In Traditional Cat Assn., Inc. v. Gilbreath (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 392, discussion of the first prong was little more than a paragraph in length and, as plaintiff argues, did not describe or discuss the evidence supporting the conclusion that this prong had been met. In the same paragraph that court also notes that the alleged defamation may also have come within the subsection covering comments in connection with judicial proceedings ( 425.16, subd. (e)(2)). (Id. at p. 397.)