CNG Financial Corporation v. Google Inc
Filing
74
RESPONSE in Opposition re 69 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Michael Mazis filed by Plaintiff CNG Financial Corporation, Counter Defendant CNG Financial Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit /Declaration of Hunter in support of CNG Opposition to Motion# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Attachment# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Attachment to Opposition# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C to Attachment to Opposition# 5 Exhibit Exhibit D to Attachment to Opposition# 6 Exhibit Exhibit D - Part B to Attachment to Opposition# 7 Exhibit Exhibit E to Attachment to Opposition to Motion to Exclude) (Hunter, Barry)
CNG Financial Corporation v. Google Inc
Doc. 74 Att. 3
Case 1:06-cv-00040-SSB-TSB
Document 74-4
Filed 07/20/2007
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
)
CNG FINANCIAL CORPORATION, )
Case No. 1:06cv040
Plaintiff/ )
)
vs. )
)
Counterclaim-Defendant, )
)
CERTIFIED COpy
GOOGLE, INC., )
Defendant/ )
Counterclaim-Plaintiff. )
)
)
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
MICHAEL B. MAZIS, Ph.D.
Washington, D.C.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Job No.: 22-95215
Pages 1 through 110
EXHIBIT
) D
D
B
B
Reported by: John L. Harmonson, RPR
NI LEGALINK~
A MERRILL COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
575 Market St
11th Floor
tei (415) 357-4300 tel (800) 869-9132
fax (415) 357-4301
www.merrillcorp.com
San Francisco, CA 94105
GLOBAL COURT REPORTING
LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHY . TRIAL SERVICES
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:06-cv-00040-SSB-TSB
Document 74-4
MICHAL B. MAZIS,
10:00:50 10:00:52
10:00:55 10:00:58
1
Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 3 Ph.D. February 1, 2007
"Check to Go."
And based on the court ruling , it's
2 3
4
possible that it could be a violation of trademark
law. But that's obviously not for me to say.
10:01:00 10:01:03
10:01:05
5
6 7 8
Q. I see.
The purpose of the study was to try to
measure the effect of "Check 'n Go" as a search
10:01:09 10:01:15 10:01:16
10:01:18 10:01:20
10:01:24
term, correct? As opposed to in the text of ads?
Isn't that what you said earlier?
9
10
11
12
A. Yes, in part. Right.
Q. Well, then, what's the other part? A. Well, the other part has to do with
It's when you -- when "Check 'n Go" is placed in
13
14
10:01:26
10:01:31
the search window, when the sponsored link -- when
15
the results page come up and there's competi ti ve
sponsored links on there, the question is to what
10:01:35 10:01:40
10:01:44
16
17 18
extent are people confused as to the source of
those sponsored links.
So, I mean, there's two elements. One
is entering "Check 'n Go" in the search window or
search box, and the second is the sponsored links,
10:01:46 10:01:49
10:01:52
10:01:54
19
20
21 22
the competi ti ve sponsored links.
10:01:56
23
24
Q. I see.
And how do you go about determining
10:01:56
10:01:58
25
which of those two those two elements -- Strike
17
Merrill Legal Solutions
(800) 869-9132
Case 1:06-cv-00040-SSB-TSB
Document 74-4
MICHAL B. MAZIS, Ph. D.
11:00:18
1 2 3
4
Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 3 February 1, 2007
designing the survey in this case?
11:00:20
11:00:37
A. No.
Q. SO is it your testimony you didn't
11:00:39 11:00:45
understand what the judge meant by cri tici zing the
survey because it didn't use a control of a
5
11:00:49
11:00:51
11:00:55
6
7 8
generic search term? Or is it your testimony that
you understood it but you simply disagreed with
her?
MR. HUNTER: Or both.
BY MR. PAGE:
11:00:56
11:00:58
9
10
11
11:00:59 11:01:00 11:01:03 11:01:06
11:01:21
Q. Or both.
12
A. Well, yeah, I understood it, but I
didn't think the criticism made sense, especially
as applied to my survey.
13
14
15
Q. You did a pretest in this case,
correct? A. Yes.
Q.
11:01:23
11:01:24
16
17 18
11:01:24
Okay.
I s there a reason why you didn't
11:01:26 11:01:30
19 20 21 22 23
24
mention that in your report?
A. No.
MR. HUNTER: I mean, we gave it to you
like a day later.
BY MR. PAGE:
11:01:33
11:01:35
11:01:38 11:01:38
Q. Why did you do a pretest?
A. Well, two reasons. One is to make sure
58
11:01:42
25
Merrill Legal Solutions
(800) 869-9132
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?