of a prima, facie case for a First Amendment retaliation claim — namely, the “protected speech” requirement. Thus, any attempt by defendants to obtain summary judgment on this ground as to this alleged activity/speech is denied. c. Plaintiffs Involvement in the John Donovan Lawsuit Finally, plaintiff also argues that his involvement in the John Donovan lawsuit constitutes protected speech for purposes of a First Amendment retaliation claim. As set forth below, the Court agrees. The Second Circuit has held that “Voluntarily appearing as a witness in a public proceeding or a lawsuit is a kind of speech that is protected by the First Amendment.” Kaluczky v. City of White Plains, 57 F.3d 202, 210 (2d Cir.1995); see also Benedict v. Town of Newburgh, 95 F.Supp.2d 136, 143 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, plaintiff has offered
recognizing the need to balance the states interest in fulfilling its responsibilities to the public the extent to which the speech in question involves a matter of public concern and the manner time place and context of the speech holding that testifying truthfully is constitutionally protected from retaliation and that it is a right existing wholly apart from the first amendment protection of speech generally and without the need to show that the testimony relates to a matter of public concern recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern