with ‘individual personnel disputes and grievances’ and that would be of ‘no relevance to the public’s evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies’ is generally not of ‘public concern.’ ” Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1983)). By contrast, “[sjpeech involves a matter of public concern when it can fairly be consi matter of public concern “if it contributes in some way to the resolution of a judicial or administrative proceeding in which discrimination or other significant government misconduct is at issue — even if the speech itself would not otherwise meet the Con-nick test were we to consider it in isolation.” Alpha Energy Savers, 381 F.3d at 927; see Robinson, 566 F.3d at 823 (<HOLDING>). Just as speech whose content exposes
holding that an employee engages in protected activity under the first amendment when he threatens to file a lawsuit on a matter of public concern 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 holding that employees voluntary testimony is also inherently a matter of public concern holding that a public employees deposition testimony involves a matter of public concern if arguably a statement about misconduct or corruption in city government and regardless of whether testimony is given in employees official capacity holding that a police sergeants testimony in a class action discrimination lawsuit addressed a matter of public concern regardless of the specific content of the testimony or its impact on the outcome of the suit