6
evaluating the defendant’s evidence “ ‘only to determine if it has defeated that submitted by
the plaintiff as a matter of law.’ ” ’ ” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th
459, 470.)
The trial court’s evidentiary rulings at the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis are
generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. (See Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School
Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1444-1446.) But when a trial court excludes evidence
because, “even if the plaintiff’s allegations were proven, they would not establish a cause of
action,” that is a legal ruling subject to de novo review. (Edwards v. Centex Real Estate
Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 26-28 [evidence excluded based on litigation privilege and
parol evidence rule]; see Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. v. Sacramento Municipal
Utility Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392 [“when the issue is one of law, we exercise
de novo review”].)
B. Sagi’s Evidentiary Objections
Preliminarily, we address a series of evidentiary objections raised by Sagi as a
threshold matter. He argues that regardless of the merit of the various legal arguments
Winslett advances, her appeal must fail because none of the evidence she presented is
admissible and thus she cannot meet her burden on the second prong of the anti-SLAPP
analysis for any of the three disputed claims. In support of this line of argument, Sagi
contends, as he did in the trial court, that the sworn statements in Winslett’s declaration and
the documents she presented lacked foundation, set forth improper opinions and
conclusions, and were hearsay, and that all of her evidence was irrelevant.
These evidentiary issues are easily resolved. We see no abuse of discretion in the
trial court’s rejection of Sagi’s hearsay, lack of foundation, and improper opinion and
conclusion objections. Relevance is another matter. On that point, the court sustained
Sagi’s objection, but it did so on the premise that none of Winslett’s evidence has any
relevance to claims that are not legally viable as pleaded. For the reasons explained below,
we hold that that underlying premise was erroneous. Thus, the exclusion of Winslett’s
evidence on relevance grounds was erroneous as well.