EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown.

Filing 69

EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Exhibit B (corrected) regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to disqualify counsel from representing one non-party witness 66 (Mulaire, Justin)

EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown.

Doc. 69

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. SIDLEY, AUSTIN, BROWN & WOOD, LLP, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05 CV 0208

The deposition of VIRGINIA L. ARONSON, called for examination pursuant to Notice and pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts pertaining to the taking of depositions, taken before Roselind C. Pisano, C.S.R. No. 084-002031, Certified Shorthand Reporter and a Notary Public within and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, on the 23rd day of February 2006 at the hour of 9:14 o'clock a.m.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 2 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

reason policy covers all these different things, and it can be confusing. BY MR. HENDRICKSON: Q. Did Sidley & Austin have or not have a That's the reason. Okay?

policy about permitting partners to continue as partners past age 65? A. There was not a policy to prevent them from

continuing as partners after age 65. Q. So Sidley & Austin had no policy saying

nobody is permitted to continue as a partner past 65? A. "nots." MR. GOCHANOUR: Have it read back. It is going Say that one more time. We get too many

to be hard to remember the exact words. MR. ELDEN: MS. ELKIN: The Social Security letter is wrong. Gary, are you testifying? Are you

objecting to form, foundation? MR. ELDEN: You have done this five times We understand the You don't

without showing her the letter. letter says that.

The letter is wrong.

have to keep beating around the bush. MS. ELKIN: Are you testifying? Do you want to If

go off the record?

Because you are testifying.

you want to talk to us, I think we should do it off 192

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 3 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

the record. MR. ELDEN: Fine. I'm sorry. It's just that we

have gone over this letter so many times without showing her the letter. MS. ELKIN: I just think the next time you want

to talk you should tell the court reporter to go off the record. MR. ELDEN: That's fair. less. Fair enough. I'll try to talk less. I'll try to talk

I'm talking too much.

Go ahead. Gary, I can't believe you did

MR. HENDRICKSON: what you just did.

I think the record will speak for

itself, but I tell you, I'm surprised. MR. ELDEN: You're surprised? Yeah.

MR. HENDRICKSON: MR. ELDEN:

You think we didn't go over the

Social Security letter beforehand? MS. ELKIN: We didn't expect you to testify. We didn't expect you to start

MR. HENDRICKSON: talking about -MR. GOCHANOUR: MR. ELDEN:

Or tell your witness what --

We have been over it so many times

and you keep beating around the bush and beating around the bush. We are wasting so much time. 193

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 4 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 letter?

Why don't you just show her the letter and ask her if it's correct and let's get it over with. MR. GOCHANOUR: MR. ELDEN: We never mentioned the letter.

You keep using the language of the You went into

letter, you went to William White.

this so many different times it was obvious what you were doing. MR. GOCHANOUR: White. MR. ELDEN: Of course he did. Yes. He never mentioned William

MR. HENDRICKSON: MR. ELDEN:

This morning. But so what? I know damn well

MR. HENDRICKSON:

you don't think that's appropriate behavior. Mark the Exhibit. (Aronson Exhibit No. 4 marked for identification.) BY MR. HENDRICKSON: Q. Ms. Aronson, are Mr. Elden's statements

about this letter correct? A. saying. Are you asking me my reaction to this I actually was not focusing on what he was

194

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 5 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q. A.

Yes. I have no idea why he wrote this letter. It

is untrue. Q. A. In what sense is it untrue? Because it says it is the general policy of

Sidley not to permit a partner of the firm to continue as a partner one day after they reach age 65, and that is untrue. Q. A. When was the first time you saw this letter? It's been in the last few days. I'd never

seen it before. Q. Has anybody, to your knowledge, informed the

Social Security Administration that this letter was untrue? A. Q. done? A. Q. A. I have not. Are you going to? I don't know. I would seek advice of I have no knowledge that that has been done. Have you asked anybody whether that's been

counsel on that. Q. Let me ask you this. No, let me not. I

will ask you another question. Have you ever seen any other letter to any 195

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 6 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

government agency on Sidley & Austin letterhead purportedly signed by an agent of Sidley & Austin that made untrue statements, or an untrue statement? A. Q. Not to my knowledge. Do you know how widely known within the firm

this letter -- the existence of this letter is now? Do you know whether the Management Committee is aware of it? A. of it. Q. Well you're a member of the Management I believe the Management Committee is aware

Committee. A. Q. There are separate conversations. I mean I would think that after all that

Sidley has been through in the past year or so that if it came to anybody's attention on the Management Committee that a letter had been sent six years ago to the Social Security Administration with something that has just been characterized as flatly untrue, that somebody would be sending a telegram or a letter or something to the Social Security Administration saying White's letter of 1999 was not true. A. I cannot tell you what -- I do not know what

the office of the general counsel is doing with 196

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 7 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

respect to the letter. Q. Don't you assume that this letter was -- I

would assume a letter like this is written to the Social Security Administration about an issue involving money, that is whether the firm is obligated to pay FICA taxes, obligated to withhold money from disbursements made by the firm to partners or others, and/or whether people who are retired from the firm are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. In any event, it is related to money.

And the firm -- there is a letter from the firm to the U.S. government obviously related to questions of money, which we are told is not true. And now your testimony today is you don't know, after this untrue statement has been made to the government for seven years, six and a half years, whether anybody has corrected it. A. Is that right? I

I saw this letter a couple of days ago.

probably heard that there was such a letter a week to 10 days ago. Of course people are extremely surprised to see this letter. I am confident that the office of

the general counsel of Sidley is looking into it and deciding the appropriate course of action. 197

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 8 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. A. Q.

But we were not aware of this letter. Who is the "we" that were not aware of it? Management Committee. Where did the letter come from? Where were

you when you saw this letter the first time? A. Q. A. Q. The offices of Grippo & Elden. And you had never seen it before? No. Did you ask anybody where they had gotten

the letter? MR. ELDEN: By the way, if you would like me to She doesn't

tell you the background of the letter. know it, I do.

I'm happy to, or I'm happy not to.

BY MR. HENDRICKSON: Q. A. I want you to just do your best. I assume in connection with their

preparation of the case. Q. We were -- we investigated -- conducted an

administrative investigation of the matter, the Sidley & Austin matter, including issues of coverage before filing this lawsuit, an official government investigation. This letter was never produced in that investigation. 198

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 9 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A.

Sidley has filed repeated briefs in the Federal District Court saying there is no mandatory retirement policy and has not disclosed the existence of this letter appearing to run directly opposite to that. Does that concern you, as an attorney? I'm not a litigator, but it sounds like

something of concern. I don't believe that anyone in the firm authorized Bill White to issue this letter. believe that. I understand what you are saying, it is on Sidley stationery. But I do not believe anybody I do not

authorized him to issue this letter. Q. Didn't he probably write all kinds of

letters without having specific authorization? A. As I said before, I'm not aware of Bill's There are certainly people in our Whether Bill did

job description.

staff who deal with the government.

or not as a routine, or as a matter of course, I don't know. Q. At the time Bill White wrote this letter

nobody, I think, would have thought it was the slightest bit exceptional because Sidley & Austin, at 199

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 69

Filed 06/05/2006

Page 10 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

that time, thought it was not even close to being covered by the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, or so we have been told. problem. So -I'm objecting. It's argumentative So nobody would have seen a

MR. ELDEN:

and compound and it is linking two concepts together; whether Sidley thought they were covered by the law, whether somebody thought it was improper to send a letter, which the witness says is not inaccurate. It's a very confusing, compound, argumentative and unfair question. I have offered to

explain the whole background of this if you want me to. You apparently don't want me to, so I won't.

But this witness knows very little about it. We're perfectly happy to explain it to you but you're not going to accomplish anything badgering her. BY MR. HENDRICKSON: Q. A. Is William White still with Sidley & Austin? Bill retired some time ago. He occasionally

is hired on a contract basis to come in if we need some help, additional help putting figures together. So he is a consultant. Q. At the time he was a financial director, was 200