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees to the prevailing party	Defendants failed to plead or notify a right to fees under Rule 68.	Defendants adequately alleged entitlement to fees under ORS 31.150 and 31.152; objection waived per ORCP 68.	Attorney fees were properly awarded to the prevailing party.
Whether the two-step framework of ORS 31.150(3) requires expanded evidentiary procedures	The statute's two-step test compels broader discovery and multiple hearings.	Text, context, and legislative history support a two-step process without mandatory multi-hearing requirements.	The court correctly applied ORS 31.150(3) and did not err by not mandating extra hearings or discovery.

Staten v. Steel, 222 Or. App. 17 (2008) (purpose to expedite relief and limit discovery in privileged-issue cases)
Kashian v. Harriman, 98 Cal. App. 4th 892 (Cal. App. 2002) (California two-step process for special motions to strike)
Jarrow Formulas v. LaMarche, 31 Cal. 4th 728 (Cal. 2003) (two-step evaluation for anti-SLAPP motions)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (1993) (statutory interpretation and burden-shifting framework)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (context for statutory interpretation and burden shifting)