In Rothman v. Jackson (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1134, the court held the litigation privilege does not extend to "litigating in the press." ( Id. at p. 1149.) It noted Silberg's Silberg v. Anderson (1990) dictum that " 'republications to nonparticipants in the action are generally not privileged under section 47, subd. (b).' " ( Id. at p. 1143.) The court in Rothman also restated the "logical relation" TEST THIS WAY: "The 'connection or logical relation' which a communication must bear to litigation in order for the privilege to apply, is a functional connection. That is to say, the communicative act . . . must function as a necessary or useful step in the litigation process and must serve its purposes. This is a very different thing from saying that the communication's content need only be related in some way to the subject matter of the litigation . . . ." (Rothman, supra, 49 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1146.) And as for furthering "the objects of the litigation," the court said Silberg's test "can be satisfied only by communications which function intrinsically, and apart from any consideration of the speaker's intent, to advance a litigant's case." ( Rothman v. Jackson, supra, 49 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1148.) Notably, it then added: "A party's pleadings obviously satisfy this test." (Ibid.)