to relate to ‘any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.’ ” Johnson v. Multnomah Cnty., 48 F.3d 420, 422 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684). Applying these principles to a public employee’s speech in the context of a judicial or administrative proceeding, we have identified two categories of speech that satisfy the public concern doctrine. First, an employee’s testimony may be a matter of public concern if its specific content exposes government wrongdoing or helps the public evaluate the performance of public agencies, irrespective of the nature of the judicial or administrative proceeding in which the testimony is offered. Alpha Energy Savers, 381 F.3d at 927; cf. Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802, 809 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Alternatively, an employee’s testimony may be
holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern holding that an officers report of misconduct by fellow officer is a matter of public concern holding that employees contact with fbi regarding defendants potential fraud theft and misallocation of public funds was 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 public employees expressive conduct in support of a coworker in her personnel dispute was a matter of public concern because it helped expose potential government misconduct