LaRussa v. Twitter Inc.

Filing 158

LaRussa v. Twitter Inc.

Doc. 158 Att. 2

EXHIBIT A

Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CONNECTU LLC Plaintiff . . . V. . . MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al . Defendants . ................ CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-11923-DPW

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS OCTOBER 25, 2006

TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING (DAY 2) BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT B. COLLINGS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: Daniel Tighe, Esquire Griesinger, Tighe & Maffei 155 Federal Street, Suite 1700 Boston, MA 02110 [phone] John F. Hornick, Esquire Margaret A. Esquenet, Esquire Meredith Schoenfeld, Esquire Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 [phone] For the Defendants: G. Hopkins Guy, III, Esquire I. Neel Chatterjee, Esquire Monte Cooper, Esquire Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 1000 March Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 [phone]

Court Reporter: Proceedings recorded by digital sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.
MARYANN V. YOUNG Certified Court Transcriber 240 Chestnut Street Wrentham, Massachusetts 02093 [phone]

For the Defendants:

Steven Bauer, Esquire Proskauer Rose, LLP One International Place Boston, MA 02110 [phone] Annette Hurst, Esquire Heller Ehrman LLP 275 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 650-324-7169 Daniel K. Hampton, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116 617-523-2700

For Eduardo Saverin:

MARYANN V. YOUNG Certified Court Transcriber 240 Chestnut Street Wrentham, Massachusetts 02093 [phone]

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 WITNESSES Divya Koomar Narendra EXHIBITS Plaintiff's: 47 Defendants': 78 71 29 75 DESCRIPTION

II-2 INDEX DIRECT 4 CROSS 36, 75 IDENT. REDIRECT 77 RECROSS 93 IN EVID.

2004 Tax Return

34

Interrogatory Responses Form Interrogatories Press Release Request for Admissions 98

44 55 61

YOUNG TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES [phone]

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

Cross - Narendra

A Q

Yes. Thank you.

II-75

Now your expectation was that you would gain

somehow if the ConnectU project was successful, right? A Q That's right. And that you would get what you deserved with respect to

the ConnectU website, right? A That's right. MR. CHATTERJEE: pass the witness. THE COURT: THE CLERK: All right. All rise. (RECESS) THE CLERK: THE COURT: Cross-examination? MR. HAMPTON: brief. THE COURT: BY MR. HAMPTON: Q A Q A Q Good morning, Mr. Narendra. Good morning. We've met before at your depositions; is that right? That's right. And you understand I'm Dan Hampton and I represent in the You may proceed. Thank you, Your Honor. I will be very All rise. Court is back in session. We'll take a recess till 11. No further questions, Your Honor. I

All right, you may be seated.

case Eduardo Saverin. YOUNG TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES [phone]

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

Cross - Narendra

A Q

That's correct. Mr. Narendra, if Mr. Chatterjee's client, TheFaceBook,

II-76

went back to California tomorrow and sued you again personally for accessing TheFaceBook website in July of 2004, you'd go right back to the California court and tell them again that when you did that you were acting in your capacity as a member of ConnectU LLC, wouldn't you? A Q Yes. And so, Mr. Narendra, what you're suggesting is that for

the purposes of the California lawsuit ­ that's because of the operating agreement, am I right about that? That's the reason

why you can tell the California court that you were a member of ConnectU LLC in July of 2004 or were you actually a member in July of 2004? A Q I became a member when I signed that agreement. All right. So it's the retroactive nature of the

agreement that allows you to go to the California court and tell them that in July of 2004 you were a member of ConnectU LLC? A Q That's right. And so what you're suggesting here today is that the

retroactive nature of the operating agreement, that's good for the California case where you get the benefit of getting out as a personal defendant but that's not what the court should do here. You weren't really a member on September 2nd of 2004 when YOUNG TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES [phone]

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

Redirect - Narendra

this case was filed? A I was not a member September 2, 2004 when - or on

II-77

September 2, 2004 I was not a member. MR. HAMPTON: THE COURT: No further questions.

Mr. Hornick, any redirect? Yes, just a few questions, Your Honor.

MR. HORNICK:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HORNICK: Q Do you recall testifying earlier that up until the time

that ConnectU LLC was formed you and Cameron and Tyler had contributed roughly equally to the Harvard Connection website? A Q That's right. All right. Now when ConnectU LLC was created was it your

intent to continue the same arrangement the three of you had with Harvard Connection into ConnectU LLC? MR. CHATTERJEE: Your Honor, asked and answered and

outside the scope of the cross. THE WITNESS: THE HORNICK: THE COURT: Can you repeat the question? Yes.

Well, repeat the question. Oh, sorry.

THE WITNESS: THE COURT:

I'm sorry. Yes.

MR. HORNICK: BY MR. HORNICK: Q

When ConnectU LLC was created, was it your intention to YOUNG TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES [phone]

II-118 CERTIFICATION I, Maryann V. Young, court approved transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official digital sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

__________________________ Maryann V. Young__________

November 17, 2006

YOUNG TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES [phone]