communications are not actionable.” CEDA Corp. v. City of Houston, 817 S.W.2d 846, 849 Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied). Thus, communications subject to this privilege simply “cannot constitute the basis of a civil action,” nor may they form a basis for civil liability. See Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 140 Tex. 105, 166 S.W.2d 909, 912 (1942); see also Ross v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 892 S.W.2d 119, 132 Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ). The issue of whether an alleged defamatory matter is related to a proposed or existing judicial proceeding is a question of law to be tter to investors seeking evidence to use in pending litigation absolutely privileged); see also Kanengiser v. Kanengiser, 248 N.J.Super. 318, 590 A.2d 1223, 1231 (New Jersey App.1991) (<HOLDING>). The public policy behind absolute privilege
holding absolutely privileged the filing of a mechanics lien prior to the judicial proceeding to foreclose it holding that prosecutors defamatory statements to the press after plaintiff was pardoned were absolutely privileged holding that statements typically found in an attorneys demand letter related to an imminent judicial proceeding absolutely privileged holding demand letter written prior to and during litigation absolutely privileged holding absolutely privileged a communication to an administrative agency designed to prompt action by that agency