## Facts

- John W. Baker owned property on Clark’s Island in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and sought governmental permits to build a pier for access and use of the property.
- During state and federal environmental review of the permit application, agencies solicited information and comments from outside sources.
- Katherine C. Parsons, a biologist affiliated with Manomet Observatory for Conservation Sciences, responded to agency inquiries based on her long-term study of the island’s aquatic birds and habitat.
- Parsons provided information and opinions that Baker’s activities had degraded bird habitat and that the proposed pier could further harm bird populations.
- Baker alleged Parsons’s statements were false or misleading and caused adverse governmental action on his permit application.
- Baker sued Parsons and Manomet in Superior Court for tortious interference with advantageous relations and related claims based on their communications to governmental bodies.
- Defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under G.L. c. 231, § 59H (anti-SLAPP), asserting the claims were based solely on protected petitioning activity; the Superior Court granted the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether G.L. c. 231, § 59H applies to claims against an expert and her nonprofit employer arising from their responses to government agency inquiries during environmental permitting review.
2. What showing a plaintiff must make to defeat a § 59H special motion to dismiss, and whether Baker met that burden.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed dismissal under § 59H.
- Defendants’ statements to state and federal environmental officials during permitting review were “petitioning” within the meaning of § 59H.
- Defendants satisfied their initial showing that the suit was based on their petitioning and had no substantial basis other than or in addition to that petitioning.
- Baker failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendants’ petitioning was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law.
- Because Baker did not meet the statutory rebuttal burden, the trial judge did not abuse discretion or commit an error of law in granting the special motion to dismiss.

## Legal Principles

- Communications submitted to or made before governmental bodies in connection with administrative or regulatory proceedings can constitute protected “petitioning” under G.L. c. 231, § 59H.
- Under § 59H, the moving party must show the claims are based on petitioning activity and have no substantial basis other than or in addition to that activity.
- To defeat dismissal, the nonmoving party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioning activity was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law, and that it caused actual injury.
- Claims alleging tortious interference may be subject to § 59H where the alleged wrongful conduct is participation in governmental fact-gathering and decision-making processes.

## Conclusion

The court held that expert environmental commentary provided to agencies during permitting review is protected petitioning under Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute, and that a plaintiff opposing dismissal must prove the petitioning lacked reasonable factual support or an arguable legal basis; Baker did not satisfy that burden, so dismissal was affirmed.


Baker v. Parsons, 434 Mass. 543, 750 N.E.2d 953 (2001)