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)

EXHIBIT 175

From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Shona Brown <[e-mail]> on behalf of Shona Brown
Saturday, January 03, 2004 1:57 AM
Danny Shader; Jonathan Rosenberg; Omid Kordestani
Bill Campbell (E-mail); Debbie Biondolill; Christi Dunlap - Pop; Stacy Sullivan
RE: Help?

DannyJust going through mail and I think this may have gotten buried in the Thksgiven mail bag, sorry.
To clarify, I was not comfortable putting Good on a 'do not call' list. We don't have such a list as we find it is not practical to create
nor to manage.
Hope that clarifies. Sorry to be so black and white, but I think it this case that is the right answer.
Regards,
· Shona
-----Original Message----From: Danny Shader [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:14AM
To: Shona Brown; 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; 'Omid Kordestani'
Cc: 'Bill Campbell (E-mail)'; Debbie Biondolill; Christi Dunlap- Pop; 'Stacy Sullivan'
Subject: RE: Help?
Hi there,
Thanks for the response.
I think there's a difference between free agents pursuing Google (or Good), and the firms calling into and recruiting out of
the other firms. It's unclear from your note, below, if you agree with that point of view so that we we will put each others'
firms on our "do not call lists" or not. Could you please clarify that for me?
Thanks
Danny

From: Shona Brown [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:47 PM
To: Danny Shader; 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; 'Omid Kordestani'
Cc: 'Bill Campbell (E-mail)'; Debbie Biondolill; Christi Dunlap- Pop; 'Stacy Sullivan'; [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Help?
DannySorry for delay in responding.
I think that the reality is employees of Google or Good need to be regarded as free agents, so I am not comfortable
prohibiting the recruitment of a Good employee to Google (or vis versa). In addition, I am not comfortable betraying
individual's privacy by revealing to Good when we are in discussions with them (obviously if the candidate does not
ultimately get an offer, and yet it is known they were shopping, the candidates will perceive that negatively).
That said, I think we can be sensitive to the situation.
Here is my suggestion. I will make sure recruiters are aware of our friendly relations with Good technologies and are
sensitive to the issue. I will suggest that recruiters encourage candidates, once we have made an offer, to give Good an
opportunity to counter before resigning. I'd ask you to do the same.
Thanks,
Shona

EXHIBIT I ':{- 5

wn.?eo>5h/
DATE $-/7-/~
KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY

GOOG-HIGH-TECH-00061 040

-----original Message----From: Danny Shader [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11!10 PM
To: Jonathan Rosenberg; 'Omid Kordestani'
Cc: 'Bill Campbell (E-mail)'; Shona Brown; Debbie Biondolill; Christi Dunlap- Pop
Subject: RE: Help?
Hi Shona,
Any thoughts on potential guidelines?
Thanks
Danny

From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 6:54AM
To: Danny Shader; 'Omid Kordestani'
Cc: 'Bill Campbell (E-mail)'; Shona Brown
Subject: RE: Help?
Danny,
We have a new vp of business operations and hr. Her name is Shona Brown and I'll copy her. I'm confident we
can establish some form of amicable agreement here that is fair to both of us and the employees.
Shena, we're all big fans of Good technologies at Google and have personal ties with their team and a strong
connection with them as a another KPCB portfolio company. Can we establish some basic ground rules that don't
preclude the outcome of employees migrating to the firm they wish to work for but also minimize sthe degree to
which we're proactive with Good solicitations and establish a process that allqws for some information exchange
at a point that makes the employee comfortable and doesn't violate his/her interests?
Thanks
Jonathan
-----Original Message----From: Danny Shader [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:57 PM
To: Omid Kordestani ([e-mail]); Jonathan Rosenberg
Cc: Bill Campbell (E-mail)
Subject: Help?
Hi Omid and Jonathan,
Congratulations on your continuing amazing success at Google! I, like the rest of the Valley, am cheering
for you guys!
I'm writing to ask a favor of you. Google recently recruited one of our key engineers, Jeff Stewart, and
also targeted another of our folks. I would appreciate it if you could ask your recruiting teams not to target
Good employees. Also, if Good folks contact Google, we would appreciate it if you would not offer jobs to
such folks until they first told us they were interviewing, so that we have the opportunity to address
whatever concerns they might have. Of course, employees are free agents, and have the right to go
where they want. .. but, we'd like not to be surprised if they're interested in related companies.
Of course, we'll do the same in return.
What do you think?
Thanks
Danny
2

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY

GOOG-HIGH-TECH-00061 041

Danny Shader
CEO
Good Technology, Inc.
www.good.com
[phone]
[e-mail]

3

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY

GOOG-HIGH-TECH-00061 042