Keep in mind that this is one of those stories even though it is really interesting from a Public Records, and Handling Sources standpoint, the local Spokane Mainstream Media won’t be covering, because it involves one of theirs, I did however once again reach out to the Inlander folks to get some questions answered but I anticipate the Nadine Policy will kill any chances of getting some questions answered by the Inlander.

It would appear that Adriano Eva won the first round of his battle with the City and Daniel Walters as a Pre-Trial Status Conference is set for 08/09/2019, and there is a “MOTION FOR LIVE TESTIMONY” filed which in all likelihood means Mr. Eva will be calling witnesses in the trial.

I would venture a guess that Mr. Eva’s lawyers will be subpoenaing, at a minimum Christine Cavanaugh and Daniel Walters, but there are lots of other folks who could be subpoenaed including Laurie Farnsworth, Terri Pfister, Dan Daling, Meghann Steinolfson… etcetera.

Remember that this case all got started when the City gave Mr. Adriano “Third Party Notification “and that this case demonstrates just how long it can take to receive a Public Records Response, if at all, when an individual utilizes his/her right under the Public Records Act to object to the release in Superior Court under RCW 42.56.540.

It is like I told Daniel Walters back in November of 2018;

“It entirely depends upon how much embarrassment the document or documents might cause someone. Those that don’t I get quickly, those that do come at a snail’s pace.”

(***Me cantankerous??? 😊)


From a reporters perspective the case could also get really interesting from the standpoint of the position it would put Daniel Walters in if he is subpoenaed and takes the stand. As I mentioned in previous stories it looks like Walters received the 2014 documents prior to the City releasing them due to Eva taking advantage of his right to object to the release. I doubt that the City released the documents to Walters prior to the case being decided as my experience has been that Ms. Pfister and Ms. Farnsworth are very diligent about this kind of stuff, but if they did and the Judge finds that the records should not have been released the City would have a problem. The City could also have a problem if it was a City Employee who released the records or details of the contents of the 2014 case.

Even a non-lawyer could probably anticipate what questions reporter Walters might have to answer on the witness stand, especially since there are quotation marks around statements that appear to be from the 2014 HR Case.

“But those, it turned out, weren’t mutually exclusive, according to the account she gave the city in 2014 and relayed to the Inlander.”

“In the report, authored by former HR analyst Dan Daling, Eva admits to kissing Shelby — though Eva portrays the kiss as gentler, briefer and without any inappropriate touching. But Daling ultimately finds Shelby to be more credible and less culpable than Eva.”

To “ensure that these negative and disrespectful behaviors stop immediately,” Daling urges for Eva to cease contact with Shelby, to never be placed in a supervisory role with her again, to be moved from Riverfront Park, and to be retrained on “respect in the workplace.” Finally, he calls for Eva to be sent to a “predisciplinary hearing to determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate.”


Timing is everything when a lawyer is questioning a witness on the stand, but I have to believe at some point Walters would be asked the ultimate question… “Did you receive a copy of the 2014 case and from whom did you receive it?”…  “Aside from Shelby who were your sources for the information you for the story?”…. Now that is where the going could get rough. Do you refuse to name your sources and face the possibility for a Contempt of Court Charge, or do you ruin your career by naming your sources?

I would suspect that Christine Cavanaugh would be asked if she provided documents or specific detail of the 2014 case to Walters. That could be a rough one too because if she did or if any other City Employee did that just makes Eva’s Civil Case against the City better since it would support Eva’s lawyers claim that Cavanaugh is/was after Eva.

  “Ms. Cavanaugh was driving the investigation that failed to ask key witnesses and failed to bring out key evidence,” he tells the Inlander.

This is a case that the order in which witnesses are called could be critical for some, for example if Cavanaugh is called prior to Walters and it is determined that she was Walters source for details of the 2014 case it would to an extent take Walters off the hook, but if she denies it and other witnesses called prior to Walters also deny they are the source things could get sticky for young Walters. If I were Walters I would be hoping I wasn’t first up.

Walters might be right…his “big story on HR and a recreation supervisor”…might just end up being big…but not in the way he thought.