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 E

OMNIBUS BROWN DECLARATION

Deposition of Paul Otellini

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:

HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE

7

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

8
9

)
)
)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

10

ALL ACTIONS.

)

11

No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

______________________________)

12
13
14

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

15

VIDEO DEPOSITION OF PAUL OTELLINI

16

January 29, 2013

17
18
19

REPORTED BY:

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

20
21
22
23
24
25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 1

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

10:53:21

1

the person who ran our corporate services site selection

10:53:29

2

process.

10:53:30

3

Q.

And who was that second person?

10:53:31

4

A.

I don't remember his name at the time.

10:53:33

5

Q.

Was it a man or a woman?

10:53:34

6

A.

A man.

10:53:41

7

Q.

And Renee James is a woman, correct?

10:53:45

8

A.

Yes.

10:53:46

9

Q.

And when Ms. James informed you of that

10:53:49 10

incident, did you contact Mr. Schmidt to tell him about

10:53:53 11

that?

10:53:53 12

A.

I think I sent him an email.

10:53:55 13

Q.

And why did you send him the email?

10:53:59 14

A.

Because I wanted to remind him that it was --

10:54:01 15

that he was recruiting people that were working on these

10:54:04 16

joint projects and this was -- this was, I thought, not

10:54:08 17

in the spirit of our agreement.

10:54:10 18

Q.

Is it fair to say that when you -- when you

10:54:12 19

contacted him or wrote him the email, you wanted

10:54:15 20

Mr. Schmidt to stop it?

10:54:17 21
10:54:20 22

A.

Yeah.

I would prefer he didn't do that.

Live

up to what he said, yes.

10:54:22 23

Q.

Okay.

And I'm sorry, the second incident that

10:54:32 24

you described, the person was a manager of -- I didn't

10:54:36 25

get the name of the -- the organization.

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 73

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

10:54:38

1

A.

It was -- we have an organization called

10:54:40

2

corporate services, which has all of our construction

10:54:43

3

and land and construction activities, site selection,

10:54:50

4

et cetera.

10:54:52

5

10:54:56

6

in the midst of a large physical expansion of their

10:55:01

7

sites for data centers and R&D, and they wanted to know

10:55:06

8

Intel practices.

10:55:09

9

who did that for Intel.

And the background for that was that Google was

So I offered to send over the person
Was a very experienced

10:55:14 10

engineer.

And we told them how we went about selecting

10:55:17 11

and growing sites.

10:55:26 12

they recruited him, which I didn't think was terribly

10:55:29 13

fair and kind.

And they liked that person so much

10:55:29 14

Q.

10:55:31 15

is that fair?

10:55:32 16

A.

Yes, I did.

10:55:33 17

Q.

And again, when you did that, you wanted

10:55:37 18

And you contacted Mr. Schmidt to express that;

Mr. Schmidt to stop it?

10:55:39 19

A.

I wanted him to not disrupt kind of the joint

10:55:45 20

efforts.

What would be my incentive to help Google if

10:55:49 21

when I send people over there they recruit our best

10:55:51 22

people.

10:55:52 23

Q.

So other than those two incidents, can you

10:55:54 24

recall any other incident where you learned that Google

10:55:58 25

wasn't living up to its agreement with you?

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 74

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

10:56:01

1

A.

In the engineering ones and the facility ones?

10:56:03

2

Q.

You say ones.

10:56:06

3

10:56:09

4

10:56:11

5

and then there was a -- in software and compiler and

10:56:19

6

tools activities, and the second one in the same area.

10:56:23

7

And then there was a latter one in the corporate

10:56:28

8

services area.

10:56:29

9

10:56:31 10

I believe you said there were

two incidents, one where you found out from Ms. James -A.

Q.

There were three.

There was the initial one,

And to the best of your recollection, those

were the three incidents?

10:56:33 11

A.

Yes.

10:56:49 12

Q.

Do you recall when you first -- strike that.

10:57:02 13
10:57:13 14

When did you and -- when did Mr. -- let me back
up.

10:57:14 15

Just focusing on the first incident that gave

10:57:16 16

rise to the first set of communications, do you recall

10:57:19 17

approximately when that was?

10:57:23 18

A.

It was spring 2006, probably.

10:57:25 19

Q.

And at that time, were you the Intel CEO?

10:57:29 20

A.

Yes, I was.

10:57:30 21

Q.

And at that time, were you on the Google board?

10:57:32 22

A.

Yes, I was.

10:57:35 23

Q.

And when did Mr. Schmidt agree?

10:57:50 24

A.

When I called him.

10:57:52 25

Q.

Okay.

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

And was that agreement effective from

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 75

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

10:58:06

1

that point in time -- well, strike that.

10:58:10

2

10:58:12

3

10:58:15

4

A.

Well, the call was in spring of '06.

10:58:18

5

Q.

And when did it end?

10:58:20

6

A.

Doesn't really -- well, I assume it ended with

10:58:23

7

10:58:24

8

Q.

Well, I'm asking you --

10:58:25

9

A.

But let me take that back.

Can you tell me what period of time your
agreement with Mr. Schmidt was effective?

the Consent Decree.

The Consent Decree

10:58:27 10

allows for what he and I agreed, which was that you can

10:58:31 11

have no solicitation of people that are working on joint

10:58:34 12

projects.

10:58:36 13

Q.

So it's your testimony that the agreement you

10:58:39 14

had with Mr. Schmidt was not limited or prohibited by

10:58:44 15

the Final Judgment?

10:58:46 16
10:58:49 17

A.

That's my understanding of the reading of -- my

reading of the Consent Decree, yes.

10:58:51 18

Q.

Is it your understanding that you still, today,

10:58:53 19

have that agreement between you and Mr. Schmidt in

10:58:59 20

place?

10:59:00 21

A.

There have been no incidents in the last

10:59:02 22

several years, so it never occurred to me to think about

10:59:06 23

whether it was active or not.

10:59:07 24

Q.

You've had nothing to complain about?

10:59:09 25

A.

No.

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 76

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

10:59:16

1

Q.

Is there --

10:59:17

2

A.

By the way, Eric is no longer the CEO, right?

10:59:20

3

10:59:22

4

10:59:24

5

that your agreement with Google terminated when

10:59:27

6

Mr. Schmidt stepped down as the CEO?

10:59:29

7

A.

I've never talked to Larry about this, so....

10:59:57

8

Q.

Now, I believe you said you communicated with

11:00:00

9

So....
Q.

Well, to the best -- is it your understanding

Mr. Schmidt via email about this.

11:00:03 10

A.

11:00:09 11

conversation.

11:00:09 12

Q.

Is that correct?

Well, I think the first discussion was a phone

Did you follow up with -- did you subsequently

11:00:12 13

have email correspondence or communications with

11:00:14 14

Mr. Schmidt --

11:00:15 15

A.

On the subsequent incidents, yes.

11:00:18 16

Q.

Now, when you first -- when Mr. Schmidt first

11:00:24 17

said yes to your request, did you pass that along to

11:00:30 18

Patty Murray or anybody else at Intel?

11:00:34 19

A.

Yes.

11:00:36 20

Q.

Did you tell her -- did you speak to her about

11:00:38 21

I think you asked me about that before.

it or did you send her an email?

11:00:40 22

A.

I don't recall.

11:00:44 23

Q.

Before you entered your agreement with

11:00:46 24

Mr. Schmidt, did you consult with counsel about whether

11:00:48 25

it was legal or not?

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 77

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

12:04:59

1

Q.

Was there anybody from the Comcast Corporation?

12:05:02

2

A.

No.

12:05:03

3

Q.

Was there anybody from the OpenTV Corporation?

12:05:10

4

A.

I don't know that company.

12:05:11

5

Q.

Was there anybody from Nvidia?

12:05:13

6

A.

No.

12:05:14

7

Q.

Was there anybody -- okay.

12:05:18

8

12:05:21

9

Was there anybody from eBay?
A.

12:05:42 10
12:05:43 11

No.
MR. SAVERI:

This, I think, needs to be marked

as the next in order.

12:05:54 12

THE REPORTER:

12:05:55 13

(Whereupon, Exhibit 451 was marked for

12:05:55 14

identification.)

12:05:55 15

THE WITNESS:

12:05:59 16

MR. SAVERI:

12:05:59 17

MR. PICKETT:

12:06:01 18

451.

Could we do lunch soon?
Sir, if you're hungry -You want to knock off a document

or you want to go to lunch?

12:06:02 19

THE WITNESS:

12:06:03 20

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

12:06:04 21

Let's go to lunch.
We're now off the record at

12:06.

12:06:22 22

(Recess taken.)

12:43:21 23

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

12:43:23 24

We're now on the record at

12:43.

12:43:25 25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING

MR. SAVERI:

Q.

Mr. Otellini, I'm handing

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 111

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

12:43:28

1

you what's been marked as Exhibit 451
451.

It's a

12:43:38

2

document that was produced by Google.

12:43:42

3

focus on the part of the document which is an email

12:43:48

4

from you to Mr. Schmidt.

12:43:52

5

read that, please.

12:44:13

6

A.

Okay.

12:44:13

7

Q.

Have you seen this document before?

12:44:15

8

A.

Not the top part.

12:44:17

9

Q.

And when you say the bottom part, do you mean

I want you to

Will you take a moment to

The bottom part.

12:44:19 10

the email --

12:44:19 11

A.

Email from me to Eric.

12:44:21 12

Q.

When you say Eric, you mean Mr. Schmidt?

12:44:24 13

Eric

Schmidt?

12:44:24 14

A.

Yes.

12:44:25 15

Q.

And at the time of the email in May of 2006,

12:44:28 16

Mr. Schmidt was an executive at Google, correct?

12:44:32 17

A.

Yes.

12:44:33 18

Q.

Okay.

12:44:35 19

What was -- do you recall what his title

was at the time?

12:44:37 20

A.

CEO.

12:44:39 21

Q.

Did you write the email, which is the bottom

12:44:42 22

part of Exhibit 451 to Mr. Schmidt on or about May 4th,
451,

12:44:49 23

2006 at the time indicated?

12:44:51 24

A.

Yes.

12:44:52 25

Q.

Next to your name, do you see an email address,

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 112

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

12:44:56

1

[e-mail]?

12:44:59

2

A.

Yes.

12:44:59

3

Q.

Is that your Intel email address?

12:45:02

4

A.

Yes.

12:45:03

5

Q.

And did you use that email address in

12:45:09

6

12:45:13

7

A.

You asked me that before, but yes.

12:45:17

8

Q.

Did you ever have a different email address at

12:45:19

9

connection with your responsibilities at Intel?

Intel?

12:45:21 10

A.

Not for 20 years.

12:45:23 11

Q.

Okay.

Now, you wrote, "Hi Eric, Sorry to

12:45:28 12

bother you again on this topic, but my guys are very

12:45:31 13

troubled by Google continuing to recruit our key

12:45:34 14

players."

12:45:34 15

Do you see that?

12:45:35 16

A.

Yes.

12:45:36 17

Q.

Now I take it, then, that this was not the

12:45:40 18

first time you had communicated with Mr. Schmidt about

12:45:43 19

this subject, correct?

12:45:45 20

A.

That's right.

12:45:46 21

Q.

When was the first time you communicated with

12:45:49 22

Mr. Schmidt about this --

12:45:50 23

A.

A month or two earlier.

12:46:06 24

Q.

Now, you write here, "Most recently, two very

12:46:08 25

senior software engineers have received an offer from

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 113

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

12:46:11

1

Google that is 'one million dollars' in cash and

12:46:15

2

restricted shares."

12:46:15

3

12:46:16

4

A.

Yes.

12:46:17

5

Q.

Do you recall the names of the software

12:46:19

6

12:46:19

7

A.

No.

12:46:21

8

Q.

Now, earlier today you said that there were, I

12:46:24

9

believe, two occasions after the -- after the -- that

12:46:31 10

occurred after the time you reached an agreement with

12:46:33 11

Mr. Schmidt.

12:46:35 12

A.

I recall at least two, yeah.

12:46:37 13

Q.

Well, okay.

12:46:41 14

Do you see that?

employees?

Do you recall that testimony?

This is my question:

This refers

to two software employees.

12:46:44 15

Do you see that?

12:46:45 16

A.

Yes.

12:46:46 17

Q.

Is this a different occasion than the ones you

12:46:50 18

told me about this morning?

12:46:53 19

A.

Yes.

12:47:07 20

Q.

And do you write at the bottom, "Can you

12:47:10 21

pls" -- that's an abbreviation for "please," right?

12:47:12 22

A.

Yes.

12:47:13 23

Q.

"Can you please reinforce the no recruiting

12:47:17 24

agreement?

12:47:18 25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING

I would appreciate it."

Do you see that?
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 114

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

12:47:19

1

A.

Yes.

12:47:19

2

Q.

Was this the first occasion that you contacted

12:47:23

3

Mr. Schmidt to enforce the agreement that you had

12:47:29

4

reached with him?

12:47:31

5

12:47:34

6

conversation on this topic was to get his agreement that

12:47:38

7

he would do this.

12:47:41

8

12:47:43

9

A.

Well, yes.

Q.

This is -- the only other

So yes, it was the first time.

Yeah, and I was just trying to nail down the

sequence.

So it's your best recollection that this was

12:47:45 10

the first time you had occasion to contact Mr. Schmidt

12:47:49 11

about the agreement after the time when you first

12:47:51 12

reached the agreement?

12:47:53 13

A.

I think so.

12:47:59 14

Q.

Now, do you recall what projects or what area

12:48:03 15

at Intel the software employees that you referred to

12:48:07 16

here worked in?

12:48:08 17

A.

Yes.

They were the compiler and tools team.

12:48:11 18

The same people that were working on the Google software

12:48:14 19

optimization.

12:48:17 20

quarters.

12:48:24 21

Q.

That project continued for several

Now, at the beginning of your email to Eric

12:48:27 22

Schmidt you write, "Sorry to bother you again on this

12:48:30 23

topic."

12:48:30 24
12:48:31 25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING

Do you see that?
A.

Yes.
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 115

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

12:48:31

1

Q.

12:48:33

2

again"?

12:48:34

3

A.

12:48:38

4

12:48:43

5

12:48:45

6

no other time between the time you reached an agreement

12:48:49

7

with Mr. Schmidt and this email where you had to contact

12:48:54

8

Mr. Schmidt to enforce the agreement?

12:48:56

9

A.

That's right.

12:49:18 10

Q.

Do you know someone named Mike Hoefflinger?

12:49:22 11

A.

Yeah.

12:49:25 12

Q.

And --

12:49:28 13

A.

Hoefflinger.

12:49:29 14

Q.

I'm sorry, how do you pronounce it?

12:49:30 15

A.

He pronounces it Hoefflinger.

12:49:36 16

Q.

Did Mr. Hoefflinger leave Intel and go to work

12:49:41 17

for Google?

12:49:42 18

A.

I don't know.

12:49:43 19

Q.

What area of -- where did Mr. Hoefflinger work

12:49:47 20

What did you mean by, "Sorry to bother you

Well, I had the -- I had a call on it, whatever

it was, X months before this.
Q.

But to the best of your recollection, there was

He used to work at Intel.

at Intel?

12:49:49 21

A.

I don't remember his last assignment.

12:49:52 22

point I think he was an assistant to Andy Grove.

12:49:55 23

remember he was technical.

12:49:58 24

At one

software or hardware.

12:49:59 25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING

Q.

I

I don't remember if he was

Did he work on any of the projects in which
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 116

Deposition of Paul Otellini

In Re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

12:50:03

1

12:50:06

2

12:50:08

3

12:50:08

4

12:50:10

5

12:50:13

6

A.

I don't know.

12:50:13

7

Q.

Okay.

12:50:27

8

Google?

12:50:28

9

A.

Yes.

12:50:28 10

Q.

What was your understanding what

12:50:30 11

Google and Intel collaborated?
A.

I don't know what his last jobs were.

I don't

know.
Q.

Can you recall any occasion where he worked on

a project where Intel and Google collaborated?

Did -- do you know Jonathan Rosenberg at

Mr. Rosenberg's job was at Google?

12:50:36 12

A.

In what time frame?

12:50:37 13

Q.

In 2006.

12:50:38 14

A.

He was product manager.

But in that time frame

12:50:44 15

that really meant the combination of engineering and

12:50:46 16

marketing.

12:50:47 17
12:50:50 18

Q.

between Google and Intel?

12:50:51 19
12:50:54 20

Did he work on any of the collaborations

A.

I don't know.

Other than certainly by the time

we got to the Chrome and Android stuff he was.

12:50:57 21

Q.

But that was later --

12:50:58 22

A.

I don't know if he was involved in the earlier

12:51:00 23

project on search.

12:51:23 24
12:51:29 25

Q.

Did Mr. Rosenberg ever call you or talk to you

about Google's interest in hiring Mr. Hoefflinger?

KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 117

Deposition of Paul Otellini

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

13

the 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:

February 1, 2013.

17

_______ Reading and Signing was requested.

18

_______ Reading and Signing was waived.

19

___X___ Reading and signing was not requested.

20
21
22

_________________________

23

GINA

24

CSR 8249, RPR, CCRR

V. CARBONE

25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page: 264