There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around about the Nevada anti-SLAPP bill under consideration by the state legislature. The bill seems to have originated out of Wynn Resorts during the current legislative session. What I feel like was a terrible bill (SB444) has been substantially amended.
SB444 cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Friday. It is awaiting a vote in both the Assembly and Senate. It must go back to the Senate for a vote because it was amended.
The language opposed to by Yelp, quoted in columns by Bloomberg and Business Insider, is no longer included in SB444. The language I vehemently objected to, and testified against before the Assembly Judiciary Committee last month, was removed from the bill.
SB444 now includes just two changes. I consider both to be minor compared to the original version. Discovery would be permitted under this bill in situations where:
Upon a showing by a party that information necessary to meet or oppose the burden set forth in subsection (b) is in the possession of another party or a third party and is not reasonably available without discovery, the court shall allow limited specified discovery for the purpose of ascertaining such information.
The other change allows the judge in an anti-SLAPP motion 20 judicial days, as opposed to the current 7 days, to rule on the case.
It also allows the court to extend deadlines, as it deems necessary:
The court may modify briefing and hearing schedules or other deadlines set forth in this Section upon a finding that doing so serves the interests of justice.
The bill’s amendment submission goes on to state:
Note: All other provisions of the original bill are deleted.
It is possible that this language could be edited by either house in the Nevada Legislature. To the best of my knowledge, there is no discussion to do so.
This is the amendment as recorded in the Nevada Legislature’s database.
