Once the moving party has made a prima facie case that entitles it to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce specific facts that raise a genuine issue for trial. The nonmoving party may not rely upon mere averments in the pleadings or unsupported allegations but must come forward with specific facts to satisfy its burden of production. A. Libel claims Hendrickson claims the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hietala and Spur for the libel claim. A defamatory statement is one that is false, tends to harm the plaintiff s reputation, and is communicated to a third person. A public official cannot recover damages for defamatory statements that relate to the official s conduct unless it is proven that the statement was made with actual malice.
Police officers are public officials.
To defeat the Sullivan privilege, therefore, Hendrickson must prove actual malice. The issue of whether the evidence in the record of a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law. But Hietala s debatable credibility does not amount to proof of malice. We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in the libel claim against Hietala. Because the underlying defamation action fails, Spur Station has no liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.