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

“draws the court to [his] brief in opposition to” the Port’s summary judgment motion. Id. at 45.

The Port responds that “Paddock provides no legal authority whatsoever supporting his

contention that his false testimony was entitled to” First Amendment protection. Br. of Resp’t at

21 (emphasis omitted). The Port then argues that even if Paddock’s speech was entitled to First

Amendment protection, under the test from Pickering v. Board. of Education., 391 U.S. 563, 88

S. Ct. 1731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1968), the Port’s interest in maintaining an efficiently functioning

workplace outweighed Paddock’s interest in testifying falsely.

In his reply, Paddock contends that, consistent with Pickering, he “is protected by the First

Amendment as a public employee ‘who provided truthful sworn testimony, compelled by

subpoena, outside the course of his ordinary job responsibilities.’” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 21-22.

Paddock does not further elaborate, though, on how Pickering or any other First Amendment

analysis applies to these facts or how he thinks Pickering establishes that the trial court improperly

granted summary judgment in this case. And when asked at oral argument for additional

explanation, Paddock did not give any.

As stated above, it is the appellant’s responsibility to provide argument, including legal

authority and citation to the record, in support of the issues they raise, and we need not consider

19
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

arguments unsupported by meaningful analysis. RAP 10.3(a)(6); Cook, 158 Wn. App. at 794.

Paddock does not properly support his First Amendment claim in either his opening brief or his

reply brief. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order dismissing it.