User:Louis/sandbox dfli publish test: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 When Dragonfly suggested his early teardowns used abused or pre-damaged batteries, Prowse answered the point on camera by buying a new battery and cycling it within the manufacturer's stated ratings, and it failed; the independent ''Hackaday'' coverage of that controlled test reported the same result.<ref name="hackaday-melt" /><ref name="hackaday-death" /> Throughout, he tore the batteries down on camera and published his underlying cycle-testing data for anyone to download, which is the factual record his conclusions rest on.
-== Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute is the primary shield ==
+== Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute is the primary shield ==Nevada's anti-SLAPP law (NRS 41.635 through 41.670) exists to kill exactly this kind of suit early, and the Nevada Supreme Court has confirmed it reaches all four of Dragonfly's claims, not just the libel count, because the question is whether the claims are based on protected good-faith communication, not what the plaintiff labels them.<ref name="panik" />
+'''The protected category.''' NRS 41.637 defines a "good faith communication in furtherance of ... the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern." Its fourth category covers a communication made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a public forum, so long as it is truthful or made without knowledge of its falsehood.<ref name="nrs41637">Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.637. {{Cite web |url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html |title=NRS Chapter 41 |publisher=Nevada Legislature |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> A YouTube channel and the diysolarforum.com message board are public forums; fire and thermal-runaway risk in a product Dragonfly says it has deployed more than 400,000 times is an issue of public interest.<ref name="complaint" />
+'''The special motion and the clock.''' NRS 41.660 authorizes a special motion to dismiss, which must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint, a deadline the court may extend only for good cause.<ref name="nrs41660">Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.660. {{Cite web |url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html |title=NRS Chapter 41 |publisher=Nevada Legislature |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> The 60-day window, measured from the date Prowse is personally served, is the most important date in the case.
+'''Burden shifting and the discovery stay.''' On the motion, the defendant first shows by a preponderance that the claim is based on a protected good-faith communication; the burden then flips to the plaintiff to show, with prima facie evidence, a probability of prevailing.<ref name="nrs41660" /> Filing the motion stays discovery while it, and any appeal, is pending.<ref name="nrs41660" /> That defeats the usual playbook of a well-funded plaintiff: Dragonfly cannot bury Prowse in depositions and document demands to raise his costs while the motion is decided. The Nevada Supreme Court reviews these rulings de novo and has confirmed the two-prong structure.<ref name="coker">''Coker v. Sassone'', 135 Nev. 8, 432 P.3d 746 (2019). [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nv-supreme-court/1975279.html Opinion via FindLaw].</ref>
+'''The downside for Dragonfly.''' If Prowse wins the motion, the court must award him reasonable costs and attorney's fees, may award up to $10,000 on top of that, and a denial is immediately appealable, which keeps the discovery stay in place during the appeal.<ref name="nrs41670">Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.670. {{Cite web |url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-041.html |title=NRS Chapter 41 |publisher=Nevada Legislature |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref><ref name="john">''John v. Douglas County School District'', 125 Nev. 746, 219 P.3d 1276 (2009).</ref>