does the amended complaint alleged facts (as opposed to conclusions) plausibly showing that Nye "helped to shape” or "exercised significant influence” over those decisions. 32 . If by "interactions,” the plaintiffs mean the DCYF defendants’ conduct during the neglect, custody, and guardianship proceedings, that cannot serve as the basis of a negligence claim. As the plaintiffs expressly acknowledge in their objection, the DCYF employee who brought and conducted all of those proceedings on its behalf, Matel, “is entitled to prosecutorial immunity from money damages in his role as an advocate.” The DCYF employees who provided testimony during those proceedings are likewise immune from suit for that conduct. See Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Assocs., 142 N.H. 848, 853, 711 A.2d 251 (1998) (<HOLDING>). 33 . The amended complaint alleges that
holding that sjtatements made in the course of judicial proceedings constitute one class of communications that is privileged from liability in civil actions subject to an exception inapplicable here holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense holding that absolute immunity extends to statements made in the course of judicial proceedings but not to preliminary investigations prior to the institution of criminal charges holding that communications to the police are conditionally privileged holding that a document which is given to an attorney in the course of seeking legal advice is privileged in the hands of the attorney only if it was privileged in the hands of the client