Ronald G. Hole v. William L. Hubbard, 13-14-00617-CV

Hole sued Hubbard for defamation over a statement that Hole had no aversion to filing a suit without merit, made in a March 7, 2013 letter to William Gault.
The Wansey v. Hole litigation (Wansey lawsuit) was referenced; Wansey ultimately did not support Hole's damages claim, and the Texas Supreme Court issued rulings affecting the Wansey case.
Appellee argued the statement referred to the Wansey suit and was true, thus not defamatory, and further argued the statement was privileged as part of or in anticipation of litigation.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hubbard on the privilege ground and denied Hole’s summary-judgment motion; Hole appealed.
The apppellate argument centers on (a) truth of the statement and (b) privilege under communications in the course of judicial proceedings.
The court’s analysis relies on controlling defamation and privilege jurisprudence, including pre-suit communications and absolute privilege for statements related to proposed or ongoing litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statement was false and defamatory	Hole contends the statement was false and defamatory	Hubbard asserts the statement was true because Wansey had no damages	True and non-defamatory
Whether the statement was privileged as pre-litigation or in contemplation of litigation	Hole argues no privilege applies to the statement	Hubbard asserts absolute privilege for statements in anticipation of litigation	Privilege applies; summary judgment affirmed

James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1982) (absolute privilege for statements in contemplation of legal proceeding)
Crain v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 58 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2000) (absolute privilege for pre-suit attorney communications)
Krishnan v. Law Offices of Preston Henrichson, P.C., 83 S.W.3d 295 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (pre-suit privilege extended to communications bears relation to proceeding)
Wansey v. Hole, 379 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2012) (defamation and damages considerations in Wansey proceedings)
Russell v. Clark, 620 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1981) (pre-proceeding communications may be absolutely privileged)
Musser v. Smith Protective Services, 723 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. 1987) (defamation standard and context consideration)
New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, 146 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. 2004) (objective standard for defamation meaning)
Doe v. Boys Club of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. 1995) (elements of negligent hiring and related defamation considerations)
Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (truth as defense to defamation; burden on defendant)