LeMond Cycling, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corporation

Filing 139

Attachment 9
DECLARATION of Emily S. Zastrow in Opposition to 117 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 114 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Trek Bicycle Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibits 45,55-57,61,66,70,74, # 2 Placeholder for Exhibits 46-47, # 3 Exhibit 46, # 4 Exhibit 47, # 5 Exhibit 48, # 6 Exhibit 49, # 7 Exhibit 51, # 8 Exhibit 51, # 9 Exhibit 52, # 10 Exhibit 53, # 11 Exhibit 54, # 12 Exhibit 58, # 13 Exhibit 59, # 14 Exhibit 60, # 15 Exhibit 62, # 16 Exhibit 63, # 17 Exhibit 64, # 18 Exhibit 65, # 19 Exhibit 67, # 20 Exhibit 68, # 21 Exhibit 69, # 22 Exhibit 71, # 23 Exhibit 72, # 24 Exhibit 73, # 25 Exhibit 75, # 26 Exhibit 76)(Rolf, Benjamin) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE on 8/5/2009 (lph). Modified attachment text on 8/6/2009 (RLR).

Download PDF
LeMond Cycling, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corporation Doc. 139 Att. 9 Case 0:08-cv-01010-RHK-JSM Document 139-10 Filed 08/05/09 Page 1 of 7 ZASTROW EXHIBIT 53 Dockets.Justia.com Case 0:08-cv-01010-RHK-JSM Document 139-10 Filed 08/05/09 Page 2 of 7 Video Deposition of Elisabeth Huber January 5, 2009 - 1 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT LeMOND CYCLING, OF MINNESOTA 3 4 5 INC., Plaintiff, vs. TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION, 6 7 Case No. 08-1010 8 9 Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. GREG LeMOND, 10 11 12 13 Third-Party Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Video Deposition of Monday, ELISABETH HUBER January 5th, 2009 9:33 a.m. at GASS WEBER MULLINS, LLC 309 North Water Street, Suite 700 53202 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 21 22 23 Reported by Julie K. Lyle, RPR/RMR/CRR 24 25 WWW.GRAMANNREPORTING.COM Innovation' . 414.272.7878 .1ntegrity GRAMANN R E P 0 R TIN G Expertise Case 0:08-cv-01010-RHK-JSM Document 139-10 Filed 08/05/09 Page 3 of 7 Video Deposition of Elisabeth Huber January 5, 2009 - 38 1 2 Q But even backing up a step, it's available to Trek employees A -use? 3 4 Current Trek employees. Q A -- for personal Uhm-uhm. 5 6 7 Q A In practice, No. What was is it used by nonemployees? 8 9 Q the rationale for Greg LeMond's use of Was he the employee pricing? employee? A considered an 10 11 12 13 Pricingwise, somebody yes. a But for him, he was considered to be prominent cycling figure and that he had contacts in the media, and he was 14 allowed to go beyond the normal employee 15 16 17 limitations and his Q because he wanted to get out and sell his bike line. And we also wanted to keep him family on the most current year product. 18 19 20 Is there anybody else, to your knowledge, who had at Trek that right? since A I have no knowledge I've not worked with 21 22 23 24 Q anybody else except Greg LeMond. So you don't know if a other prominent cyclists example, with whom Trek has relationship, for the Gary Fisher, if he has ability to avail 25 himself of employee pricing? WWW.GRAMANNREPORTING.COM. 4]4.272.7878 . GRAMANN REP0 R TI N G Innovation. Expertise Integrity Case 0:08-cv-01010-RHK-JSM Document 139-10 Filed 08/05/09 Page 4 of 7 Video Deposition of Elisabeth Huber - January 5,2009 134 1 2 Q A Since -- from 2000, it looks like, or from -- 1999. 3 4 5 6 7 Q -- 1999 through 2008. So was this purchase on -- at the very last page of Trek 006617, were these final purchases, to your knowledge, LeMond was the last purchases make under that Mr. A allowed to his 8 9 employee purchase? This is anything that's been invoiced, yes. Okay. Would 10 11 12 Q there be a reason why the very last item is missing an invoice number? A It It may not have invoiced by the time I made this. 13 14 15 Q A Okay. usually is an overnight process. MS. RAHNE: Okay. I don't have Ralph. 16 17 anything else, unless you have something, MR. WEBER: One follow-up. 18 19 20 BY MR. Q EXAMINATION WEBER: Ms. Huber, you described that as part of your 21 22 23 24 preparation for today you read the morning session of Mr. LeMond's deposition where he described bike -- his transactions Is that right? A with bikes. 25 That's correct. GRAMANN REP0 R WWW.GRAMANNREPORTING.COM' 4]4.272.7878 Innovation' Expertise. Integrity Tl N G Case 0:08-cv-01010-RHK-JSM Document 139-10 Filed 08/05/09 Page 5 of 7 Video Deposition of Elisabeth Huber January 5,2009 - 135 1 Q And can you tell me, when you read his a 2 3 4 deposition, having worked with him over number was of years, was what you saw him talk about, it consistent or inconsistent with your understanding of -- of his rights under the employee purchase program? MS. RAHNE: 5 6 7 8 Object to the form. That's vague as to what you're referencing. MR. WEBER: 9 You can answer. 10 MS. RAHNE: You can Okay. 11 12 13 THE WITNESS: totally answer. I felt it was inconsistent. BY MR. Q A WEBER: 14 15 16 And why is that? Because going back and looking also at the e-mails that were provided by his counsel, what he was using this and 17 18 for wasn't what thought I thought it And was for my and what I it this should be for. I 19 20 that understanding of purchase and program was to further his bike line, 21 22 23 didn't feel that or form. MR. it did that in any way, shape, WEBER: That's all I have. Thank 24 25 you. THE WITNESS: Thank you. WWW.GRAMANNREPORTING.COM. 414.272.7878 GRAMANN R EP 0 R Innovation' Expertise. Integrity Tl N G Case 0:08-cv-01010-RHK-JSM Document 139-10 Filed 08/05/09 Page 6 of 7 5, 2009 Video Deposition of Elisabeth Huber - January 136 1 2 MS. RAHNE: Can I do one follow-up, please? EXAMINATION BY MS. RAHNE: Q 3 4 5 Can you be more specific about what e-mail was you saw that 6 7 A changed your opinion? Specifically, one to, I believe, Chris and 8 9 Wright saying I'm opening up the employee purchase to anybody, you know, any friends 10 11 12 family, and I would have thought that he would want to support the dealer base and have people like that going into dealerships to purchase his product instead 13 14 of offering it at a discounted price. Q 15 And you saw that somehow as different than what 16 17 18 had been happening when he was all of the years previously 19 20 A selling large volumes of bikes -getting -- getting large volumes of bikes through his employee discount? Yes. And why was Q A 21 22 23 that? was my Because people, it it understanding that it saw was media was teams. That's who I -- he my 24 25 said in his explanations to dad, this is for my me, this is for my son, this is for great 'N\VW.GRAMANNREPORTING.COM.414.272.7878 Innovation. GRAMANN R E P 0 R TI N G Expertise. Integrity Case 0:08-cv-01010-RHK-JSM Document 139-10 Filed 08/05/09 Page 7 of 7 Video Deposition of Elisabeth Huber - January 5, 2009 137 1 2 friend. So to have him say it to somebody was 3 4 that -- like "tell surprising. Q anybody you want" And you believe that there was an explanation 5 6 7 to you for all of the orders that were put through previous to the one that you're referencing, which I'm assuming was recent? provided A 8 9 Not -- not all but a lot. have Q A Okay. And 10 11 12 13 14 oftentimes we would on the phone, "Hey, I or maybe he prlor conversation would call in and say, a want to get this bike for my buddy. Is it in stock?" "Yes, it is." 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "Great, And two days I'll send you the e-mail." later in to ship. would come the e-mail with the address VIDEO TECHNICIAN: No further questions? There being no further questions, that concludes the deposition of Elisabeth Huber. We're off the record of at the end of Videotape No.3 at 1:30 p.m. 24 (Deposition concluded at 1:30 p.m.) 25 (Original exhibits attached to original 'NWW.GRAMANNREPORTING.COM' 4]4.272.7878 . GRAMANN R E P 0 R TI N G Innovation' Expertise Integrity

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?