Seyfarth was hired to investigate a professor’s claim that she was discriminated against by Cal. State University Fullerton.  It performed the investigation and submitted a report to the university administration concluding there was no merit to the professor’s claims. After unsuccessfully suing a host of other defendants, the professor sued Seyfarth, claiming the report and investigation were biased, etc.  Seyfarth filed an Anti-SLAPP motion. Before it could be heard, the professor dismissed the suit.  That did not avoid a fee award on the Anti-SLAPP motion. The court held that all of Seyfarth’s statements were protected under CCP 425.16(e)(1) and (2) as having been made in the course of an official proceeding commenced by CSUF’s president in investigation of the professor’s complaints, and Seyfarth’s noncommunicative conduct was protected under 425.16(e)(4) since it was bound up in producing the protected report.  The professor’s claims had no merit since they were all time-barred.  Hence, the trial court should have awarded Seyfarth its full attorney fees.