Baylis

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs/Appellants Eduardo Perez and Nanci Wisznia appeal the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to Defendants on their First Amendment claims. Defendants/Cross-Appellants County of Riverside and county officials cross-appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for a new trial and their motion for JMOL as to Plaintiff/Appellee Robert Baylis’ First Amendment claims.

1. Proceedings before a judicial or administrative body constitute a matter of public concern if the speech is about “potential or actual discrimination, corruption, or other wrongful conduct by government agencies or officials.” Alpha Energy Sav., Inc. v. Hansen, 381 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir.2004) (citations omitted).

2. Appellee Robert Baylis’ testimony before the grand jury touched on matters of public concern, as the grand jury was investigating budget issues and mismanagement in the county’s detention services program. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Baylis, the evidence at trial supports the jury’s verdict that Baylis was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment. See Ostad v. Oregon Health Sciences Univ., 327 F.3d 876 ,…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority, with the exception of the reversal of the district court’s granting of judgment as a matter of law against Perez and Wisznia.

I agree that Baylis’s testimony before the grand jury in 2000 touched on matters of public concern. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Baylis, the evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Baylis was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment.

The statements and actions of Perez and Wisznia in support of Baylis, however, did not involve matters of public concern. Their criticisms involved only the length and quality of a 1999 internal personnel investigation of Baylis. Their statements and support for Baylis did not concern possible race discrimination or other matters of significant government misconduct or illegality. Therefore, the jury verdict in their § 1983 claim for First Amendment retaliation is unsupported by the evidence.

A 1999 internal investigation of Baylis was initiated for the purpose of examining *598 Baylis’ office conduct and his overall management ability. Perez and Wisznia, in support of Baylis, complained that the investigators were…