investigation or charging of [the plaintiff] based upon an intent to protect corruption took place does not militate against [the defendant’s] responsibility to mitigate what he believed were damaging remarks by [the plaintiff]” that the police force was no longer corrupt. Id. As such, the court concluded that the defendant’s statements were absolutely privileged. As in Ware, there was no judicial proceeding pending at the time the allegedly illegal statements were made. Nevertheless, defendant Waller undoubtedly felt obligated to inform the public about issues surrounding the nolle prosequi of Hobbs’s case. The court can discern no principled reason why the protection afforded the defendant in Ware should not extend to defendant Waller here. See Patterson I, 328 F.Supp.2d at 902 (<HOLDING>); see also Golden v. Mullen, 693 N.E.2d 385,
holding that statements in personnel files that would otherwise be defamatory are privileged holding that press release issued by acting director of office of rent stabilization regarding employee termination was within scope of directors official duties and absolutely privileged holding demand letter written prior to and during litigation absolutely privileged holding that statements typically found in an attorneys demand letter related to an imminent judicial proceeding absolutely privileged holding that prosecutors defamatory statements to the press after plaintiff was pardoned were absolutely privileged