Gootee v. Lightner

In Gootee v. Lightner (1990) 224 Cal. App. 3d 587, the plaintiff sued a psychologist for professional malpractice, alleging intentional and negligent conduct in the course of psychological testing and evaluation performed in conjunction with judicial proceedings indistinguishable from ours. The trial court granted a defense motion for summary judgment, based on the Civil Code section 47 privilege, and the appellate court upheld it: "It is undisputed that defendants' role was a limited one: to evaluate the partisans in the custody matter for purposes of testifying concerning the custody dispute. Because the gravamen of the plaintiff's claim relies on negligent or intentional tortious conduct committed by the defendants in connection with the testimonial function, we conclude the absolute privilege bars civil lawsuits (other than for malicious prosecution) seeking to impose liability on the defendants for such misfeasance." (Gootee v. Lightner, supra, 224 Cal. App. 3d at p. 591.)