The district court properly denied defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion.  While defendant’s act of tape recording (and later publishing on YouTube) of his dinner table conversation with Safari’s president was protected activity within the meaning of CCP 425.16(e) because it was akin to newsgathering and the recorded statements involved matters of public interest, plaintiff showed a probability of success on its claims for violation of Penal Code 632, negligence per se and invasion of privacy.  A reasonable jury could conclude that the taped conversation was private even though carried on in a restaurant because there was testimony from plaintiff that the conversation could not be overheard by others.  The negligence per se claim followed from the violation of Penal Code 632.  The evidence also showed that taping and then publishing the private conversation was a sufficiently offensive intrusion on privacy to support the common law invasion of privacy claim.