In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 428

EXHIBITS re 418 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Certify Class Public Exhibits to Cisneros Declaration, Exhibit U filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 175, # 2 Exhibit 186, # 3 Exhibit 192, # 4 Exhibit 557, # 5 Exhibit 597, # 6 Exhibit 648, # 7 Exhibit 650, # 8 Exhibit 651, # 9 Exhibit 653, # 10 Exhibit 661, # 11 Exhibit 872, # 12 Exhibit 1868, # 13 Exhibit 1869, # 14 Exhibit 1870, # 15 Exhibit 1871, # 16 Exhibit 1872, # 17 Exhibit 2735)(Related document(s) 418 ) (Evans, Eric) (Filed on 5/17/2013)

Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ) ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 11-CV-2509-LHK ) ALL ACTIONS. No. ) _____________________________ ) HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PATRICK FLYNN Wednesday, April 3, 2013 Reported By: KATHLEEN WILKINS, CSR #10068, RPR-RMR-CRR-CCRR-CLR KRAMM COURT REPORTING HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 1 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 02:31:35 1 Q. 02:31:39 2 to as hands-off or -- sorry. 02:31:45 3 question. 02:31:46 4 02:31:48 5 02:31:51 6 those companies in any way other than don't call 02:31:59 7 in to these companies. 02:32:05 8 02:32:11 9 A. And was -- were those companies referred Sure. Let me just ask that Sure. I don't -- I don't recall if we labeled Q. Do you recall why a company was added or removed from that list? 02:32:14 10 MR. RUBIN: 02:32:16 11 THE WITNESS: Objection. Form. I didn't see any additions 02:32:18 12 or -- or subtractions, you know, from the list. 02:32:23 13 BY MR. HARVEY: 02:32:24 14 Q. So -- I see. 02:32:26 15 Did you have any understanding of why 02:32:28 16 the companies that were on the list were on the 02:32:30 17 list? 02:32:31 18 A. I believe the one company that I 02:32:34 19 remember being on the list was NVIDIA, and that 02:32:37 20 was because, I believe, that they were -- and 02:32:41 21 still are, to my knowledge -- a key vendor to 02:32:44 22 Apple. 02:32:45 23 Q. 02:32:49 24 that list? 02:32:50 25 A. KRAMM COURT REPORTING Do you recall whether ATI was also on ATI could have been on that list. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 64 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 02:32:52 1 Q. Was ATI a key vendor for Apple? 02:32:55 2 A. I -- I don't -- I don't know. 02:32:57 3 02:33:04 4 02:33:05 5 02:33:06 6 02:33:08 7 02:33:16 8 02:33:20 9 I don't know. Q. Do you recall Google ever being on that list? A. I don't ever recall Google being a company that we couldn't cold call folks. Q. Okay. Do you recall Adobe being a -- a hands-off company or a do-not-cold-call company? 02:33:23 10 A. I do recall Adobe being on the list. 02:33:26 11 Q. Do you have any understanding of why 02:33:27 12 Adobe was on the list? 02:33:28 13 A. I -- I don't. 02:33:29 14 Q. Okay. 02:33:30 15 A. I believe it was in regards to some 02:33:34 16 vendor relationship. 02:33:45 17 02:33:47 18 Q. Do you have any understanding of who was responsible for putting a company on that list? 02:33:55 19 A. No, I don't. 02:33:57 20 Q. Do you have any understanding that 02:33:59 21 Steve Jobs had a role in the companies that appear 02:34:03 22 on that list? 02:34:04 23 MR. RUBIN: 02:34:06 24 THE WITNESS: 02:34:08 25 Objection. Form. I'm -- I'm sure that Steve had influence on that -- on that -- on that list. KRAMM COURT REPORTING HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 65 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 02:34:12 1 02:34:13 2 02:34:16 3 MR. RUBIN: 02:34:19 4 THE WITNESS: 02:34:20 5 of people, and so I know that, you know, part of 02:34:28 6 Apple's success is having key partners. 02:34:32 7 I believe he was, you know, pretty involved in, 02:34:35 8 you know, developing and building those 02:34:37 9 partnerships. 02:34:38 10 BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Objection. Form. Steve connected with a lot So -- and BY MR. HARVEY: 02:34:40 11 02:34:42 12 And what leads you to be sure of that? Q. Do you believe that he was also involved in -- well, strike that. 02:34:57 13 Do you have any understanding of whether 02:34:59 14 Danielle Lambert had any role with respect to the 02:35:02 15 companies that were on that list? 02:35:04 16 A. I don't believe she did. 02:35:05 17 Q. Okay. 02:35:09 18 What leads you to think that she did not have a role? 02:35:14 19 A. 02:35:16 20 execution. 02:35:25 21 privy to those discussions that -- you know, at 02:35:28 22 Steve's level with external folks. 02:35:42 23 Q. Well, her role was focused on -- on And so I just don't think she was Do you recall how this list was 02:35:44 24 maintained at Apple in the sense of how did you 02:35:49 25 know about it? KRAMM COURT REPORTING HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 66 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 02:47:39 1 A. I do. 02:47:40 2 Q. Do you have any understanding of who she 02:47:42 3 02:47:43 4 A. No, I don't. 02:47:44 5 Q. Okay. 02:47:46 6 Bruce Chizen and others at Adobe that Bruce and 02:47:50 7 Steve Jobs have an agreement that we are not to 02:47:54 8 solicit any Apple employees and vice versa? 02:47:56 9 A. I do see that. 02:47:58 10 Q. Does that refresh your recollection of was at the time? Do you see how she wrote to 02:48:00 11 whether Apple's restriction with respect to Adobe 02:48:03 12 was reciprocated? 02:48:06 13 A. It does not, no. 02:48:08 14 Q. Okay. If we can talk about Google 02:48:34 15 briefly. And this concerns when you were still at 02:48:37 16 Apple. 02:48:49 17 on Apple's hands-off list? Do you recall when Google was first placed 02:48:51 18 A. I do not. 02:48:52 19 Q. Do you recall why Google was placed on 02:48:54 20 the list? 02:48:58 21 A. I don't, no. 02:48:59 22 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with an e-mail 02:49:12 23 list that was used at Apple in 2005 that read, 02:49:16 24 "U.S. recruiting all@group.apple.com"? 02:49:22 25 KRAMM COURT REPORTING A. I don't specifically remember that, no. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 75 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 02:49:29 1 Q. If you could take a look at what's been 02:49:32 2 02:49:42 3 02:49:44 4 02:49:47 5 A. I'm finished. 02:49:52 6 Q. Okay. 02:49:54 7 there's that e-mail list that I just described to 02:49:56 8 you. 02:49:59 9 this e-mail list was? previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 563. And just let me know once you've had chance to look at it. 02:50:01 10 If you look in the "to" field, Does that refresh your recollection of what A. Once again, I don't remember that 02:50:04 11 specific group, that title, but I would assume 02:50:07 12 that it's the whole Apple -- or US recruitment 02:50:14 13 team at Apple. 02:50:15 14 Q. And that -- that included you, correct? 02:50:18 15 A. At that time, yes. 02:50:19 16 Q. So you received this e-mail from 02:50:21 17 Danielle Lambert on February 26th, 2005, correct? 02:50:26 18 A. Yes. 02:50:27 19 Q. Okay. 02:50:30 20 Here it says: "Please add Google to your 02:50:32 21 hands-off list. 02:50:36 22 not to recruit from one another, so 02:50:38 23 if you hear of any recruiting 02:50:39 24 they're doing against us, please be 02:50:42 25 sure to let me know. KRAMM COURT REPORTING We recently agreed Please also be HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 76 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 02:50:45 1 sure to honor our side of the deal." 02:50:47 2 02:50:50 3 go back and look at my notes -- were you directly 02:50:52 4 reporting to Ms. Lambert? 02:50:59 5 02:51:00 6 02:51:01 7 02:51:04 8 02:51:06 9 A. I think she was, yes. 02:51:10 10 Q. Okay. At this time -- and apologies, I have to A. At this time, I -- I don't believe I was. Q. Okay. So at this time she was the head of HR at Apple? Does this refresh your 02:51:11 11 recollection of why Google was placed on Apple's 02:51:16 12 hands-off list? 02:51:18 13 MR. RUBIN: 02:51:19 14 THE WITNESS: 02:51:20 15 Form. I don't know why they were on the list. 02:51:21 16 Objection. BY MR. HARVEY: 02:51:22 17 02:51:25 18 Q. Does Ms. Lambert's e-mail suggest to you that it was a result of an agreement with Google? 02:51:29 19 MR. RUBIN: 02:51:35 20 THE WITNESS: Objection. Form. I don't know if there was 02:51:36 21 an agreement with Google. 02:51:39 22 you know, recruit from one another. 02:51:42 23 yeah. 02:51:42 24 BY MR. HARVEY: 02:51:42 25 KRAMM COURT REPORTING Q. Someone agreed to not, But I -- Okay. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 77 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 02:51:43 1 A. I don't know who -- who agreed to that 02:51:45 2 02:51:48 3 02:51:50 4 02:51:52 5 MR. RUBIN: 02:51:55 6 THE WITNESS: 02:51:57 7 02:51:57 8 02:51:59 9 and why. Q. Do you know who else, aside from Google, would have been the other party to the agreement? Objection. I do not, no. BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Do you think it's likely that it was, in fact, Google? 02:51:59 10 MR. RUBIN: 02:52:01 11 THE WITNESS: 02:52:02 12 Objection. I -- I do. Q. Okay. You do think that it is likely that it was Google? 02:52:06 15 MR. RUBIN: 02:52:07 16 THE WITNESS: 02:52:10 17 Form. BY MR. HARVEY: 02:52:03 13 02:52:05 14 Form. Objection. Form. It appears to be Google. BY MR. HARVEY: 02:52:12 18 Q. Okay. When -- when Ms. Lambert wrote, 02:52:14 19 "Please add Google to your hands-off list," did 02:52:19 20 you understand that to mean that -- that you 02:52:23 21 should communicate this to the -- the recruiters 02:52:27 22 you supervised? 02:52:28 23 A. Yes. 02:52:28 24 Q. Okay. 02:52:31 25 And so this would have been discussed at the weekly meetings you described KRAMM COURT REPORTING HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 78 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 02:52:33 1 earlier? 02:52:34 2 A. Potentially, yes. 02:52:38 3 Q. Okay. 02:52:41 4 says, "Please also be sure to honor our side of 02:52:45 5 the deal." 02:52:48 6 02:52:49 7 that meant in terms of what she expected you and 02:52:52 8 other Apple recruiters to do to honor's Apple side 02:52:57 9 of that deal? Okay. Oh, and at the end she Do you have an understanding of what 02:52:57 10 MR. RUBIN: 02:52:59 11 THE WITNESS: 02:53:01 12 Form. I do know what she expected. 02:53:02 13 Objection. BY MR. HARVEY: 02:53:02 14 Q. And what did she expect? 02:53:04 15 A. That we wouldn't cold call in to folks 02:53:09 16 at Google. 02:53:11 17 Q. Okay. Did you ever become aware while 02:53:26 18 you were at Apple of any instances in which Google 02:53:31 19 recruited from Apple and Apple took steps to 02:53:35 20 contact Google to try to enforce the agreement 02:53:37 21 that was reached? 02:53:39 22 MR. RUBIN: 02:53:40 23 THE WITNESS: 02:53:41 24 Form. I do not recall any of those instances. 02:53:44 25 Objection. BY MR. HARVEY: KRAMM COURT REPORTING HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 79 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 02:53:44 1 Q. 02:53:46 2 that has been previously introduced as Plaintiffs' 02:53:51 3 Exhibit 277 at Ms. Lambert's deposition. 02:53:56 4 you could please take a look at it and let me know 02:54:00 5 once you've had a chance to review it. 02:54:02 6 02:54:26 7 02:54:30 8 02:54:32 9 A. Okay. I'm going to show you an e-mail And if Sure. I'm done. Q. Do you recall hearing anything about instances like this in which Steve Jobs would 02:54:35 10 reach out to -- to another company and say, "Stop 02:54:40 11 recruiting into Apple"? 02:54:42 12 02:54:45 13 A. such things, no. 02:54:48 14 02:54:48 15 I -- I don't know of Steve doing any Q. Do you know of anyone else at Apple doing such things? 02:54:51 16 A. I don't. 02:54:51 17 Q. Okay. Do you recall there being any 02:55:12 18 similar agreements with other companies aside from 02:55:15 19 Google in which -- in which Apple and the other 02:55:19 20 company agreed not to recruit from one another? 02:55:21 21 MR. RUBIN: 02:55:24 22 THE WITNESS: Objection. Form. As I mentioned earlier, we 02:55:27 23 could not recruit into Adobe -- or excuse me, 02:55:34 24 NVIDIA. 02:55:44 25 I -- the list wasn't a huge deal to my team KRAMM COURT REPORTING I do recall Adobe being on the list. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY But Page: 80 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 03:51:21 1 recollection of anything you -- you asked 03:51:24 2 Ms. Raymond to do for you? 03:51:27 3 03:51:28 4 03:51:35 5 03:51:35 6 do-not-call list at Google that you were familiar 03:51:38 7 with? 03:51:46 8 03:51:47 9 A. It -- it -- it does not refresh my recollection. Q. A. Does this look like the -- the So I -MR. HARVEY: 03:51:49 10 MR. RUBIN: 03:51:50 11 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Pardon me. Bless you. I can't recall the whole 03:51:51 12 list. There were some standout companies just due 03:51:56 13 to the size of the company. 03:51:59 14 does seem like a plausible list, from what I 03:52:03 15 recall. 03:52:03 16 BY MR. HARVEY: But, I mean, this 03:52:04 17 Q. Was Apple a standout company? 03:52:08 18 A. It was. 03:52:10 19 Q. And I think you said size was an issue 03:52:13 20 in terms of whether it was standout or not. 03:52:16 21 Would you use that as a way to describe 03:52:18 22 Apple in the sense of why Apple is standing out to 03:52:20 23 you? 03:52:21 24 MR. RUBIN: 03:52:22 25 THE WITNESS: KRAMM COURT REPORTING Objection. Form. No, I mean -- I believe HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 105 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 03:52:27 1 Apple was trying to develop, you know, a 03:52:31 2 relationship with Google and potentially vice 03:52:34 3 versa, so ... 03:52:36 4 BY MR. HARVEY: 03:52:37 5 Q. And that's why Apple stood out to you? 03:52:42 6 A. That could be a reason, just because 03:52:44 7 03:52:47 8 03:52:49 9 it's -- and it's a tech icon. Q. Mh-hmm. Okay. Would you say that -- that Intel was a big employer in the Valley? 03:52:55 10 MR. RUBIN: 03:52:57 11 THE WITNESS: 03:52:58 12 Form. Intel was one of the largest employers. 03:52:59 13 Objection. BY MR. HARVEY: 03:53:01 14 Q. Okay. Okay. Aside from the companies 03:53:07 15 listed, I'd like to direct your attention to the 03:53:09 16 kind of preface before where -- well, first, you 03:53:12 17 know, I think I forgot to ask you this: 03:53:15 18 in fact, receive this from Tiffany Raymond on -- 03:53:18 19 on Friday, September 21st, 2007? 03:53:21 20 03:53:25 21 A. I -- I can't recall if I did. Did you, It appears as though that e-mail is addressed to me. 03:53:38 22 03:53:41 23 Q. Okay. She says: "Here are the do not call 03:53:43 24 companies. 03:53:45 25 sensitive ones as well. KRAMM COURT REPORTING There are a bunch of Do you want HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 106 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 03:53:47 1 me to include those as well? There 03:53:50 2 isn't one doc with this info. 03:53:53 3 embedded within a large Google PDF. 03:53:56 4 Let me know if you want this in a 03:53:58 5 Word doc or something." 03:53:59 6 03:54:01 7 03:54:03 8 03:54:06 9 It is And then here's what I'm going to ask you about. Where it starts: "The following companies," and then a parenthetical, "and by 03:54:08 10 association, their subsidiaries 03:54:11 11 listed in Appendix A," end parens, 03:54:14 12 "have special agreements with Google 03:54:16 13 and are part of the 'Do not call' 03:54:20 14 list." 03:54:20 15 Do you see all of that? 03:54:21 16 A. I do. 03:54:23 17 Q. Okay. Is that the kind of language that 03:54:25 18 was used at Google to describe the do-not-call 03:54:26 19 list, specifically, you know, companies that have 03:54:31 20 special agreements with Google? 03:54:33 21 MR. RUBIN: 03:54:35 22 THE WITNESS: Objection. Form. I don't know how a company 03:54:37 23 got on the list, you know, the -- you know, kind 03:54:42 24 of the genesis of those discussions or the 03:54:45 25 process. KRAMM COURT REPORTING So I really can't answer that. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 107 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 03:57:41 1 Q. And then dropping down to where it 03:57:45 2 starts talking about the do-not-call list, it has 03:57:47 3 that same language that -- that Ms. Raymond quoted 03:57:54 4 in her earlier e-mail, correct? 03:57:57 5 A. This e-mail right here? 03:57:59 6 Q. Yeah. 03:58:00 7 03:58:02 8 that says, "The following companies" through "do 03:58:06 9 not cold call list." And -- and specifically the sentence 03:58:09 10 A. It does appear to be the same. 03:58:12 11 Q. Okay. Could you please read through the 03:58:18 12 three -- and if you already have, you can just 03:58:21 13 tell me -- the three elements of the -- of the 03:58:25 14 do-not-call-list protocol that -- let's see. 03:58:29 15 guess it starts with four and then goes through 03:58:32 16 six. 03:58:33 17 A. Yes, I've read it. 03:58:34 18 Q. Okay. I Does that comport with your 03:58:36 19 understanding of how Google abided by or followed 03:58:41 20 the -- the other protocol as described here? 03:58:45 21 A. 03:58:45 22 It does. MR. RUBIN: 03:58:46 23 Objection. Form. 03:58:47 24 Objection. BY MR. HARVEY: 03:58:48 25 KRAMM COURT REPORTING Q. Okay. And is this the same way, in your HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 110 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 03:58:56 1 experience, that Apple's hands-off list worked? 03:58:59 2 MR. RUBIN: 03:59:04 3 THE WITNESS: 03:59:05 4 specific -- if there was a specific procedure at 03:59:09 5 Apple. 03:59:20 6 and was interested in working at Apple, it was 03:59:24 7 not -- not an issue if they were on the 03:59:25 8 do-not-call list. 03:59:27 9 BY MR. HARVEY: 03:59:27 10 03:59:29 11 Q. Form. I don't recall the I do know that if someone came to Apple And does that sound like Number 5 to you? 03:59:30 12 03:59:31 13 Objection. MR. RUBIN: Objection. Form. BY MR. HARVEY: 03:59:31 14 Q. I'm sorry. Number 6? 03:59:33 15 MR. RUBIN: Same objection. 03:59:40 16 THE WITNESS: I don't know if they were 03:59:41 17 worded the same. 03:59:44 18 standpoint, I do recall it being the same. 03:59:47 19 BY MR. HARVEY: 03:59:49 20 Q. Okay. But from a procedural And then in terms of the -- the 03:59:52 21 first part, not to directly cold call in to the 03:59:55 22 companies on that list, is that the same way you 03:59:58 23 understood Apple's hands-off list to work? 04:00:01 24 MR. RUBIN: 04:00:05 25 THE WITNESS: KRAMM COURT REPORTING Objection. Form. In theory, it was very HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 111 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 04:00:06 1 similar, where we wouldn't cold call companies 04:00:09 2 that -- you know, that I was instructed not to at 04:00:16 3 Apple. 04:00:16 4 BY MR. HARVEY: 04:00:17 5 04:00:21 6 document, it's pretty specific in that it states 04:00:24 7 that the -- these rules also apply to the 04:00:29 8 subsidiaries of the companies on the list. 04:00:32 9 Q. Mh-hmm. Okay. And then here in this Do you see that? 04:00:37 10 A. I do see that. 04:00:38 11 Q. And then I won't ask you anything 04:00:41 12 specifically, but I'll just ask you in general, 04:00:42 13 that throughout the attachment, the document lists 04:00:47 14 various companies that are subsidiaries of 04:00:48 15 different companies on the list to identify which 04:00:50 16 ones those are. 04:00:52 17 Do you see that? 04:00:52 18 A. I see the list. 04:00:55 19 Q. Okay. Do you know whether Apple had the 04:00:57 20 same approach in that once a company was on the 04:01:01 21 hands-off list, all of its subsidiaries were also 04:01:05 22 hands off? 04:01:08 23 A. I'm pretty sure that was the case. 04:01:12 24 Q. Okay. 04:01:15 25 Thank you. KRAMM COURT REPORTING Okay. You can put that aside. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 112 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 04:01:16 1 Okay. 04:01:45 2 what the consequences potentially were to a 04:01:50 3 recruiter at Google who failed to follow the rules 04:01:54 4 set out in the document we just went through? 04:01:57 5 MR. RUBIN: 04:01:59 6 THE WITNESS: 04:02:01 7 any consequences being discussed, if they failed 04:02:07 8 to abide by the do-not-call-list protocol. 04:02:11 9 BY MR. HARVEY: 04:02:11 10 Q. Do you have any recollection of Objection. Form. I -- I -- I don't recall Do you recall any instances in which 04:02:15 11 someone at Google was punished for failing to 04:02:18 12 follow the do-not-call list? 04:02:20 13 04:02:23 14 A. Q. And when did you first hear about that it. 04:02:26 15 04:02:30 16 I heard that someone was terminated for termination? 04:02:31 17 A. I don't recall. 04:02:38 18 Q. And do you recall anything else about 04:02:41 19 that -- that recruiter, about, you know, the 04:02:46 20 circumstances that gave rise to her termination? 04:02:50 21 04:02:51 22 A. I believe it was in regards to not abiding by the protocol. 04:02:57 23 Q. Do you know the way in which that 04:02:59 24 recruiter failed to follow the protocol, I mean, 04:03:03 25 kind of how she violated it? KRAMM COURT REPORTING HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 113 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 04:03:05 1 A. From what I understand, she made a cold 04:03:08 2 04:03:17 3 04:03:21 4 generally known to recruiters at Google and that 04:03:24 5 someone got fired for failing to follow the 04:03:29 6 protocol? 04:03:30 7 MR. RUBIN: 04:03:32 8 THE WITNESS: 04:03:32 9 call -- excuse me -- in to Apple. Q. Do you know whether that was sort of was generally known. Objection. Form. I -- I don't know if that The Google recruiting team 04:03:35 10 was huge, and there was a lot of turnover. 04:03:38 11 was -- it was -- I know it was tough for them to 04:03:43 12 keep, you know, the flow of information 04:03:47 13 consistent. 04:03:50 14 BY MR. HARVEY: 04:03:50 15 Q. So it Do you recall whether you told any of 04:03:52 16 the recruiters you supervised to be careful to 04:03:55 17 follow the protocol because there might be 04:03:57 18 consequences if you don't? 04:03:59 19 A. I don't recall myself saying that 04:04:03 20 there -- there will be consequences. 04:04:08 21 part of my job that I'm pretty confident that I 04:04:11 22 instructed them to not proactively or cold call 04:04:15 23 folks on that list. 04:04:18 24 04:04:20 25 Q. Do you recall anyone else sending that message to the recruiters? KRAMM COURT REPORTING I do know as In other words, if you HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 114 Deposition of Patrick Flynn In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 1 I, Kathleen A. Wilkins, Certified 2 Shorthand Reporter licensed in the State of 3 California, License No. 10068, hereby certify that 4 the deponent was by me first duly sworn and the 5 foregoing testimony was reported by me and was 6 thereafter transcribed with computer-aided 7 transcription; that the foregoing is a full, 8 complete and true record of said proceedings. 9 I further certify that I am not of 10 counsel or attorney for either of any of the 11 parties in the foregoing proceeding and caption 12 named or in any way interested in the outcome of 13 the cause in said caption. 14 The dismantling, unsealing, or unbinding 15 of the original transcript will render the 16 reporter's Certificates null and void. 17 18 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this day: April 4, 2013. 19 _______ Reading and Signing was requested. 20 _______ Reading and Signing was waived. 21 ___X___ Reading and signing was not requested. 22 _________________________ 23 KATHLEEN A. WILKINS 24 CSR 10068, RPR-RMR-CRR-CCRR-CLR 25 KRAMM COURT REPORTING HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page: 146