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

imply a witness’s obligation to give truthful and forthright testimony.” Id. We agree and conclude

that there is a public duty or obligation to appear when subpoenaed and to testify truthfully to the

best of the witness’s ability.

Here, Paddock responded to a subpoena and testified under oath. Paddock admits that his

testimony in the deposition was incorrect to some extent. He maintains that he testified to the best

of his ability, but he made a mistake. The Port contends that it terminated Paddock because “he

deliberately testified falsely, and his false accusations created disruption in the workplace.” Br. of

Resp’t at 1.

The record contains conflicting information about whether Paddock lied. On one hand, an

outside investigator’s detailed report concluded that “critical aspects of [Paddock’s] deposition

testimony were knowingly false.” CP at 377. On the other hand, in Paddock’s declaration, he said

he testified consistently with his imperfect memory of an incident that occurred four years before

the deposition. Hughes testified similarly. And a declaration from the attorney who had deposed

Paddock after the accident stated that “Paddock was testifying to the best of his ability” based on

“his recollection of events that occurred more than four years before his deposition.” CP at 748.

The attorney present in the deposition concluded that Paddock was not being intentionally

untruthful.

There is thus a genuine question of fact about whether Paddock lied in his deposition. This

question is material to the issue of whether the Port discharged Paddock for performing a public

duty or obligation. If, in responding to the subpoena, Paddock made statements he believed to be

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.