One dentist brought a defamation action against his former partner, another dentist, for statements the defendant made to various other persons impugning the quality of the plaintiff’s dentistry work.  The defendant filed an Anti-SLAPP motion which was granted, and plaintiff appealed.  Held:  Statements about the competency of a professional, like a dentist, concern a matter of public importance and so satisfy the first of v. DoubleVerify, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133’s two-step analysis of claims for protected speech under CCP 25.16(e)(4).  However, with one exception, the statements in this case did not satisfy the second step of furthering the public discussion of that issue.  With the one excception, the statements were all made to small groups of individuals associated with the defendant, or in one instance a retired dentist who had previously worked with plaintiff.  There was no evidence these statements had been made to or reached the general public, so they were not protected speech.  The one exception was a communication to the dentist for whom plaintiff currently worked.  Telling him about the alleged poor quality of plaintiff’s work did further the public discussion of that issue and so was protected.  As to that one communication, plaintiff failed to show a probability of success on the merits since he introduced no evidence to show that the defendant had actually made the alleged communication.