The following excerpt is from Boice v. Unisys Corp., 50 F.3d 1145 (2nd Cir. 1995):
Similarly, in Newfield v. Copperman, 42 N.Y.Super.Ct. 302 (1877), a fire marshal subpoenaed a witness, and questioned him about the origins of a factory fire. The witness responded with evidence implicating the factory owner. The factory owner sued the witness for defamation, alleging that the witness's accusations were both false and malicious. See id. at 304. Newfield held that the witness was absolutely immune from the defamation suit because the fire marshal had jurisdiction to make the inquiry, the witness did not initiate the investigation, the testimony was compelled by subpoena, and the witness's responses were material and relevant to the inquiry. See id. at 305.
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.