The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider defendant’s reply declarations on its Anti-SLAPP motion.  The reply declarations addressed an issue that had been raised in the original moving papers–good faith in recording tje mechanics liens in issue, but addressed a particular unanticipated argument that the plaintiff raised in opposition to the motion–that litigation could not have been contemplated in good faith over later recorded liens because they were not promptly released following plaintiff’s demand.