RUDOVSKY et al v. WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION et al

Filing 55

RESPONSE in Opposition re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DAVID RUDOVSKY, LEONARD SOSNOV. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Noah Charlson, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration, # 5 Exhibit C to Declaration, # 6 Exhibit D to Declaration, # 7 Exhibit E to Declaration, # 8 Exhibit F to Declaration, # 9 Exhibit G to Declaration, # 10 Exhibit H to Declaration, # 11 Exhibit I to Declaration, # 12 Exhibit J to Declaration, # 13 Exhibit K to Declaration, # 14 Exhibit L to Declaration, # 15 Exhibit M to Declaration, # 16 Exhibit N to Declaration, # 17 Exhibit O to Declaration, # 18 Exhibit P to Declaration)(CHARLSON, NOAH)

EXHIBIT D

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

1 (Pages 1 to 4)
Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ------------------------DAVID RUDOVSKY and LEONARD SOSNOV, Plaintiffs, No. 09-CV-727 v.

Page 3

WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION, WEST SERVICES INC., AND THOMSON LEGAL AND REGULATORY INC., t/a THOMSON WEST, Defendants. ------------------------Video-recorded Deposition Upon Oral Examination of: Sarah Redzic Location: Thomson West .50 Broad Street East Rochester, New York 14614 Date: March 3, 2010 Time: 9:09 a.m. Reported By: LYNN A. MULLEN, RPR

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

EXHIBITS Redzic Exhibit Description No. 1 2008-2009 Pocket Part, Bates West-R 02225 through 02501 (PAGE-77) . No. 2 2007-2008 Pocket Part, Bates West-R 01949 through 02223 (PAGE-80) . No. 3 Redline comparison of the 2007-2008 pocket part and the 2008-2009 pocket part (PAGE-85) . No. 4 Time Data Report, 1/1/07 through .12/31/09, Bates West-R 05866 through .05869 (PAGE-92) . No. 5 Attorney Editor Activity Elements -Direct Time, Bates West-R 05943 through 05944 (PAGE-92) . No. 6 Publishability Review, Bates West-R 05980 through 06133 (PAGE-109) .
Page 4

Page 2

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

APPEARANCES Appearing on Behalf of Plaintiffs: Noah H. Charlson, Esq. Bazelon, Less & Feldman, P.C. .1515 Market Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102-1907 [e-mail] . Appearing on Behalf of Defendants: Aaron M. Zeisler, Esq. Satterlee, Stephens, Burke & Burke, LLP .230 Park Avenue New York, New York 10169 [e-mail] . Also Present: John Wierzbicki Appearing as Videographer: David Parrotta . WITNESS Name Page Sarah Redzic By Mr. Charlson 7

DOCUMENT REQUESTS . Any e-mail communication to Karen or Amy advising them that the supplement was complete (By Mr. Charlson) (PAGE-64) . Identity of publications that Ms. Redzic worked on prior to October 2008 that involved criminal law (By Mr. Charlson) (PAGE-69) . Editorial standard for how to phrase instruction lines (By Mr. Charlson) (PAGE-89) . . . . . . . . .

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

2 (Pages 5 to 8)
Page 5 Page 7

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties that this deposition may be taken by the Plaintiffs at this time pursuant to notice; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED, that all objections except as to the form of the questions and responsiveness of the answers, be reserved until the time of the trial; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED, that the witness may read and sign the deposition and make any corrections to same before any Notary Public within 30 days of receipt of the transcript; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED, that the attorneys for the parties are individually responsible for their certified transcript charge, including any expedite or other related production charges in accordance with Rochester Rules. AND IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED, that the Notary Public, LYNN A. MULLEN,
Page 6

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

they represent, after which our court reporter will swear in the witness and we may proceed. MR. CHARLSON: Noah Charlson; Bazelon, Less & Feldman, Philadelphia, for the Plaintiffs. MR. ZEISLER: Aaron Zeisler; Satterlee, Stephens, Burke & Burke, New York City, for the Defendants. And with me is John Wierzbicki from West. SARAH REDZIC, called herein as a witness, first being sworn, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. CHARLSON: Q. Good morning, Ms. Redzic. A. Good morning. Q. As you know, I'm counsel for the Plaintiffs in this action. I'll be asking you some questions today about matters pertinent to this lawsuit. A. Okay. Q. And as you also probably know, your answers to our questions have to be verbal so that the court reporter can
Page 8

RPR, may administer the oath to the witness. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are about to begin the video-recorded deposition of Sarah K. Redzic. I'm David Parrotta for Alliance Court Reporting with an address of 183 East Main Street, Rochester, New York. Today is Wednesday March 3, .2010, and the time is 9:09 a.m. We're at the offices of Thomson West located at 50 Broad Street East, Rochester, New York. The party the deposition is being taken by is the Plaintiff in the action entitled David Rudovsky and Leonard Sosnov, Plaintiffs, versus West Publishing Corporation, West Services, Incorporated and Thomson Legal and Regulatory, Incorporated, t/a Thomson West, Defendants. In attendance is the court reporter, Lynn Mullen of Alliance Court Reporting. At this time the attorneys will identify themselves and the parties

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

take them down. If you don't understand a question that I ask or you can't hear me, please ask me to repeat it or rephrase it, otherwise I'll assume that you heard and understand the question and that all your answers are truthful, okay? A. Okay. Q. How are you currently employed? A. I work at Thomson Reuters/West Publishing. Q. And how long have you been employed by Thomson Reuters? A. Since October of 2007. Q. Okay. And you are a law school graduate, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you're admitted to the Bar? A. Yes. Q. And did you graduate law school in the spring of 2007? A. In May of 2007, yes. Q. From University of Buffalo? A. Yes.

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

4 (Pages 13 to 16)
Page 13 Page 15

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

know. Some states. About maybe half. I would be speculating. I know -MR. ZEISLER: I'm going to direct you not to speculate. THE WITNESS: Okay. Q. Is that because West didn't publish for certain states, or your group only covered certain states? A. As far as I know, my group only covered certain states. Q. And are you still in the State Practice Group? A. Yes. Q. Who do you report to? A. Currently I report to Glenn Guarino. Q. And what is Mr. Guarino's position? A. He's a Team Coordinator. Q. Who did you report to when you first started at West? A. Catherine Smith. Q. And when did your reporting change?
Page 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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. Well, when you were hired as an Attorney Editor, did you undergo training? A. Yes. Q. I assume you underwent training for things like how to use the computer and the software systems and things like that? A. Yes. Q. And did you undergo specific training for the tasks that you were going to perform as an Attorney Editor? A. We were provided general guidelines, yes. Q. And what do you mean when you say you were provided with general guidelines? A. We were given paper files to look at, which provided guidelines for the job. Q. Guidelines for how to perform the role of an Attorney Editor? A. Some of the roles. There were general guidelines, yes. Q. Do you know what the title of
Page 16

A. I believe at the end of 2009. Q. Do you know why that changed? A. I don't know. Q. Was Catherine Smith's position that of Team Coordinator while you were reporting to her? A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether her position is still Team Coordinator? A. I believe so. Q. Are you still in the same group as Ms. Smith? A. No. Q. She had been Team Coordinator for the State Practice Group? A. Yes. Q. And do you know which group she's in now? A. I don't know. Q. When you were hired as an Attorney Editor, what kind of training did you undergo? A. Can you be more specific as far as "training"?

those files were? A. I don't know. MR. CHARLSON: Aaron, do you know whether those documents were produced? MR. ZEISLER: I believe they were, yes. MR. CHARLSON: Okay. Thank you. Q. Did you undergo a specific -other than the paper files that you were given, were you -- did you undergo any classroom training or one-on-one training with -- with somebody else at West to go through your task as an Attorney Editor? A. I was essentially shadowing, I guess -- if that's the correct word -- a person, and we were also provided a mentor. Q. Was the person who you were shadowing the same as your mentor? A. No. Q. And who were you shadowing when you first were hired as an Attorney

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

5 (Pages 17 to 20)
Page 17 Page 19

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

Editor? A. For the most part, Karen Earley. Q. And how long did you shadow Karen Earley for? A. Over a course of several months. Q. More than six months? A. I don't know. Q. And can you be a little more specific what you mean by "shadowing"? A. Basically she -- I was brought into certain conversations; just she would loop me into conversations and talk about issues that came up in the products that she was working on, or she would ask me to complete certain -- certain tasks that she was working on. Q. During this shadowing process, did you have any projects of your own independent of shadowing Ms. Earley? A. I really don't recall. Q. Did you share an office with Ms. Earley during this time?
Page 18

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

official -- they're mentoring relation -I don't know how to describe that. There was no specified time. Q. Do you still have a mentoring relationship with Ms. Nadel? A. No. Q. Is Ms. Nadel still employed at Thomson Reuters? A. As far as I know, yes. Q. Was she an Attorney Editor? A. I believe so. Q. Do you know what group she was in? A. No. Q. Did Ms. Nadel provide any sort of affirmative training to you, or was she really just there to respond to your questions? MR. ZEISLER: Objection with respect to the word "affirmative training." It's vague, ambiguous. Q. Did you understand the question? A. No. Q. Did Ms. Nadel take steps to
Page 20

A. We didn't have offices at the time. Q. You were sitting in carrels? A. Yes. Q. Was your carrel adjacent to hers? A. I don't believe so. Q. You said you were also assigned a mentor? A. Yes. Q. And who was your mentor? A. Andrea Nadel. I believe that's her last name. Q. And what was -- can you describe the mentoring process? A. Basically we could go to her with any questions that we had. She was there to answer any questions. Q. And did you go to Ms. Nadel during your mentoring process? A. I believe so. Q. How long did the mentoring relationship last? A. It wasn't -- well, it wasn't an

provide you with instruction in the process of becoming and performing the tasks of an Attorney Editor? A. That's a very long -- can you be more specific or -- it's a very long... Q. Well, I'm asking -A. I'm not really sure of what you're asking. Q. Sure. Well, what I'm trying to get at, Ms. Redzic, is whether Ms. Nadel took part in the process of providing you with training to become an Attorney Editor. A. But I need you to define what "training" is. What do you mean by "training"? Q. Well, by "training" I mean teaching you how to perform your job as an editor of West legal publications. A. She may have. Q. But not in any way that you specifically remember sitting here today? A. That's right.

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

6 (Pages 21 to 24)
Page 21 Page 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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. Is it fair to say that Ms. Earley had more of a role in your training than Ms. Nadel did? A. Yes. Q. When you were hired, do you know whether there were other Attorney Editors hired at the same time, sort of an incoming class of editors? A. Not really. Q. So were there -MR. ZEISLER: Were you finished with your answer? A. I don't know. I don't know. Q. Was there any sort of, you know, presentation or seminar given to a whole group of Attorney Editors that you were part of? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. At the beginning when she first came or at any time? Q. Well, let's break it out. At the beginning. A. At the beginning, all I remember are individual sessions.
Page 22

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

employed by Thomson Reuters? A. Yes. Q. Is -- in your understanding, is West part of Thomson Reuters? A. As far as I understand, yes. Q. Do you consider yourself to be someone who works for West Publishing? MR. ZEISLER: I'm going to object to the extent you're in any way seeking a legal conclusion about the corporate entities or who she works for. If you're asking for her understanding, that's fine. A. As far as I understand, West is a part of Thomson Reuters, so... Q. So if I refer to West and your work for West -A. Yes. Q. -- will that -- can we agree on that? A. Yes. MR. ZEISLER: We can agree on that. MR. CHARLSON: Okay. That's
Page 24

Q. Were there -- in the two-plus years that you've been here at Thomson, have there been training sessions or presentations given to groups of Attorney Editors? A. Yes. Q. And can you describe those for me? A. I can't describe anything in detail. They're just attorney continuing education kind of guidelines that they would just provide us with additional training with. Q. What sort of topics? A. I don't recall off the top of my head a specific -- the specifics of each of them, of each session. Q. Is there anything else you can tell me about your training to become an Attorney Editor at West? A. No. Q. Are you aware of the term used at Thomson Reuters or -- well, before I ask that question, you said you're

all I'm getting at. Q. Are you aware of a term at West among Attorney Editors of being certified as an Attorney Editor? A. I'm not sure. Q. Do you know whether you are considered a certified Attorney Editor? A. Again, I don't know what "certified" means, so I can't tell you whether... Q. Are you required to record your time spent performing tasks at West? A. Yes. Q. Do you have to record all of your time spent? A. At this point, yes. Q. Was there a point at which that was not the case? A. Yes. Q. When was that? A. That was up to the 1st of this year. Q. Prior to January 1st, 2010, you were not required to record your time?

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

8 (Pages 29 to 32)
Page 29 Page 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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. Approximately when was that conversation? A. It was toward the -- toward the end of 2008 sometime. Q. And what was the substance of that conversation? A. With -- well, with respect to what? Q. With respect to the entire conversation. A. We -- we talked about the status of the book and what needed to be done for it. Q. And what is your recollection about what the status of the book was at that time? A. I believe that I -- the book -- the book was overdue. It had a due date at -- for us to have a manuscript in-house and that we needed to -- we had a deadline to finish and that we needed to find a way to meet that deadline and produce -- and produce the title. Q. Do you recall approximately how
Page 30

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

right? MR. ZEISLER: Mischaracterizes her testimony. You can answer. A. I'm not sure what you mean by "internal." There was a deadline, and that's all I knew about it, so... Q. Well, did somebody else -whose deadline was it, Ms. Redzic? A. Again, that's -- I'm not sure how the deadlines were set and who set them. I wasn't involved with making that decision. But we have a schedule, and per that schedule there was a deadline, so... Q. And was -- you said actually that at this conversation the manuscript was overdue; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. So there had already been a deadline that had been missed for the supplement? A. I don't -- I don't believe -I don't know. I don't believe so. I
Page 32

far away the deadline was at the time that you had your meeting with Catherine Smith? A. Not specifically. Q. Was it a month or less than a month? A. I -- I'm not -- again, I'm not sure specifically. Q. Do you know who established that internal deadline? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. I don't know. Q. Was that a deadline that was based on when publication -- well, when the supplement would need to be sent out to subscribers? A. What do you mean by that? Can you clarify? Q. Well, you said that your conversation with Ms. Smith involved a discussion of an impending internal deadline? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Q. For the manuscript; is that

don't know what you mean. Q. Well, I'm using your word, Ms. Redzic. You said the book was overdue, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that means that it had already been due and hadn't been turned in, right? A. Yes. Q. Do you know how overdue it was at that point? A. I -- not specifically, no. Q. But is it fair to say there was a sense of urgency to get the supplement prepared? A. Yes. Q. And so what did you and Ms. Smith discuss about what had to be done? A. We discussed the possibility of finding -- finding a contractor to possibly initially do that, I believe, and I -- yes. Q. When you say a "contractor," what do you mean?

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

9 (Pages 33 to 36)
Page 33 Page 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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. I mean a person that we hire who -- from the outside of the company to complete the update. Q. Would that typically -- well, when you talked about finding a contractor, were you considering finding a practicing attorney who could do it or -is that the sort of thing you were considering? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. You can answer. A. Contractors are people who we hired from outside of the company. Some of them are practicing attorneys, some of them are legal writers. Again, you know, I don't -- specifically I don't recall. Q. And you said you discussed the possibility. Did you reach a decision about whether or not to get a contractor at that time? A. I actually -- no, we actually were unable to find anyone to do that, so I believe that was -- that was the discussion.
Page 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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. And so out of West's entire database of contractors, you were not able to make contact with anybody about preparing a supplement to the 2000 -- to Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure for 2008-2009? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. Not -- I don't know about the entire database. I wasn't able to make -- to be in touch with people who I called. Q. Okay. Going back to that conversation that you had with Catherine Smith, you had said you talked about the possibility of finding a contractor. Did you discuss other options at that meeting? A. Yes. Q. What were the other options that you discussed? A. I said that I may have some time to devote to the project. Q. Any other options that were discussed? A. No.
Page 36

Q. So who was responsible for trying to locate a contractor? A. I was. Q. Okay. But you were not able to do so? A. That's right. Q. What steps did you take to try to identify a contractor? A. We have a database of contractors, and I believe I pulled some names from that database. Q. And what did you do with those names? A. I tried to get in touch with those people. Q. And were you able to get in touch with anybody? A. No. Q. Over how long a period of time were you trying to get in touch with these contractors? A. I don't remember specifically. A couple of weeks. Maybe less, maybe more. I don't know.

Q. Just so I'm clear, Ms. Redzic, at that meeting was it your understanding that West was intending to publish a supplement for 2008-2009 to the Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure volume? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Vague with respect to "at that time." THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Vague with respect to "at that time." A. Can you be more specific with your question? Q. Well, the only reason it's vague is because we don't know from you when that meeting took place, but it is that meeting with Catherine Smith that I'm referring to. MR. ZEISLER: That's fine, Counselor. MR. CHARLSON: Okay. A. I mean, for whatever -- I guess if you're referring to whenever we talked, yes.

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

10 (Pages 37 to 40)
Page 37 Page 39

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. At the conclusion of that meeting with Catherine Smith, what was your understanding of what your next steps were to be with respect to the supplement? And I'm just going to refer to "the supplement," but I -- I want you to understand that we're talking about the supplement to Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure for 2008-2009. A. Okay. MR. ZEISLER: And to be extremely clear, we're talking about the December 2008-2009 supplement? MR. CHARLSON: Well, I'm talking about what eventually became the 2008 -- the December 2008 supplement. MR. ZEISLER: Right. Okay. Just so we're clear. Not another supplement, not an April supplement, not something else? MR. CHARLSON: It's my understanding that Ms. Redzic worked on that supplement, and that's what I'm talking about.
Page 38

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 WITNESS: Okay. Q. You just testified about a meeting that you had with Catherine Smith sometime towards the end of 2008 where you discussed the status of the book -A. Yes. Q. -- and what needed to be done, and you testified that you understood from Ms. Smith that the book was overdue, that you needed to get a manuscript, you had to meet the deadline, and that you discussed the possibility of finding a contractor to complete the update. MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Compound. Misstates her testimony. A. Could you ask one question at a time, please? Q. Well, do you recall that meeting? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And it's also my understanding from your testimony a few minutes ago that when you left that meeting, you undertook to try to locate a
Page 40

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

MR. ZEISLER: That's fine. I just wanted to be clear which supplement, just for the record. A. Okay. Q. So what was your understanding, Ms. Redzic, of what your next steps were with respect to the supplement when you left that meeting? A. My understanding is I would be completing the update. Q. Well, let me back up. The first meeting you were talking about, you discussed the possibility of finding contractors? A. Which first meeting? I don't -- I don't know how many meetings there were. I don't know what's the first meeting. It's a conversation that we had. I -Q. How many meetings -- well, let's back up. You just testified -A. Yes. MR. ZEISLER: Let him ask the question.

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

contractor to complete the supplement; is that correct? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. No, that's not correct. Q. Okay. Then can you tell me what I have misstated? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. I mean -- what are you referring to? What -Q. At some point -A. Yes. Q. -- Ms. Redzic, you tried to contact contractors -A. Yes. Q. -- from the database, right? A. Yes. Q. And it was my understanding from your testimony that you did that after speaking with Catherine Smith? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And at that conversation with Catherine Smith where you got the assignment to find the contractors, my question to you was: What was your

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

17 (Pages 65 to 68)
Page 65 Page 67

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

clear -- and you can continue to ask the witness any question you'd like -- she testified that she reviewed her documents and provided them to counsel. A. I did. On several occasions went through all of my files, so... Q. Ms. Redzic, was there a specific -- is there a specific guideline document for preparing a supplement to a topical treatise that you were referencing in connection with your work on the 2000 -- the December 2008 supplement? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Vague. But... A. Can you be more specific as far as... Q. Is there an internal West document that provides you with specific guidance on how you were to go about the process of updating the Pennsylvania Criminal Practice treatise for 2008-2009? A. At that point I'm not aware of any -- I wasn't aware of any such document.
Page 66

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. Again, do you mean independently just written? Q. First of all, independently had you done anything with respect to criminal law or criminal procedure? A. And you mean complete -- do you mean I'm just writing a complete update without any supervision or any -- is that what you mean? Q. That's the first question. A. Yes. Q. You had? A. Oh, I'm sorry, no. Q. Had you reviewed -- in your role as Attorney Editor, had you reviewed somebody else's work with respect to criminal law at that point? A. Criminal law in general? Q. Criminal procedure. A. Criminal procedure in general? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. And what works were those? A. I'm responsible for several
Page 68

Q. In -- well, did you speak with anybody at West about how you should go about the process of updating the treatise? A. As far as I recall, no. Q. Did Catherine Smith give you any guidance and suggest to you, you know, what sort of things you should do to update the treatise? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. As far as I know, no. Q. Did you go to Karen Earley and ask her for any guidance in what to do to update the treatise? A. I don't believe so. Q. What about your mentor, Andrea Nadel? A. No. Q. At this point that we're talking about, while you were working on the 2008 supplement, had you -- had you yourself prepared any works relating to criminal law or criminal procedure? MR. ZEISLER: Objection.

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

titles in Pennsylvania and in Missouri, and both of those -- both of those have treatises which cover criminal law. Q. And you had worked on those updates prior to October of 2008? A. I worked on them as an Attorney Editor, yes. Q. What are those titles? A. I -- I -- I'd have to go look up my titles, specific book titles. Q. So you, as an Attorney Editor, were working on -- are we talking about -- withdrawn. We're talking about supplements? Or you're talking about supplements? A. Some of them are supplements. I believe some of them are pamphlets, so... Q. And with respect to the Pennsylvania and Missouri criminal products, were you reviewing other people's work -- or, I'm sorry, editing other people's work? A. I believe so, yes.

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

18 (Pages 69 to 72)
Page 69 Page 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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. And do you know how many separate works you had worked on prior to October 2008 that involved criminal law? A. Not specifically, no. MR. CHARLSON: Well, Aaron, I'd certainly like the identity of those publications that Ms. Redzic is referring to. MR. ZEISLER: I'll take it under advisement. MR. CHARLSON: Actually, I think what we'll do is, before we finish with Ms. Redzic, with your permission, Aaron, I'd love to have her go back and actually get that answer so we don't have to follow up later. MR. ZEISLER: I think we can follow up later. We're here as a courtesy to you at West's offices to do this deposition. She's in this room right now, and we'll continue with the deposition. But I will, of course, take your request under advisement to provide the information at an appropriate time.
Page 70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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. I can't give you specifics. I know I'm responsible for numerous titles and, you know, you work on them. There's issues and there's things you have to take care of throughout the year, so it could be all, it could be some. I don't remember. Q. Do you know how many titles you were responsible for at that period of time, October 2008? A. I believe between 60 or 70. Q. Is that the same number you're responsible for now roughly? A. Roughly, yes. Q. Of those 60 or 70 titles, can you estimate how many of them are -- were treatises that required -- or any kind of publication that required an annual pocket part? A. I believe most of them -- well, for pocket part publications -- well, for treatises with pocket parts, most of them are, I believe, updated yearly. Q. And had the pocket parts for
Page 72

Q. About how much time did you spend working on the 2000 -- the December 2008 supplement? A. I can't really give any specifics of that. It's just a span of several -- I don't know, a few weeks. I can't -- I don't know the specifics of the time. Q. A few weeks working on it all day every day or -A. I don't believe so, no. MR. ZEISLER: Let him finish his question. Q. You don't believe so? A. All day every day for three weeks? I don't -- I don't -- I don't think so. Q. Did you have other publications that you were responsible for working on at that period of time? A. In my capacity as an Attorney Editor, yes. Q. What products were you working on at that time?

most of those titles been prepared already and submitted at the time you were working on the Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. I don't know. I mean, it's -I don't know my specific schedule of specific books. There are a lot of books, so I don't... Q. Well, what I'm trying to get at, Ms. Redzic, at the same time you were working on Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure, there were other annual pocket parts that you were working on getting to Manufacturing? A. I believe so, yes. And again, in my Attorney Editor capacity. I just want to clarify that. Not in any sort of individual writing. Q. Well, you said a couple times now in your "Attorney Editor capacity." A. Yes. Q. Did you have some other capacity at West that you were doing work

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

19 (Pages 73 to 76)
Page 73 Page 75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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? A. No. Q. Just -- so you're just differentiating between your role as an editor to edit another author's work and the work you were doing on this supplement where you were doing the work yourself? A. That's correct. Q. Now, you said you KeyCited the cases that you had been given from the 2007-2008 supplement? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Is there a record kept of your KeyCiting work? A. I don't -- I don't believe so. Q. Who would know the answer to that question? A. I would know. Q. Do you know whether you have the ability to go back and see what searches you did? A. As far as I know, I don't think so.
Page 74

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

say. Let him ask a clear question, and you can give an answer. Q. You said you were to prepare an update that was sufficient. Sufficient for what? A. For publication. Q. Did you have an understanding at the time of who the audience -- the readership for this treatise was? A. I don't know the specific people who purchase the book, so if you're asking for -- for specifics, I'm... Q. While you were working on the update, did you ask anybody who West understood the audience, the readership of this book, to be? A. I don't believe so, no. Q. Did you have any understanding of what the purpose of the book was or what the readership used it for? A. I have my own personal understanding, but I can't guess and speculate as to who the people are and what they're going to use the book for,
Page 76

Q. Okay. When you -- when you completed the 2008 supplement, was it reviewed by anybody? A. No. Q. So as far as you know, it just went straight to Manufacturing? A. It went straight to be processed, yes, for... Q. When you were working on the December 2008 supplement, what was your understanding of what it is you were trying to accomplish? A. My understanding was that I was supposed to provide the -- provide an update, provide an update in a certain amount of time that in our judgment would be sufficient and -- I don't know what else -- what else do you want me to do, say? Q. I want you to answer my question. MR. ZEISLER: Listen to his question and answer his question. You don't have to guess what he's trying to

so... Q. And in your view, what -- or in your judgment, what would have made the supplement sufficient for publication? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. You have to be more -- you have to be -- give me specific -- I don't know what you're trying to say. Q. Well, does West have publishability guidelines? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And did you reference those publishability guidelines while you were preparing the 2008 supplement? A. I'm aware of them, so I -while I was working on it. In that respect, yes. Q. And what's your understanding of what the publishability guidelines require for a topical treatise update? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. Again, that really depends -the guidelines are general guidelines, and they're -- you know, they're -- depends

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

21 (Pages 81 to 84)
Page 81 Page 83

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

and answered. A. I believe so, yes. Q. I'll ask you just to turn to page West-R 01965, and that's in Redzic 2. And while keeping that page, I'd ask you to turn back to the page we were just looking at in Redzic 1, which is 02241. A. Okay. Q. And I'm comparing, Ms. Redzic, the instruction line that we were looking at in Redzic 1, which said, "Add the following at end of comment," to the instruction line in Redzic 2 at the same location prior to the last paragraph in Section 1.6 -- I'm sorry, 1.4, and it looks to me, Ms. Redzic, like the phrasing of the instruction line was changed between the earlier supplement and the later supplement. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. In the '07 supplement it says -- the instruction line reads, "At end of comment, add:", all in brackets, and in
Page 82

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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. In fact, Ms. Redzic, it is different, right? In Redzic 2, for example, the 2007-2008 supplement, in section 1.7 the language, "[Comment, first paragraph, line 3, after 'rule 102).' add:]" has been changed to "Add to comment, first paragraph, line 3, after 'rule 102).':", right? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. The document speaks for itself. This isn't a reading test. But you can answer. A. Yes. Q. And nobody but you would have made that change, right? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Calls for speculation. A. As far as I know. Q. And you are welcome, Ms. Redzic, to look through these two documents, but is it fair to say that throughout this document the phraseology of the instruction lines were changed from the '07-'08 to the '08-'09 supplement?
Page 84

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 '08-'09 pocket part it reads -- no brackets -- "Add the following at end of comment:" Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Did you make that change? A. I honestly don't remember. Q. Would anybody besides you have made that change? A. I don't believe so, no. Q. Okay. And just keeping on the same page there, Ms. Redzic, if you look at 1.7 -A. Sure. Q. -- and 1.8, do you see that the phrasing of the instruction lines was changed in form, although I think we can agree not in substance? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. The document speaks for itself. A. Are you talking about -- okay. Yes, I guess. MR. ZEISLER: Well, don't guess. I don't want you to guess. A. Well, it looks different, so...

MR. ZEISLER: Objection. This document is over a hundred pages long, and Ms. Redzic is not going to sit here and adopt your representation as to how every comment was or was not changed. The documents speak for themselves. Anybody can compare them. MR. CHARLSON: Well, this could have been facilitated had a redline been produced as requested, but -MR. ZEISLER: Mr. Charlson, I believe you told me in a written correspondence that you had figured out how to do a redline after I instructed you how you could do a redline, so don't try to pepper the record with subjective comments from yourself as to what was or was not done to facilitate your deposition. You already told me in writing that you could do a redline and have done one. MR. CHARLSON: I'm going to ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 3, Redzic 3, a redline comparison of the

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

25 (Pages 97 to 100)
Page 97 Page 99

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

specific books or other authors, author issues. I mean, it covers -- it covers anything it can cover, any issue it can cover. Q. And the document I'm handing you, Redzic 5, has several Attorney Editor activity elements. Are these the descriptions of the directions to you for how you're supposed to code time or what the particular codes mean? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. Well, it's -- this is a guideline as far as entering time, as far as I recognize it. Q. Well, Ms. Redzic, in August of 2008, you spent three hours devoted to author relations. Was that your attempt to contact contractors to do the update for the 2008-2009 supplement? A. I don't believe so. Q. Well, did you have any contact in August 2008 with Leonard Rudovsky -I'm sorry, with Leonard Sosnov or David Rudovsky?
Page 98

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

MR. CHARLSON: My understanding is there's a Pennsylvania Practice series of volumes that West publishes, of which Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure is a single volume, Volume 2. MR. ZEISLER: Right. Q. So my question is: Are you responsible for other volumes in that title of Pennsylvania Practice? A. Other volumes in the series? Q. Yes. A. I believe so, yes. Q. And are some of those other volumes criminal law related? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Do you know which ones? A. I think I told you already. I don't know the specific titles. Q. Did you look during the last break to see if you could figure out those titles? A. No. Q. Okay. So this -- this time that you spent in August of 2008, that
Page 100

A. No. Q. Well, then, if it wasn't contacting contractors and it wasn't talking with Rudovsky and Sosnov, what was it? A. I believe it was -- I believe that it was -- I was going over the Pennsylvania Practice Series in general and -- and I was looking at this book, too, and we were trying to come up -and I was trying to come up with future plans and -- for -- for this book and Pennsylvania Practice Series in general. Q. Are you responsible for all of the Pennsylvania Practice Series? A. I'm -- I'm not sure. Q. Are you responsible for other parts of the Pennsylvania Practice Series? A. "Other parts" meaning? MR. ZEISLER: I'm sorry, just objection. Just for clarification, when you say "series," you're talking more than beyond this book; "series" plural, like series --

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

was not related to actually preparing the supplement or trying to find a contractor, correct? A. I believe so, correct. Q. You believe I'm correct -A. Yes. Q. -- that it was not? A. That's correct. Well, can you rephrase it so I can answer it with a "yes" or "no"? Q. For clarity's sake, I would be happy to. A. Okay. Q. In August of 2008, the three hours that you spent on author relations with respect to Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure was not time that was devoted either to seeking a contractor for the update or preparing the update yourself? A. That's correct. Q. Now, the next entries are for "Pre- Production" on October 20th and 21st of 2008, and it's a total of two and a half hours. Do you know what those

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

26 (Pages 101 to 104)
Page 101 Page 103

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

entries were for? A. Not specifically. Q. Would it be your practice, Ms. Redzic, to code your time seeking contractors as pre-production? A. I -- again, I don't -- that depends on the -- that depends on the book. I -- that depends on the situation. Q. Okay. Well, in West Exhibit 5, Activity Code 310 for "Pre-production" is described as "Activities preceding receipt of manuscript from author, including: Selecting topics or planning content for particular releases; requesting plant from pub specialist to send to author; meetings to discuss specifics of a particular release; initial communication with author/contractor regarding due dates; following up with authors to insure timely manuscript delivery; communicating with author/contractor regarding content." Reading that, does that refresh your recollection as to whether you coded
Page 102

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

record your time, correct? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Asked and answered. A. I guess so, yes. Q. And you made an attempt to be as accurate as possible in recording your time, correct? A. Within the guidelines that I was provided by the company at the time, yes. Q. And did those guidelines provide for you to accurately record your time spent on particular projects? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. I believe that I already answered that we were required to enter up to 40 hours in our -- of our time. Anything after that, we did not. We -we were not supposed to enter. So again, within those guidelines, my time should be correct. Q. And in approximately October of 2008, were you spending more than 40 hours a week working on your projects as
Page 104

your time spent seeking a contractor to pre-production? A. No. Q. Time that you spent actually working on the research of the supplement, would that time have been spent -- coded to pre-production? A. I don't remember. Q. Would that be your practice? A. Again, it's case-specific. I mean, these are vague. These guidelines are guidelines, and they're very broad. So, again, it's case-specific. Q. Ms. Redzic, is -- I think we established earlier that recording your time is part of your job responsibilities as an Attorney Editor at West, correct? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Mischaracterizes previous testimony. A. I don't -- I don't know that I said that it's part of my job responsibilities as Attorney Editor. It's a responsibility. Q. It was required of you to

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

an Attorney Editor? A. From what I recall, I believe so, yes. Q. And did you -- did you record that in -- those extra hours in any way? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Asked and answered. A. Again, they're recorded in here. Anything above and beyond that is not recorded. Q. So sitting here today and looking at West Exhibit 4 and West Exhibit 5, you can't say what the two and a half hours you spent on October 20th and 21st were devoted to, correct? A. Correct. Q. Is it fair to say that you would have -- that you were -- would have been contacting contractors before you started the actual work on the supplement? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Okay. Now, the next entries are for October 29th and November 3rd, 2008, which you've coded a total of ten

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

27 (Pages 105 to 108)
Page 105 Page 107

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

and a half hours to "Other Production." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And "Other Production" on Exhibit 5 is described as "Revising/editing/rewriting unpublishable manuscript after pub review; original writing for incorporation into a publication; performing any research necessary for the original writing; creating research references; modifying/updating existing research references; adding new material into previously pub-reviewed manuscript due to existence of newly available material or changes in the law; determining where in a cumulative supplement or database specific headnotes or updates should be inserted; writing instructions and vendor specifications;, correcting/compiling manuscript obtained from multiple contributors." Seeing that, Ms. Redzic, does that refresh your recollection as to
Page 106

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

to speculate. I don't want you to guess. If you remember, you remember. If you don't, you don't. A. Yeah. Q. So this refreshes your recollection, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So her first -- there's an entry for Ms. Nortier on October 31, 2008, that says "Clean Up Text and Coding Error." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. To your knowledge, would Ms. Nortier have been looking at or working on your manuscript of the supplement before you were done with it? A. I have absolutely no idea. Q. Well, would you have told her -- did you tell her about it -- did you tell her to look at it before you were done with it? A. Look at it with respect to what? Q. Well, you earlier testified that
Page 108

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

whether your entries on October 29th and November 3rd reflect your time spent doing the actual research and writing of the 2008 supplement? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. No. Q. Do you know whether that time spent on October 29th and November 3rd was devoted to the actual research and updating of the 2008 supplement? A. Again, I don't remember. Q. Let me show you -- let me direct your attention, Ms. Redzic, to about the middle of that same page -A. Yes. Q. -- West 05867. There's an entry for somebody named Karen Nortier. A. Okay. Q. Is Karen Nortier the woman whom you testified earlier you sent the -- or got the manuscript after you? A. I believe so, I guess. Not guess. MR. ZEISLER: I don't want you

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

when you had completed the draft, you saved it and then told Karen Nortier that it was done. A. Yes. Q. Did you tell Ms. Nortier that it was available for her before you were done with it? A. I don't remember. Q. Looking at this document and comparing your time records to Ms. Nortier's time records, do you reach the conclusion that by October 31st you had completed your first draft of the supplement? A. I can't reach any conclusion based on this. Q. Can you -- what's your understanding exactly -- let me say it differently. What's your understanding of what Ms. Nortier's role is? A. She processes the manuscript. That's my understanding. Q. What does "process" mean?

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

28 (Pages 109 to 112)
Page 109 Page 111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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. I don't know. I don't -again, I'm an Attorney Editor; she's a Publishing Specialist. I don't know what her job is, specifics of her job and responsibilities. Q. Does Ms. Nortier -- is Ms. Nortier responsible for making substantive changes to the manuscript? A. No. Q. So only technical changes; putting the text in the proper format -MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Q. -- to get published? A. As far as I know. MR. CHARLSON: I'm going to ask the court reporter to mark as Redzic Exhibit 6 a document titled "Publishability Review," West-R 05980 through West-R 6133. (The following exhibit was marked for identification: Redzic 6.) Q. Ms. Redzic, have you ever seen this document before? A. I -- I don't remember.
Page 110

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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.m. We're back on the record. This is DVD Number 2. Q. Ms. Redzic, we're looking at Redzic Exhibit 6. And having reviewed it now, are you familiar with this document? A. No, I'm not. Q. But you are, as you said, familiar with the concept of a publishability review? A. Yes. Q. And that is something that you perform from time to time? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. From -- yes. Q. Okay. Well, have you performed them in the past? A. Publish -- yes, I have. Q. On how many occasions? A. I don't know specifically. Q. But you are therefore familiar with the general content of the publishability review? A. I'm familiar with the concept. Q. Do you know whether the
Page 112

Q. Are you familiar with the content of a publishability review at West? A. Yes, I am. Q. Is a publishability review that you -- something that you perform? A. Yes. Q. And have you ever referenced a document like this as part of -A. Well, this is a really big document. I can't really... MR. ZEISLER: Take a few minutes to look at it, please. THE WITNESS: Okay. (Reviewing the document.) MR. CHARLSON: Let's go off the record while Ms. Redzic takes a look at this, since I think we're probably coming up on the time. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's 11:09 a.m. We're going off the record. (There was a pause in the proceeding.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's 11:16

supplement -- the 2008-2009 supplement was subject to a publishability review? MR. ZEISLER: Objection. Vague. A. What do you mean by that? Q. Well, I'm asking whether the process that is reflected in Redzic Exhibit 6, the Publishability Review, was conducted with respect to the 2008-2009 supplement. MR. ZEISLER: Objection. A. It's still -- "publishability review"; you have to be more specific. Q. Well, I'm not sure that I can, Ms. Redzic, because having reviewed this document in its entirety, it appears to me that there is a process performed by West Attorney Editors reflected in this document referred to as a "Publishability Review" that is performed on some or perhaps all publish -- West publications. My question for you is: Was one performed for the 2008-2009 supplement? MR. ZEISLER: Objection.

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SARAH REDZIC, 3/3/2010

32 (Page 125)
Page 125

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

WITNESS CERTIFICATION . I hereby certify that I have read the foregoing transcript of my deposition testimony, and that my answers to the questions propounded, with the attached corrections or changes, if any, are true and correct. . . _________ __________________ DATE SARAH REZIC . . . __________________ PRINTED NAME . . . . .

55aabf2a-b56c-474e-9d32-432048948d2a