California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Pinheiro v. Cnty. of Fresno, F070058 (Cal. App. 2016):
the anti-SLAPP statute and the litigation privilege are not coextensive, courts may "look[] to the litigation privilege as an aid in construing the scope of subdivision (e)(1) and (2) with respect to the first step of the two-step anti-SLAPP inquiry - that is, by examining the scope of the litigation privilege to determine whether a given communication falls within the ambit of subdivisions (e)(1) and (2)." (Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 323.)
" 'The usual formulation [of the litigation privilege] is that [it] applies to any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action.' [Citation.] [] The litigation privilege is absolute; it applies, if at all, regardless whether the communication was made with malice or the intent to harm. [Citation.] . . . [T]he privilege has been extended to . . . all torts other than malicious prosecution. [Citations.] . . . [] If there is no dispute as to the operative facts, the applicability of the litigation privilege is a question of law. [Citation.] Any doubt about whether the privilege applies is resolved in favor of applying it." (Kashian v. Harriman (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 892, 912-913 (Kashian).)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.