In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 716

Omnibus Declaration of Christina J. Brown in Support of #715 Reply re Joint Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. , #714 Reply to Joint Motion to Strike the Improper Rebuttal Testimony in Dr. Leamer's Reply Expert Report or, in the Alternative, MOTION for Leave to Submit a Reply Report of Dr. Stiroh filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N, #15 Exhibit O, #16 Exhibit P, #17 Exhibit Q)(Related document(s) #715 , #714 ) (Brown, Christina) (Filed on 2/27/2014) Modified text on 2/28/2014 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT D

OMNIBUS BROWN DECLARATION

Deposition of Lauren Stiroh, Ph.D.

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5
6

IN RE:

7

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE

8
9

)
)
)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

10

ALL ACTIONS.

)

11

No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

______________________________)

12
13
14

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

15

VIDEO DEPOSITION OF LAUREN STIROH, Ph.D.

16

December 9, 2013

17
18
19

REPORTED BY:

GINA V. CARBONE, CSR NO. 8249, RMR, CCRR

20
21
22
23
24
25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING

*ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY*

Page: 1

Deposition of Lauren Stiroh, Ph.D.

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

10:04:36

1

that I have in my report is that the -- that having a

10:04:40

2

conduct variable that turns off at the start time and

10:04:42

3

then turns off at the end time is going to sweep into it

10:04:46

4

anything that's not adequately controlled for elsewhere

10:04:50

5

in the report -- in the analysis.

10:04:52

6

10:04:56

7

the periods of the agreement, so even assuming that the

10:04:59

8

agreements have an impact, that the impact could be

10:05:03

9

measurable and the impact is to lead to

And to the extent that there is an overlap in

10:05:05 10

undercompensation of the class, if all of that is true,

10:05:08 11

and you have two agreements that have an overlap in

10:05:11 12

period, then there is nothing in the analysis that tells

10:05:13 13

you what of that measured undercompensation comes from

10:05:17 14

the one at issue versus one that was concurrent with the

10:05:20 15

one at issue, even if the concurrency was for a part but

10:05:24 16

not all of the time.

10:05:26 17

MR. GLACKIN:

Q.

When you say the

10:05:27 18

agreements have an overlap, are you saying this

10:05:30 19

problem arises if there is any overlap at all

10:05:33 20

between the time periods of the agreements?

10:05:38 21

A.

If the theory is correct, that there is an

10:05:41 22

impact on undercompensation from the nature of the

10:05:45 23

agreement, and there is a period of overlap, then the

10:05:47 24

model has no way to distinguish what part of that

10:05:50 25

undercompensation comes from the agreement that we're

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

*ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY*

Page: 56

Deposition of Lauren Stiroh, Ph.D.

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

10:05:52

1

trying to measure the effect of, and what comes from the

10:05:54

2

agreement that we are not trying to measure the effect

10:05:56

3

of.

10:05:57

4

10:05:59

5

agreements as the agreements were not trying to measure

10:06:03

6

the effect as lawful agreements.

10:06:09

7

(Reporter clarification.)

10:06:09

8

THE WITNESS:

Okay.

10:06:09

9

MR. GLACKIN:

Q.

Q.

So let's call -- I'm going to refer to those

Suppose you had a lawful

10:06:10 10

agreement that began in 1995 and continued up to the

10:06:13 11

present day; why would the regression analysis, as

10:06:19 12

it is constructed, fail to control for the existence

10:06:22 13

of that agreement?

10:06:24 14

MR. KIERNAN:

Object to form.

10:06:32 15

THE WITNESS:

I think that -- I would want to

10:06:37 16

look a little bit further to see what the nature of the

10:06:39 17

agreement was specifically, and who the two parties were

10:06:44 18

to the agreement.

10:06:47 19

agreement that spans the entirety of the period, then if

10:06:51 20

there is an impact on undercompensation from the

10:06:54 21

agreement, it's not necessarily going to be uniform

10:06:56 22

throughout the entire period.

10:06:58 23

But just on the hypothetical, an

And because there are not sufficient controls

10:07:01 24

during what we're calling the damage period, 2005 to

10:07:07 25

2009, and there are events within that damage period,

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

*ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY*

Page: 57

Deposition of Lauren Stiroh, Ph.D.

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

10:07:11

1

undercompensation that should be connected to the lawful

10:07:14

2

agreement can be wrapped up in undercompensation that is

10:07:17

3

coming from the -- from the recession or other

10:07:21

4

compensation events at the defendants that happened

10:07:23

5

inside the damage period and not under the -- outside

10:07:25

6

the damage period.

10:07:27

7

10:07:29

8

should be that they are really attributed to different

10:07:32

9

causes.

They're being swept into compensation where it

And if one of those causes is a lawful

10:07:35 10

agreement, even if it spans the entirety of the period,

10:07:38 11

could still be swept into damages.

10:07:40 12

MR. GLACKIN:

Q.

Is it your opinion that

10:07:41 13

that actually happened with respect to any of these

10:07:44 14

four lawful agreements that you've identified here?

10:07:48 15

MR. KIERNAN:

Object to form.

10:07:50 16

THE WITNESS:

As I sit here, I don't recall

10:07:52 17

what the dates were and whether they, all or any of

10:07:54 18

them, span 1995 through 2011, but it is my general

10:07:58 19

opinion that what is being picked up by Dr. Leamer's

10:08:01 20

conduct variable includes more events than certainly the

10:08:04 21

conduct that we're trying to measure at issue.

10:08:06 22

given you an example of how one of those agreements may

10:08:08 23

be infecting the analyses.

10:08:11 24
10:08:13 25

MR. GLACKIN:

Q.

And I've

So what I'm asking is, is

it your affirmative opinion that any one of these

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

*ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY*

Page: 58

Deposition of Lauren Stiroh, Ph.D.

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

10:08:19

1

four lawful agreements that you've listed here, in

10:08:23

2

fact, did cause undercompensation that was swept in,

10:08:27

3

as you've put it, into the damages calculation of

10:08:30

4

Dr. Leamer?

10:08:31

5

MR. KIERNAN:

Object to form.

10:08:32

6

THE WITNESS:

It is not.

10:08:35

7

under the theories put forward by plaintiffs, that these

10:08:38

8

agreements, each one of them, regardless of terms,

10:08:41

9

length and the nature of the two parties affects

My opinion is that

10:08:45 10

undercompensation, then it is a necessary thing

10:08:47 11

consistent with that theory to carve out the impact of

10:08:50 12

the lawful agreements from the alleged impact of the

10:08:52 13

challenged agreements.

10:08:54 14

MR. GLACKIN:

Q.

You understand that -- or

10:08:55 15

you believe that the terms of the agreements are

10:08:57 16

irrelevant to the plaintiffs' theory of impact?

10:09:03 17

MR. KIERNAN:

Object to form.

10:09:10 18

THE WITNESS:

I think that the question is

10:09:12 19

combining a couple of different things.

10:09:15 20

the agreements are not necessarily irrelevant to the

10:09:18 21

plaintiffs' theory of impact.

10:09:21 22

the various terms of the agreement in the complaint.

10:09:23 23

Specifically, though, Dr. Leamer has not made any

10:09:27 24

adjustments for variation in terms, agreement to

10:09:29 25

agreement, he treats them identically.

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

*ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY*

The terms of

I think they reference

Page: 59

Deposition of Lauren Stiroh, Ph.D.

1

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

I, Gina V. Carbone, Certified Shorthand

2

Reporter licensed in the State of California, License

3

No. 8249, hereby certify that the deponent was by me

4

first duly sworn and the foregoing testimony was

5

reported by me and was thereafter transcribed with

6

computer-aided transcription; that the foregoing is a

7

full, complete, and true record of said proceedings.

8
9

I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either of any of the parties in the

10

foregoing proceeding and caption named or in any way

11

interested in the outcome of the cause in said caption.

12

The dismantling, unsealing, or unbinding of the

13

original transcript will render the reporter's

14

certificates null and void.

15
16

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
this day:

December 16, 2013.

17

___X___ Reading and Signing was requested.

18

_______ Reading and Signing was waived.

19

_______ Reading and signing was not requested.

20
21
22

_________________________

23

GINA

24

CSR 8249, RMR, CRR, CCRR

V. CARBONE

25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING

*ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY*

Page: 322