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 [e-mail]"?

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