Plaintiff was a licensed solicitor in London and the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the independent regulatory body that governs solicitors and barristers in the UK.  He traveled to California and then claimed he was too ill to return to the UK, so an adjournment of the disciplinary proceedings should be continued.  Defendant, a doctor, was appointed as a neutral expert to evaluate plaintiff’s health and ability to return to the UK.  He reported that plaintiff was fit to return.  Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence and fraud in providing that report.  Held, the trial court correctly sustained defendant’s demurrer.  Plaintiff claimed that UK law rather than California’s Civil Code 47(b) should apply.  But he failed to carry his burden of proving what UK law was on the subject.  The report he submitted was not signed under oath and in any event admitted that the UK had no settled law on the subject of the litigation privilege.  So, plaintiff did not show that UK law differed from California law or that the UK had a greater interest in the application of its law.  Section 47(b) has been held to apply to independent regulatory bodies and to proceedings in foreign countries.  It plainly applied to defendant’s report which was furnished to the regulatory authority at its request to determine an issue at stake in its proceedings.  Plaintiff’s attempt to escape section 47(b) by complaining of non-communicative acts of concealment failed because the concealments were not the gravamen of his action; rather it was the affirmative report that he was well enough to return for further disciplinary proceedings–a privileged communicative act.