Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

Q. Mr. Hughes wasn’t with you when you tagged [the straddle carrier], the day
before it tipped over; isn’t that correct?
A. No.
Q. No what?
A. That’s not correct.
Q. You’re saying the records are wrong?
A. I’m saying [Hughes] was with me or there when I tagged the machine out, yes.
Q. On August 29th, 2012?
A. I don’t know the exact date.
Q. It’s the day before the tipover, correct?
A. I don’t know what date the tipover was.
Q. Well, take my representation it’s August 30th, 2012.
A. Okay.
Q. If that’s true, then Mr. Hughes wasn’t working August 30th, 2012, and he wasn’t
working on August 29th, 2012. He was on vacation, wasn’t he?
A. That’s what the records show.
Q. And you are testifying differently than the records, correct?
A. Apparently. That’s what I recall what I’m testifying.

CP at 319. Nevertheless, Paddock did not retract his statement that on the day before the accident,

he tagged the straddle carrier to indicate that it should not be used.

II. EMPLOYMENT INVESTIGATION AND TERMINATION

About a month after Paddock’s deposition, the Port hired an outside investigator to

determine whether Paddock “knowingly provided false information about the Port . . . when

subpoenaed to testify” and how Paddock’s testimony “impacted the Port and his coworkers.” CP

at 365. The Port then placed Paddock on administrative leave for the duration of the investigation.

The investigation was to determine “whether information [Paddock] provided in the

[longshoreman’s] litigation was maliciously untrue and/or whether [Paddock’s] actions in relation

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

to the accident leading to the [litigation] failed to meet workplace and safety expectations.” CP at

294.