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).
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?