In Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 402, without the plaintiff's authorization, two psychiatrists released plaintiff's medical information to his employer, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company. The psychiatrists did so in connection with the plaintiff's request for disability leave and the employer's short-term disability leave policy, which required employees requesting disability leave to submit to a medical exam. The court reversed judgment in favor of the psychiatrists, concluding their reports to the employer were not privileged under section 47(b) because the "process through which the plaintiff sought to secure disability leave was not a judicial proceeding. Rather, it was established, implemented and overseen solely by Du Pont management." (Pettus, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 437.) The court refused to characterize the proceedings as quasi-judicial, stating the "context in which respondent doctors disclosed medical information to Du Pont was not a 'quasi-judicial proceeding,' within the meaning that term has acquired in litigation under section 47(b)(2)." (Ibid.)