malice. Id. These affidavits confirm that those acting on behalf of appellant thought the information in the documentary was true or that they did not have a high degree of awareness as to the falsity of the information. By negating actual malice, appellant established its right to judgment as a matter of law. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558; Labatt, 894 S.W.2d at 395. Once appellant established its right to judgment, the burden shifted to appellee to offer sufficient summary judgment proof to raise an issue of fact on the question of actual malice. See Rogers, 946 S.W.2d at 446; Labatt, 894 S.W.2d at 396; Schauer v. Memorial Care Sys., 856 S.W.2d 437, 450 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ); see also City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979) (<HOLDING>); Tex.R.CivP. 166a(c). To overcome appellant’s
holding that once movant established right to summary judgment burden shifts to nonmovant to demonstrate otherwise holding that movant is entitled to summary judgment when party with burden of proof fails to establish genuine fact issue holding that burden shifts to nonmovant to raise issue of fact holding that in a traditional motion for summary judgment the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a fact issue after the movant has facially established its right to judgment as a matter of law holding that if the movant cannot demonstrate conclusively that the nonmovant cannot prevail summary judgment is precluded