Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1206

Declaration of Nargues Motamed in Support of 1202 Statement Joint Statement in Support of Evidentiary Issues filed byOracle International Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-0059, # 2 Exhibit A-6329-1, # 3 Exhibit A-0367, # 4 Exhibit A-5042, # 5 Exhibit A-5997, # 6 Exhibit A-6042-1, # 7 Exhibit A-6205-1, # 8 Exhibit A-5193, # 9 Exhibit A-5995, # 10 Exhibit A-5058, # 11 Exhibit A-5002-1, # 12 Exhibit A, # 13 Exhibit B, # 14 Exhibit C, # 15 Exhibit D, # 16 Exhibit E, # 17 Exhibit F, # 18 Exhibit G, # 19 Exhibit H, # 20 Exhibit I, # 21 Exhibit J, # 22 Exhibit K, # 23 Exhibit L, # 24 Exhibit M, # 25 Exhibit N, # 26 Exhibit PTX 0008, # 27 Exhibit PTX 0014, # 28 Exhibit PTX 0161, # 29 Exhibit O, # 30 Exhibit P, # 31 Exhibit Q, # 32 Exhibit R, # 33 Exhibit PTX 4809, # 34 Exhibit PTX 4819, # 35 Exhibit PTX 0012, # 36 Exhibit PTX 0024, # 37 Exhibit PTX 0960, # 38 Exhibit PTX 7028, # 39 Exhibit S, # 40 Exhibit T, # 41 Exhibit U, # 42 Exhibit V, # 43 Exhibit W, # 44 Exhibit PTX 8040, # 45 Exhibit PTX 2582, # 46 Exhibit X, # 47 Exhibit Y, # 48 Exhibit PTX 8112, # 49 Exhibit PTX 8111, # 50 Exhibit PTX 8108)(Related document(s) 1202 ) (Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 8/2/2012)

ELIZABETH ANN SHIPPY
March 5, 2009
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, ORACLE
USA, INC., a Colorado
corporation, and ORACLE
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a
California corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SAP AG, a German corporation,
SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, TOMORROWNOW,
INC., a Texas corporation, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 07-CV-1658 (PJH)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
ELIZABETH ANN SHIPPY
_________________________________
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009

HIGHLY

REPORTED BY:

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

HOLLY THUMAN, CSR No. 6834, RMR, CRR
(1-416868)

Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]

ELIZABETH ANN SHIPPY
March 5, 2009
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 46
10:12:18

1

10:12:20

2

10:12:25

3

10:12:29

4

10:12:32

5

10:12:36

6

10:12:38

7

10:12:40

8

10:12:42

9

10:12:45

10

10:12:51

11

10:12:52

12

10:12:53

13

10:12:54

14

10:13:02

15

10:13:03

16

10:13:05

17

10:13:11

18

10:13:13

19

10:13:16

20

10:13:17

21

10:13:19

22

10:13:21

23

10:13:24

24

10:13:26

25

THE WITNESS: I'm sure there were emails
that would have said, nominations of Customer X, we
would like them to attend. But once again, I don't
remember any formal effort to track that
information. It was really just to help the
customers that we were aware of with some general
information.
MR. DELAHUNTY: Q. So if Customer X was
nominated, was it possible to confirm that Customer
X participated in, say, for example, the World phone
conference that you hosted?
MS. HOUSE: Objection. Calls for
speculation.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't recall.
MR. DELAHUNTY: Q. Do you -- you were on
each of these phone calls.
A. Yes.
Q. Was this your primary job responsibility
prior to taking over the "At Risk" report?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember any of your other programs
or responsibilities prior to taking over the "At
Risk" report?
A. It would be around the system and process
improvements, working on OKS, for example, which is

Page 48
10:14:42

1

10:14:48

2

10:14:50

3

10:14:52

4

10:14:56

5

10:14:59

6

10:15:03

7

10:15:06

8

10:15:07

9

10:15:13

10

10:15:14

11

10:15:17

12

10:15:24

13

10:15:26

14

10:15:30

15

10:15:33

16

10:15:36

17

10:15:40

18

10:15:44

19

10:15:47

20

10:15:49

21

10:15:50

22

10:15:55

23

10:15:59

24

10:16:01

25

customers to warrant hosting one of those calls a
month per product line.
MS. HOUSE: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: We ran those calls until we
felt such time that there was enough information
about the future direction that we could point
customers to without having those calls.
MR. DELAHUNTY: Q. Do you recall when that
time period was that you felt that those phone calls
were no longer necessary?
A. I believe it was till the end of calendar
year 2005.
Q. Was there a specific directive given down
to you to cease hosting those phone calls?
A. No. I would say it was a matter of, the
volume decreased. We just weren't seeing the
requests coming through from the various teams, so
we're not going to host a call if nobody comes.
Q. Understandable. And you were evaluating
the volume by the amount of requests.
A. Yes.
Q. Not by the amount of participants? Well,
you were evaluating it by the amount of requests -A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you know of anywhere that those

Page 47
10:13:30
10:13:34
10:13:37
10:13:41
10:13:43
10:13:46
10:13:49
10:13:53
10:13:58
10:13:58
10:13:59
10:14:02
10:14:04
10:14:05
10:14:06
10:14:20
10:14:23
10:14:25
10:14:28
10:14:29
10:14:29
10:14:31
10:14:33
10:14:36
10:14:38

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

our contract system. If there's updates to it, if
there's fixes, enhancements that need to be rolled
out to the team, I would be part of that.
Q. When you took over the "At Risk" report, do
you remember whom you took it over from?
A. Patricia.
Q. Is Patricia -- I'm not going to pronounce
this right -- Patricia Murguia, is she still at
Oracle?
A. Yes.
Q. And what capacity she is in?
A. She's in reporting and support sales
operations.
Q. So she's still there?
A. Yes.
Q. I apologize for this non sequitur, but I'm
going to ask you one more question about those phone
calls that you hosted, and then go back to the "At
Risk" report.
A. Sure.
Q. I was asking you about the number of
customers that were on those phone calls, and you
testified that you could not recall the exact
number.
But there was a -- there was enough

Page 49
requests are tracked, or cataloged?

10:16:06

1

10:16:13

2

10:16:19

3

10:16:21

4

10:16:24

5

10:16:33

6

10:16:38

7

10:16:41

8

10:16:44

9

mechanism to allow management to see the customers

10:16:49

10

who were considering going to TomorrowNow or other

10:16:54

11

third-party vendors.

10:17:00

12

10:17:06

13

perceive a threat that that customer would go to

10:17:09

14

TomorrowNow or a third-party support provider?

10:17:14

15

10:17:15

16

10:17:22

17

10:17:27

18

10:17:32

19

10:17:35

20

10:17:36

21

10:17:37

22

Q. Okay. Would a third-party support provider

10:17:42

23

be limited to companies like TomorrowNow -- and I'll

10:17:45

24

name a couple examples: TomorrowNow, Rimini Street,

10:17:52

25

Klee & Associates, for example?

A. I don't.
Q. You took over the "At Risk" report at the
end of 2005.
A. Approximately.
Q. And can you describe -- or how would you
describe the "At Risk" report?
A. The "At Risk" report was a tracking

Q. So to be an at-risk customer, Oracle had to

A. To be considered for that report.
Q. What is your understanding of the term
"third-party support provider"?
A. A competitor to the support sales business.
Q. Who would provide support for Oracle
products?
A. That's correct.

13 (Pages 46 to 49)
Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]

ELIZABETH ANN SHIPPY
March 5, 2009
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 54
10:24:40
10:24:42
10:24:46
10:24:48
10:25:02
10:25:06
10:25:09
10:25:12
10:25:13
10:25:16
10:25:18
10:25:18
10:25:25
10:25:27
10:25:35
10:25:35
10:25:42
10:25:45
10:25:48
10:25:50
10:25:54
10:25:58
10:26:00
10:26:06
10:26:09

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A. He just took the slide -Q. Fair enough. Fair enough.
Was there any other slides of a similar
nature?
A. The third-party SWAT team, -296, the very
last page, Rob Lachs really ran that initiative. So
once again, I'm sure I took some information based
on the information that he's been putting together
for that initiative.
Q. Were you a member of the third-party SWAT
team?
A. From an operational perspective, yes.
Q. The page that I wanted to ask you about at
this time is actually -293, which is Slide No. 8.
A. Yes.
Q. And you authored this slide?
A. Yes. I validated it with Rick Cummins, I'm
sure; but yes, I'm sure I put it together.
Q. So you testified earlier that one of your
responsibilities was receiving information from
sales reps to input into the "At Risk" report.
A. Yes.
Q. Does this slide offer the criteria for what
should be reported into the "At Risk" report?
A. No.

Page 56
10:28:01
10:28:03
10:28:05
10:28:10
10:28:14
10:28:16
10:28:23
10:28:25
10:28:28
10:28:30
10:28:32
10:28:35
10:28:41
10:28:45
10:28:52
10:28:53
10:28:56
10:29:01
10:29:06
10:29:08
10:29:11
10:29:17
10:29:19
10:29:24
10:29:25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

document aside for a second.
When you would receive reports from sales
reps with information to input into the "At Risk"
report, did you read each of those communications
from sales reps?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you tasked with reporting to anybody
the information that you were receiving from the
sales reps?
A. I would put that information in the report
which would then get sent to management.
Q. Were you tasked with making a report of the
reports, or a summary of what was in the "At Risk"
report? For example, an update?
MS. HOUSE: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: The report had summary -there was a summary tab on it. So the reps would
give me the specific details, which would go on the
data tab. And then from the data tab, I would then
manipulate the data and put it in the right buckets,
whether it was on the won, lost, or negotiated tab,
and then I would also summarize all the information
based on that data tab.
MR. DELAHUNTY: Q. And your job
responsibilities, with the "At Risk" report, related

Page 55
10:26:11
10:26:16
10:26:23
10:26:29
10:26:33
10:26:37
10:26:39
10:26:39
10:26:41
10:26:45
10:26:50
10:26:53
10:27:06
10:27:13
10:27:18
10:27:20
10:27:23
10:27:26
10:27:30
10:27:33
10:27:35
10:27:39
10:27:42
10:27:46
10:27:48

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Q. How would you describe what this slide has?
A. This slide was to educate the reps of what
types of customer should be reported on the report,
but it doesn't list on this slide all of the details
that are -- that are needed to fill out the report.
Does that make sense?
Q. It does.
A. Okay.
Q. The language that I'm curious about is in
the third bullet, or No. 3. And it's, "Any customer
or group of customers that are at risk due to common
trends that need higher level of visibility."
So I was -- can you explain what you meant
by "common trends that need higher levels of
visibility"?
A. I don't. And in fact, what's interesting
about that is, my understanding, and what Rick and I
had originally been working on this report, was that
it was truly to track the customers that were being
targeted by the third party.
So this surprises me that No. 3 is in here
saying that any customer or group of customers that
are at risk due to common trends. I really don't
know where that came from.
Q. Okay. Well, you had -- we'll put this

Page 57
10:29:27
10:29:29
10:29:30
10:29:35
10:29:37
10:29:46
10:29:47
10:29:54
10:29:56
10:29:58
10:30:02
10:30:04
10:30:09
10:30:11
10:30:14
10:30:17
10:30:21
10:30:22
10:30:24
10:30:26
10:30:29
10:30:33
10:30:38
10:30:43
10:30:45

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

to TomorrowNow?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you have any other job
responsibilities at Oracle, other than the "At Risk"
report, that you feel related to TomorrowNow?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Okay. For example, the SWAT team, would
you consider that as a job responsibility that
related to TomorrowNow?
A. Yes. And I guess I'm lumping all that in
to the "at risk." But you're right. I mean, I
guess -- if I can explain, the SWAT team was more of
just putting out information to help the support
sales reps, which I did not create that information.
I just was assisting, like I say, from an operations
perspective, helping Kristin put things on the web,
that type of thing.
But the "At Risk" report is what I
physically worked on and owned for that period of
time.
Q. Was there anything else similar to the SWAT
team that you may not have physically worked on or
owned during that period of time that related to
TomorrowNow?
A. I don't recall.

15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]

ELIZABETH ANN SHIPPY
March 5, 2009
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 90
11:32:42
11:32:45
11:32:46
11:32:46
11:32:49
11:32:54
11:32:56
11:33:01
11:33:04
11:33:09
11:33:17
11:33:21
11:33:23
11:33:32
11:33:36
11:33:37
11:33:39
11:33:42
11:33:43
11:33:44
11:33:46
11:33:51
11:33:53
11:33:54
11:33:56

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

"At Risk" report. Is that an accurate description?
MS. HOUSE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I believe so.
MR. DELAHUNTY: Q. Okay. And the
attachment here indicates that it's the 2-14-06 -A. Correct.
Q. So and this email includes a chart of
third-party support providers. And it appears to
be -- those providers appear to be ranked by the
number of times they appear in the "At Risk" report.
A. It says the 62 customers that have dropped
support. So it would have been the customers on the
"Lost" tab on the "At Risk" report.
Q. So the third company is Versytec.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall anything specific about
Versytec, different from another one of these
companies?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall anything specific about the
next company listed, CH2M Hill, relative to the
other companies on this list?
A. No.
Q. We've discussed Klee.
Do you recall the company Hewitt?

Page 92
11:35:09
11:35:12
11:35:14
11:35:19
11:35:21
11:35:23
11:35:54
11:35:59
11:36:02
11:36:05
11:36:06
11:36:10
11:36:14
11:36:18
11:36:21
11:36:24
11:36:28
11:36:30
11:36:33
11:36:36
11:36:43
11:36:45
11:36:50
11:36:54
11:37:08

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

was just a fluke. We shouldn't have had any
in-house accounts listed on that "At Risk" report.
That -- the -- the basis of that report was to truly
track the third-party threat, and specifically
against TomorrowNow.
MR. DELAHUNTY: Q. Okay. One tab that
we -- one part of that small excerpt from the "at
risk" analysis that we did not discuss is the
"unknown" listing. Do you see that, Ms. Shippy?
A. I do.
Q. So I take that to mean that some customers
were lost, but the "At Risk" report, at least, did
not reflect where those customers went?
A. Correct. So once again, let me clarify
that this report was as good as the information that
we received from the rep, which then received the
information directly from the customer. And in some
cases, the customer was not willing to share with us
who they were going with.
Q. Okay. But the "unknown" tab does -- it is
accurate to say that the "unknown" tab does reflect
that the customer has gone to some third-party
support provider. It's just not known which one?
A. To the best our knowledge, that is correct.
Q. I asked you a few questions about Klee, and

Page 91
11:33:59
11:34:01
11:34:02
11:34:03
11:34:04
11:34:10
11:34:15
11:34:18
11:34:20
11:34:22
11:34:25
11:34:28
11:34:33
11:34:38
11:34:41
11:34:43
11:34:45
11:34:48
11:34:53
11:34:54
11:34:57
11:34:59
11:35:02
11:35:04
11:35:06

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A. I don't.
Q. You have no recollection about who they
are?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And then finally, it says -- it
looks like the third-party risk analysis tracked
when in-house -- when a customer was lost to
in-house support.
A. Right. And per previous testimony, where
we talked about the criteria for "at risk," we
really shouldn't have had any in-house accounts on
that report, but obviously, we had one that somehow
the rep sent to me, and I just -- and I'm not sure
if I classified it or Patricia did or Rick did,
because I don't know what time this customer came on
the report. But you can see with just one, we were
really trying not to track the in-house
cancellations. We were really going after the
customers that were going to TomorrowNow and any
other third-party vendor.
Q. But it appears that the "At Risk" report
would report a customer as lost if it went to
in-house?
MS. HOUSE: Objection. Overbroad.
THE WITNESS: No. Like I say, to me, this

Page 93
I'll ask you a few more.

11:37:10

1

11:37:12

2

11:37:15

3

11:37:18

4

11:37:19

5

11:37:21

6

A. I don't.

11:37:23

7

Q. Do you know if Klee is an Oracle partner?

11:37:25

8

A. I don't know.

11:37:29

9

Q. Do you know if Klee has any affiliation

11:37:30

10

with Oracle? And that is a broad question, but --

11:37:35

11

11:37:35

12

(Deposition Exhibit 212 was marked for

11:38:08

13

identification.)

11:38:09

14

11:38:10

15

you what's been marked as Exhibit 212. And if you'd

11:38:13

16

like to take a moment, Ms. Shippy, to review that.

11:38:17

17

11:38:17

18

11:38:43

19

Q. Okay. So Exhibit 211 is a document -- is

11:38:50

20

an email chain. The most recent is from Elizabeth

11:38:53

21

Del Ferro to you on February 20th, 2006.

11:39:05

22

11:39:05

23

11:39:08

24

11:39:10

25

It's on this chart. It's listed as a
third-party support provider.
Do you know if Klee still provides
third-party support?

A. I don't know.

MR. DELAHUNTY: Q. Ms. Shippy, I'm showing

A. Thank you.
(Examining document.)

MS. HOUSE: 212.
MR. DELAHUNTY: Pardon me, it's 212.
Q. Referring to Exhibit 212, an email from
Elizabeth Del Ferro to Ms. Elizabeth Shippy on

24 (Pages 90 to 93)
Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]