Najam, J.
Statement of the Case
Kevin Pack appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the Truth Publishing Company and John S. Dille III, the owners of The Elkhart Truth newspaper (collectively, “the Newspaper”). The trial court entered summary judgment after the Newspaper moved to dismiss Pack’s defamation complaint under Indiana’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation Act, Ind. Code §§ 34-7-7-1 to -10 (2018) (“the Anti-SLAPP statutes”). Pack raises five issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as the following two issues [footnote omitted]:
1. Whether the Newspaper’s publication was in connection with a public issue.
2. Whether the Newspaper’s publication was taken in good faith and with a reasonable basis in law and fact.
We affirm.
…..
Indiana’s Anti-SLAPP statutes apply “to an act in furtherance of” a person’s3 “right of . . . free speech . . . in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest . . . .” I.C. § 34-7-7-1(a)….
….
We first address Pack’s assertion that “[t]his is a not a SLAPP situation” because no public issue is involved. Appellant’s Br. at 12. Our Supreme Court has held that “speech is in connection with a matter of public concern if it is addressed to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, as determined by its content, form, and context.” Gresk, 96 N.E.3d at 571 (quotation marks omitted). In Gresk, the court held that the Anti-SLAPP statutes did not apply to a physician’s report of child abuse to the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) because that report was premised on the physician’s legal obligations, not “any intent to facilitate debate.” Id. at 569-70.
The Newspaper’s designated evidence in support of its motion under the Anti-SLAPP statutes shows that its publication of the article addressed a matter of concern to the local community. In particular, the content, form, and context of the article demonstrate that the Newspaper published it to inform the community of a federal lawsuit filed against a local public school corporation, which lawsuit alleged that the school corporation had engaged in religious discrimination. As such, the Newspaper’s designated evidence established a prima facie showing that its publication of the article was in connection with a public issue.
….
…Nothing about a newspaper’s publication of an article regarding a federal religious-discrimination lawsuit against a local public school corporation is on par with the facts of Gresk, and we reject Pack’s argument accordingly. Hence, we hold that Pack failed to rebut the Newspaper’s showing that its publication of the article was in connection with a public issue.
….
We hold that the Newspaper’s designated evidence established a prima facie showing that its publication of the article was taken in good faith and with a reasonable basis in law and fact. There is no dispute that, in writing the article, Parrott spoke to Pack and received an email statement from Pack’s attorney. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 88-89. Parrott’s affidavit also states that, in writing the article, he spoke to Allen; he relied on the School Board’s publicly available press release; he relied on the School Board’s findings, which he had obtained by way of an APRA request; and he relied on Pack’s filings in the federal district court. In other words, Parrott based the article on reliable sources; the article was not fabricated, the product of Parrott’s imagination, based on unverified anonymous sources, or based on sources wholly lacking in credibility.
….
Conclusion
In sum, we hold that the Newspaper’s designated evidence established a prima facie showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the Anti-SLAPP statutes, and Pack’s designated evidence failed to create a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the Newspaper, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Affirmed. Mathias, J., and Altice, J., concur