The police officers in this case claimed they were retaliated against for (1) assisting the District Attorney with an internal corruption investigation (2) a report and memoranda regarding an investigation; (3) cooperating with an FBI investigation?? regarding?? corruption;?? (4)?? giving grand jury testimony. ?The District Court held that in each of the instances, the officers were acting pursuant? to their? professional? responsibilities, so the speech was not protected under Garcetti v. Ceballos.?? The Ninth Circuit affirmed 2-1 in an opinion by Judge Tallman. ?Judge William Fletcher dissented.? ?He agreed with the majority that the first ?instance? was? unprotected? ?official? speech.? He? would? have? held? a? jury? could? find? that? the report and memoranda were not protected, because the police chief ordered them not to conduct the investigation at issue.?? He found a genuine issue whether cooperation with the FBI was part of the officers??? job?? duties.???? ?As?? to?? the?? grand?? jury testimony, Judge Fletcher noted that two circuits recently ruled that testimony about coin civil and criminal proceedings was protected by the First Amendment, since the testimony was pursuant to an independent obligation to obey a subpoena

Huppert v. City of Pittsburg, 574 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. July 21, 2009) (Tallman, W. Fletcher, Bertelsman) (E.D. Ky.)).