Page 1 PageID#
EXHIBIT B
Google 30(b)(6) Deposition
Submitted Under SealPage 2 PageID#
In the Matter Of:
Civil Investigation Demand - No.
February 28, 202Page 3 PageID#
·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
· · · · · · ·ANTITRUST DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
··3· · ·PURSUANT TO CIVIL INVESTIGATION DEMAND NO. ··5· · · · · · · · · ·"HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL"
··7· · · · · · · · · 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF
·8· · · · · · · · · · ·
·9· · · · · · · ·ON BEHALF OF ALPHABET, INC.
10· · · · · · · · · · ·FEBRUARY 28, 12· · ·ORAL VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
13 produced as a witness at the instance of the United
14 States Department of Justice and duly sworn, was taken
15 in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 28th day
16 of February, 2022, from 8:36 a.m. to 5:59 p.m. PST,
17 before Melinda Barre, Certified Shorthand Reporter in
18 and for the State of Texas, reported by computerized
19 stenotype machine, all parties appearing remotely via
20 web videoconference, pursuant to the rules of procedure
21 and the provisions stated on the record or attached
22 hereto.
25Page 4 PageID# Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES
· · · · · ·(ALL APPEARED VIA ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE.)
··3 FOR GOOGLE:
·4·
· ·
·5·
· ·
·6·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Ms. Julie Elmer
Ms. Daphne Lin
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER
701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C.
·7· · · Telephone: 202.777.· · · · E-mail: julie.elmer@freshfields.com
··9 FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION:
10·
· ·
11·
· ·
12·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Mr. Brent Nakamura
Mr. Arshia Najafi
Attorney at Law
450 5th Northwest, Suite Washington, D.C.
13· · · Telephone: 202.307.· · · · E-mail: brent.nakamura@usdoj.gov
15 ALSO PRESENT:· Ryan LaFond, Videographer;
; Seumas Macneil;
· · · · · · · · ·
16· · · · · · · ·
; Daniel Bitton
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 2Page 5 PageID# Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
··2· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX
·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
·4 Examination by Mr. Nakamura .......................· ·Signature Page· .................................·5 Court Reporter's Certificate ....................·6· · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS
··8 EXHIBIT· · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · ·PAGE
·10 Exhibit 1· · · Civil Investigative Demand· · · · ·11 Exhibit 2·
· · · · · · ·
· ·Exhibit 3·
13· · · · · ·
· · · · · · ·
· ·Exhibit 4·
15· · · · · ·
· · · · · · ·
· ·Exhibit 5·
17· · · · · ·
· · · · · · ·
· ·Exhibit 6·
19· · · · · ·
· · · · · · ·
· ·Exhibit 7·
21· · · · · ·
· · · · · · ·
· ·Exhibit 8·
· ·Exhibit 9·
· · Civil Investigative Demand· · · · ·· · Schedule for Alphabet, Inc.
· · 10-28-21 Letter to U.S.· · · · · · · · Department of Justice from
· · Julie Elmer
· · 11-15-21 Letter to U.S.· · · · · · · · Department of Justice from
· · Julie Elmer
· · 9-14-21 Letter to U.S.· · · · · · ·· · Department of Justice from
· · Julie Elmer
· · 10-4-21 Letter to U.S.· · · · · · ·· · Department of Justice from
· · Julie Elmer
· · 2-25-22 Letter to U.S.· · · · · · ·· · Department of Justice from
· · Julie Elmer
· · (Clawed Back by Counsel)· · · · · · · (Clawed Back by Counsel)· · · · ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 3Page 6 PageID# Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS (cont.)
·2 EXHIBIT· · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · ·PAGE
·3 Exhibit 10· · ·Excerpt from 8-11-21 Transcript· ·· · · · · · · · · of
·· ·Exhibit 11· · ·(Clawed Back by Counsel)· · · · · ·· ·Exhibit 12· · ·2-17-22 Letter to U.S.· · · · · · ·6· · · · · · · · Department of Justice from
· · · · · · · · · Julie Elmer
·· ·Exhibit 13· · ·Document Bates Stamped Nos.· · · ··8· · · · · · · · GOOG-DOJ-AT-00205841 through
· · · · · · · · · ·· ·Exhibit 14· · ·Email String Ending in 5-13-20· · 10· · · · · · · · Email from
to
· ·Exhibit 15· · ·Document Bates Stamped No.· · · · 12· · · · · · · · Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-· · · · · · · · · through
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 7 PageID# Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Good morning.· We are
·2 now on the record.· Today's date is February 28th, 2022.
·3 The time is 8:36 a.m. Pacific Time.· This is the video
·4 deposition of the 30(b)(6) for Alphabet, Inc.,
·
This is in the Google matter, Case
·6 No. 60-516110-0009.
·7· · · · · · · ·This deposition is taking place via web
·8 video conference with all participants attending
·9 remotely.· My name is Ryan LaFond.· I am videographer.
10 Our court reporter today is Melinda Barre.· We represent
11 Lexitas.
12· · · · · · · ·Would counsel please identify yourself,
13 state whom you represent beginning with the questioning
14 attorney.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Good morning.· This is
16 Brent Nakamura from the U.S. Department of Justice
17 Antitrust Division.· I'm a trial attorney with the
18 Division, and I'm joined by my colleagues, Arshia
19 Najafi, a trial attorney with the Division, and Seumas
20 Macneil, also who is a paralegal with the Division.
21 Additional personnel may join the deposition later.
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'm Julie Elmer with
23 Freshfields.· I'm here for Google and the witness.· With
24 me today is
and
, in-house
25 counsel at Google; Daniel Bitton from the Axinn law
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 8 PageID# Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 firm; and Daphne Lin, my colleague at Freshfields.
·2· · · · · · · ·Before we get started today, I'd like to
·3 designate the entire transcript highly confidential.
·4· · · · · · · ·I'd also like to note for the record the
·5 deferrals of CID topics relating to Projects Metta,
·6 Garamond and 1Door, in accordance with our
·7 correspondence and the DOJ's correspondence of
·8 November 8 and November 9, 2021.
·9· · · · · · · ·We also object to the topics set forth in
10 the CID as improper to the extent they seek to invade
11 the attorney/client privilege and the attorney work
12 product doctrine.· The company's designation of a
13 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding the undeferred
14 projects set forth in the CID does not constitute a
15 waiver of the attorney/client privilege or the work
16 product doctrine.
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Will the reporter
18 please swear in the witness.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 9 PageID# Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · · · · ·
·2 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
·3· · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
·4 QUESTIONS BY MR. NAKAMURA:
·5· · ·Q.· ·Good morning,
As I said earlier,
·6 my name is Brent Nakamura, and I'm a trial attorney with
·7 the Department of Justice Antitrust Division.· We last
·8 spoke on August 11th, so pleasure to see you again.
·9· · · · · · · ·Let me begin with a few housekeeping
10 matters related to virtual depositions.· I know we went
11 over these issues in your August 11th, 2021 deposition;
12 but I want to make sure that we are both clear on these
13 rules.
14· · · · · · · ·First, there could be technical issues
15 today with the video conference.· If there are, we will
16 take a break and resolve them off the record.
17· · · · · · · ·You are permitted to consult with your
18 lawyer if needed during the deposition.· If you need to
19 do so, please request a break and we will go off the
20 record.· You can then meet privately with your counsel
21 in a virtual breakout room that has been set up for you.
22· · · · · · · ·You are not permitted to communicate with
23 others or consult documents or notes other than things
24 we specifically discuss and agree to while we are on the
25 record.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 10 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·While I'm at that, do you have any notes
·2 in front of you right now?
·3· · ·A.· ·I have a letter that was provided to you.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And what is the date on the letter?
·5· · ·A.· ·I believe it's Feb. 25.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· We will circle back to discussing
·7 that.
·8· · · · · · · ·Do you have anything else in front you in
·9 the form of notes or aids that would help you testify
10 today?
11· · ·A.· ·No, not immediately at hand.
12· · ·Q.· ·Great.
13· · · · · · · ·When we are taking a break and not on the
14 record, you may communicate with third parties.· For
15 example, you can check work e-mail and you can text
16 family members; but you should not discuss today's
17 deposition with third parties while it is ongoing.· Do
18 you understand that?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·We will review documents during today's
21 deposition.· I will share them with you electronically
22 and give you time to review them.· For longer documents
23 I will direct you to the parts about which I will ask
24 questions.
25· · · · · · · ·Do you agree to these initial ground
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 11 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 rules?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Great.
·4· · · · · · · ·So now I'd like to go over some additional
·5 ground rules for this specific deposition.· While I took
·6 part of your deposition on August 11th in your personal
·7 capacity, several different rules apply to today's
·8 deposition because your company, Alphabet, has
·9 designated you as its corporate representative for the
10 purposes of this deposition.
11· · · · · · · ·First, do you understand that you are
12 providing testimony today in response to the civil
13 investigative demand that I will later introduce as
14 Exhibit 1 on behalf of Alphabet, Incorporated?
15· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you repeat that?
16· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· Do you understand that you're providing
17 testimony today on behalf of Alphabet, Incorporated?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · ·Q.· ·From time to time I may refer to Alphabet as
20 either "Alphabet" or "Google."· By using either name, I
21 mean to ask you questions about the corporate position,
22 understanding, knowledge and/or testimony of Alphabet.
23· · · · · · · ·If there is any testimony you provide
24 today for which the distinction between Google and
25 Alphabet is relevant, you must explicitly inform me of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 12 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 that fact.· Do you agree to that?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·If there is another relevant distinction based
·4 on the status of any subsidiary of Alphabet, you must
·5 explicitly inform me of that.· Do you agree to that?
·6· · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
·7· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Please answer "yes" or "no."
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
10· · · · · · · ·When I ask you a question, I'm asking you
11 as the representative of Alphabet, and I will assume
12 that the answers that you provide are on behalf of
13 Alphabet.· If you are providing testimony in your
14 personal capacity and not on behalf of Alphabet, you
15 must explicitly tell me that.
16· · · · · · · ·Do you understand that?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·Great.· You as the corporate representative of
19 Alphabet are under oath today and sworn to tell the
20 truth just like if you were testifying in court.· This
21 requirement to tell the truth extends to any and all
22 testimony you give, whether on behalf of yourself in
23 your personal capacity or on behalf of Alphabet.
24· · · · · · · ·Do you understand that?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 13 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Great.· For the sake of the court reporter and
·2 especially because this deposition is being conducted
·3 remotely, we both need to speak loudly and clearly.
·4 Please wait until I finish a question before answering
·5 so we don't speak over each other.· I will try my best
·6 to do so as well.
·7· · · · · · · ·Please answer questions with a "yes" or
·8 "no" instead of a nod or a "yeah."
·9· · · · · · · ·If any of my questions are unclear or you
10 don't understand what I'm asking, please let me know;
11 otherwise, I will assume you understand the question as
12 I asked it.
13· · · · · · · ·You are required to answer each of my
14 questions truthfully and to the full extent of
15 Alphabet's knowledge.· Specifically, even if you do not
16 know the complete answer to my question, as Alphabet's
17 representative, you're required to provide me with any
18 knowledge Alphabet has in response to my question.
19· · · · · · · ·Do you understand that?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·Great.· At times your attorney may object to
22 one of my questions.· When there is an objection, you
23 should wait until your attorney and I are finished
24 discussing her objection.· You must then answer my
25 question unless your lawyer specifically instructs you
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 14 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 not to do so and you make the affirmative choice not to
·2 answer my question.
·3· · · · · · · ·Do you understand that?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · ·Q.· ·Great.· When I ask a question, I am not asking
·6 you to disclose the substance of any privileged
·7 communications you may have had with your attorney.
·8· · · · · · · ·I will try to take breaks at reasonable
·9 intervals during our discussion today.· If you need to
10 take a break at any time, please let me know.· However,
11 I ask that you not take a break while there is a
12 question pending; that is, when I have asked a question
13 but you have not yet answered the question.
14· · · · · · · ·Do you have any questions about these
15 ground rules?
16· · ·A.· ·No.
17· · ·Q.· ·Will you abide by each of the rules I have laid
18 out?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·Is there anything such as medication you have
21 taken that would prevent you from understanding my
22 questions today?
23· · ·A.· ·No.
24· · ·Q.· ·Is there anything else that would prevent you
25 from giving full, complete, honest testimony today?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 15 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·No.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Do you understand that you're here today
·3 pursuant to a civil investigative demand issued to
·4 Alphabet in connection with a DOJ investigation?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
·7 upload tab 1 into the Chat.· Thank you.
·8· · · · · · · ·I'd like the court reporter to please mark
·9 this as Alphabet Exhibit 1.
10· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1 marked)
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
12 know when you have this in front of you.
13· · · · · · · ·Do you have the exhibit in front of you?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·It's in the Chat.· If you want to open the Chat
16 window, it should have been dropped in the Chat.
17· · ·A.· ·My Chat is empty.
18· · ·Q.· ·That's strange.
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Julie, do you have the
20 exhibit?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I do.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Let's go off the
23 record for a second.
24· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
25 8:46 a.m.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 16 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·2· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·3 8:53 a.m.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· We have solved
·5 that technical problem.· So let's move forward.
·6· · · · · · · ·
do you have what has been
·7 marked as Alphabet Exhibit 1 in front of you?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Great.· This is Civil Investigative Demand
10 No. 30769 issued on August 23rd, 2021.· Is this the
11 civil investigative demand that you are here in response
12 to?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes, I believe so.
14· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Do you have any reason to believe that
15 you are not here in response to this civil investigative
16 demand?
17· · ·A.· ·No.· But my hesitation is merely that there's a
18 lot of detail provided here.· So I would defer to my
19 lawyers to make sure this is the correct one.· But yes,
20 my understanding is that this is the subject matter for
21 why I'm here.
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object to the extent that
23 there are no specifications that are attached to this
24 copy.· This is just the cover portion of the CID.· So I
25 think what's confusing is that the specifications are
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 17 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 not included here.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· Seumas, could you
·3 upload tab 2.
·4· · · · · · · ·And could the court reporter please mark
·5 this as Alphabet Exhibit 2.
·6· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 2 marked)
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
·8 know when you have that in front of you.
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes, I have that in front of me.
10· · ·Q.· ·All right.· As Ms. Elmer was saying, this is
11 the schedule that was attached to the civil
12 investigative demand.· Have you seen this document
13 before?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·And is this the schedule of questions or topics
16 that you are here in response to?
17· · ·A.· ·With -- yes with the exception that several of
18 the projects here, I believe, are out of scope for this
19 discussion.
20· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· We will get to that, and I appreciate you
21 noting that.
22· · · · · · · ·When did Alphabet notify you that it was
23 considering designating you as the representative for
24 this deposition?
25· · ·A.· ·Approximately a month ago.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 18 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And when did Alphabet decide that you
·2 specifically would be its representative for this
·3 deposition?
·4· · ·A.· ·Shortly after that discussion.
·5· · ·Q.· ·So about a month ago is at the end of
·6 January 2022.· Is that correct?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Great.· Do you understand the civil
·9 investigative demand and the schedule that was attached
10 to it as Alphabet Exhibits 1 and 2?
11· · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·Do you have any questions about anything
13 contained in Exhibits 1 or 2?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·I'm going to reference specifically Exhibit 1,
16 which is the civil investigative demand itself.· Do you
17 understand that the information you provide during this
18 deposition may be used by the Department of Justice in
19 other civil, criminal, administrative or regulatory
20 cases or proceedings?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·All right.· For Exhibit 2, this is the civil
23 investigative demand schedule that is part of what I
24 introduced to you as Exhibit 1.· So are you prepared to
25 testify about the matters in this schedule other than
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 19 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 specifications 1e, 1h and 1i as well as specification ·2 as related to those three deferred topics?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Are there any matters or parts of matters
·5 listed in this schedule other than those that have been
·6 deferred about which you are not prepared to testify to?
·7· · ·A.· ·No.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Aside from what you have learned from your
·9 counsel, what is your understanding of what the justice
10 department is investigating?
11· · ·A.· ·My understanding is that the justice department
12 is investigating general antitrust in the advertising
13 ecosystem.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what is that understanding based on?
15· · ·A.· ·That's based on a number of articles I've seen
16 provided as well as the letters and the discussions that
17 have been provided as well as the testimony that I have
18 reviewed, you know, and the questions that have been
19 asked.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what articles that you have seen have
21 helped you understand what this investigation is?
22· · ·A.· ·I believe they were articles published about -23 and I could be mistaken here and I can look
24 specifically -- but about the DOJ inquiring into Google.
25· · ·Q.· ·Do you recall what publications those were
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 20 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 published in?
·2· · ·A.· ·Specifically no, but I can search for them if
·3 you'd like.
·4· · ·Q.· ·No.· That's okay.
·5· · · · · · · ·How long ago did you read those articles?
·6· · ·A.· ·This would have been a while ago because my
·7 understanding is that this investigation has been going
·8 on for quite a while and -- in addition to, you know,
·9 the preparation for my last deposition as well, you
10 know, that the subject matter's fairly clear.
11· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And have you discussed this
12 investigation with others at Google other than your
13 attorneys?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·Have you discussed this investigation with
16 anyone outside of Google other than your attorneys?
17· · ·A.· ·No.
18· · ·Q.· ·Besides your attorneys, did you meet with
19 anyone to prepare for this deposition?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·Who was it?
22· · ·A.· ·I had conducted two interviews with my
23 attorneys -- so I don't know if that changes the answer
24 or not -- but to inquire about times and dates and in
25 particular involvement of individuals in the subject
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 21 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 matter requested in the CID.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I will get to your preparation in just a
·3 little bit, but I thank you for that.
·4· · · · · · · ·So let me speak to you now about any
·5 previous deposition experience that you've had.· Have
·6 you personally ever been a plaintiff or defendant in a
·7 lawsuit?
·8· · ·A.· ·Does it count if I'm representing a
·9 corporation?
10· · ·Q.· ·I'll ask you about that in a second, but have
11 you ever been named as a plaintiff or defendant in a
12 lawsuit, meaning your name would have been on the
13 caption,
versus someone, for example?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· Since August 11th, 2021, which is
16 your last deposition, have you been deposed?
17· · ·A.· ·No.
18· · ·Q.· ·Have you ever been deposed as a designated
19 representative of any company, whether pursuant to the
20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other rules or
21 statutes?
22· · ·A.· ·So I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what
23 qualifies there.· But I believe you asked the questions
24 prior, and I've had one deposition that I've been
25 involved with previously and that was on behalf of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 22 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Google in an IP matter.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Got it.· Thank you.
·3· · · · · · · ·So specifically about your preparation for
·4 this deposition, what did you do to prepare for this
·5 deposition?
·6· · ·A.· ·Did a number of things.· So first off reviewed
·7 the CID to understand which topics were to be discussed.
·8 I spoke with a few individuals about people and times,
·9 looked at a number of documents to understand -- or
10 looked at specifically the metadata about the documents
11 to understand when they were created, who else was
12 involved.
13· · · · · · · ·I reviewed my calendar to see when these
14 projects took place, again, who was involved.· I also
15 reviewed timelines and time frames of letters and public
16 articles about numerous investigations that I believe
17 are related to this.
18· · · · · · · ·I also reviewed the testimony of a number
19 of my colleagues that were provided to you earlier to
20 review both what they had said and to make sure that any
21 discrepancies would be accounted for.
22· · · · · · · ·I think that's -- that's most of -- most,
23 if not all, of the preparation.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· That's a very good introduction.
25· · · · · · · ·So which individuals -- what are the names
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 23 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 of the individuals with whom you spoke in preparation
·2 for this deposition?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I spoke with
and
·4· · ·Q.· ·And could you spell their names, please?
·5· · ·A.· ·Sure.·
·
, last name
.· And
.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· And what is
job title
·8 and responsibilities at Alphabet?
·9· · ·A.· ·He is a principal engineer, and he is
10 responsible for -- actually, I don't know what he's
11 responsible for now; but during these projects he was
12 responsible for ad serving on the AdManager product.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how many times did you meet with
15· · ·A.· ·In preparation?
16· · ·Q.· ·Yes.
17· · ·A.· ·One, one time.
18· · ·Q.· ·And how long was that meeting?
19· · ·A.· ·Approximately half hour.
20· · ·Q.· ·And who else was present at that meeting?
21· · ·A.· ·The attorneys present here, as well as another
22 attorney.
23· · ·Q.· ·What is the name of that other attorney?
24· · ·A.· ·
25· · ·Q.· ·And for
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
He's an in-house counsel.
what is her job title, what
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 24 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 are her job responsibilities currently at Alphabet?
·2· · ·A.· ·She is a director of corporate development, and
·3 she covers the ads area as well as some other areas.
·4· · ·Q.· ·What are those other areas, to the best of your
·5 knowledge?
·6· · ·A.· ·I don't know.· Possibly payments and shopping.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And how many times did you meet with
·8· · ·A.· ·For preparation I met with her one time.
·9· · ·Q.· ·On what date did you meet with her?
10· · ·A.· ·Friday, February 18th.
11· · ·Q.· ·And what date did you meet with
12· · ·A.· ·The same.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how long was your meeting with
14· · ·A.· ·30 minutes.
15· · ·Q.· ·And who else was present at that meeting?
16· · ·A.· ·The same group I identified before, legal.
17· · ·Q.· ·To be clear, when you say the attorneys that
18 are here for this deposition, do you mean every one of
19 the attorneys that is here currently?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·And
in-house counsel for
22 Alphabet, was also present at your meeting with
correct?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Did you speak to any other individuals in
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 25 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 preparation for this deposition?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·While you were meeting with
·
and
did you review any documents that they
·5 provided to you?
·6· · ·A.· ·No.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Did you review any documents during your
·8 sessions with either
or
·9· · ·A.· ·No.
10· · ·Q.· ·So you also said that you reviewed documents in
11 preparation for this deposition.· About how many
12 documents did you review?
13· · ·A.· ·Just to be specific, I reviewed the document
14 information, but I didn't go through documents.· So I
15 would pull up a document to look at when it was created,
16 who's in the share part and who was the owner.· That's
17 the three pieces of information I was looking for.
18· · ·Q.· ·So when you say "I reviewed the document
19 information," you mean you restricted your review to the
20 metadata on that document.· Is that correct?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·And to further clarify for the record, that
23 also means that you did not view the content of any of
24 the documents you reviewed in preparation for this
25 deposition.· Is that correct?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 26 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.· Not for preparation, that's correct.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Did you for any other reason review the
·3 contents of the documents that you also viewed in
·4 preparation for this deposition?
·5· · ·A.· ·I did not review them now.· I think the
·6 distinction here is that I was integral in the
·7 preparation of materially all of the docs noted.· So
·8 there was no purpose for me to review the docs.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· I appreciate that.
10· · · · · · · ·So in total, how many documents' metadata
11 did you review in preparation for this deposition?
12· · ·A.· ·Approximately between five and ten, probably
13 closer to ten documents.
14· · ·Q.· ·And you also stated that you reviewed your own
15 calendar in preparation for this deposition.· Is that
16 correct?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·And how long did you spend reviewing your own
19 calendar for this deposition?
20· · ·A.· ·About an hour.
21· · ·Q.· ·And did you take any notes based on what you
22 saw in your calendar in preparation for this deposition?
23· · ·A.· ·No.· I was in discussion with counsel while
24 reviewing, and I noted the dates -25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Please don't share what you
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 27 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 told counsel.
·2· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Oh, okay.
·3· · ·A.· ·So what was the question again?· Did I take
·4 notes?
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Yes.
·6· · ·A.· ·No.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·8· · · · · · · ·But you conveyed information to your
·9 counsel regarding what was on your calendar during those
10 discussions.· Is that correct?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection, calls for
12 attorney/client privilege.· I instruct the witness not
13 to answer.
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· What is the basis for your
15 instruction?· I'm simply asking whether he conveyed
16 information, not what information was conveyed.
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· You may share whether you
18 conveyed information or not,
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
20· · ·A.· ·Information was conveyed.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And that was over the phone
22 at the same time you were reviewing your calendar.· Is
23 that correct?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· Did you review anyone else's
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 28 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 calendars in preparation for this deposition?
·2· · ·A.· ·I personally did not.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone convey information to you about
·4 other Alphabet employees' calendars in preparation for
·5 this deposition?
·6· · ·A.· ·It's possible that as I was asking questions,
·7 that some of that was through my colleagues looking at
·8 their cameras -- or, sorry, calendars.· But I don't know
·9 specifically if that's what they were doing.
10· · ·Q.· ·And when you say your colleagues, you mean only
and
Is that correct?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· You also said that in preparation
14 for this deposition you reviewed testimony from Alphabet
15 employees.· What were the names of the individuals for
16 whom you reviewed testimony?
17· · ·A.· ·
, Philipp Schindler,
And I think -- and
20· · ·Q.· ·Let me just go through and clarify this for the
21 record.
22· · · · · · · ·So the first person was
, correct?
24· · ·A.· ·
, yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 29 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·And the second person was Philipp
·2 Schindler.· Is that correct?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·4· · ·Q.· ·The third person is
Is that
·5 correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·7· · ·Q.· ·The fourth person is
.
·8 Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yep.
10· · ·Q.· ·The second-to-last person is
11 Is that correct?
12· · ·A.· ·Yep.
13· · ·Q.· ·And the last person is
.· Is that
15 correct?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.· As well as my own.
17· · ·Q.· ·As well as your own deposition.· Thank you.
18· · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
19· · ·Q.· ·In reviewing these depositions, did you review
20 the entire deposition, portions that counsel selected
21 for you, or some other subset of the deposition?
22· · ·A.· ·I reviewed portions specific to the CID.
23· · ·Q.· ·And who identified those portions for you?
24· · ·A.· ·Counsel helped me identify those areas.
25· · ·Q.· ·And so other than the portions that you
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 30 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 reviewed based on the instruction of counsel, did you
·2 review any other portions of the deposition?
·3· · ·A.· ·Incidentally possibly to understand the
·4 transitions, and that's it.· Primarily just those
·5 specific areas.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
·7· · · · · · · ·And approximately how long in total did
·8 you spend reviewing these depositions?
·9· · ·A.· ·I would say between -- probably about three
10 hours.
11· · ·Q.· ·And in preparation for this deposition, how
12 many times did you meet with your attorneys?
13· · ·A.· ·About five times.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what are the -15· · ·A.· ·Maybe more.
16· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.
17· · ·A.· ·Maybe more, yeah.
18· · ·Q.· ·And when was the first time in preparation for
19 this deposition that you met with your attorneys?
20· · ·A.· ·It would have been very early February or
21 possibly end of January, that time frame.
22· · ·Q.· ·And which attorneys did you meet with at that
23 first meeting?
24· · ·A.· ·It would have been the counsel on this call,
25 all, as well as
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 31 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And when was the second meeting, to the best of
·2 your knowledge, with your attorneys in preparation for
·3 this deposition?
·4· · ·A.· ·That would have been, you know, about the week
·5 of Feb. 7.
·6· · ·Q.· ·I apologize for skipping around.· How long was
·7 your first meeting with your attorneys in preparation
·8 for this deposition?
·9· · ·A.· ·The first meeting, I believe it was 30 minutes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
11· · · · · · · ·And for the second meeting approximately
12 the week of February 7th, which attorneys were present
13 at that meeting?
14· · ·A.· ·It's the same group.
15· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And approximately how long was that
16 meeting?
17· · ·A.· ·About three hours, two to three hours.
18· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And for the third meeting, when did that
19 occur in preparation for this deposition?
20· · ·A.· ·I believe that same week, the 7th.
21· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And was it the same group of
22 attorneys -23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·-- in that meeting?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 32 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And about approximately how long was that
·2 meeting?
·3· · ·A.· ·About three hours.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And when did the fourth meeting with your
·5 attorneys occur in preparation for this deposition?
·6· · ·A.· ·I believe it would have been the following
·7 week.
·8· · ·Q.· ·So the week of February 14th.· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·And who was at that meeting?
11· · ·A.· ·Again, the same group.
12· · ·Q.· ·And how long was that meeting?
13· · ·A.· ·About three hours.
14· · ·Q.· ·And for the fifth meeting in preparation for
15 this deposition with your attorneys, when did that take
16 place?
17· · ·A.· ·I believe that would have been on the 18th.
18· · ·Q.· ·And who was at that meeting?
19· · ·A.· ·The same group.
20· · ·Q.· ·And how long was that meeting?
21· · ·A.· ·Between 30 and 60 minutes.
22· · ·Q.· ·Have you had any meetings with your attorneys
23 subsequent to the 18th of February in preparation for
24 this deposition?
25· · ·A.· ·There were several meetings on the 18th
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 33 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 relating to those other interviews as well that I had
·2 mentioned earlier that involved counsel.
·3· · ·Q.· ·So on the 18th you met three times, once with
·4 your attorneys?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Once with
and your attorneys?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And once with
and your attorneys.· Is
·9 that correct?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· And after the 18th did you have any
12 subsequent meetings with your attorneys in preparation
13 for this deposition?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.· We met this morning.
15· · ·Q.· ·And how long did you meet for?
16· · ·A.· ·45 minutes.
17· · ·Q.· ·And you had no meetings with your attorneys to
18 prepare for this deposition between the 18th of February
19 and today, this morning.· Is that correct?
20· · ·A.· ·Correct.
21· · ·Q.· ·So let me turn now to round out the sort of
22 preliminaries for this deposition.· Is your full legal
23 name
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Have you gone by or used any other names
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 34 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 before?
·2· · ·A.· ·I go by
·3· · ·Q.· ·Are there other names or nicknames that people
·4 call you at work other than
·5· · ·A.· ·No.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Are you currently employed by Alphabet?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Where is your office located?
·9· · ·A.· ·It's in Mountain View.
10· · ·Q.· ·Do you have an office telephone number?
11· · ·A.· ·No.
12· · ·Q.· ·Do you have a cellular telephone that you use
13 for work?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·And what is the phone number associated with
16 that work cell phone?
17· · ·A.· ·
18· · ·Q.· ·What is your current job title at Alphabet?
19· · ·A.· ·Director of product management.
20· · ·Q.· ·Is there a formal classification associated
21 with your current job, such as level 9?
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what is that classification?
24· · ·A.· ·Level 9.
25· · ·Q.· ·Is this the same job that you have held since
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 35 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 your last deposition in this matter on August -- in
·2 August of 2021?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·What department or division of Alphabet do you
·5 currently work in?
·6· · ·A.· ·I work in the ADVA team, which is the apps
·7 display and video advertising.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And how long have you held this position?
·9· · ·A.· ·The level or the role?
10· · ·Q.· ·Well, why don't we start with the role and then
11 you can tell me the level.
12· · ·A.· ·The role, since late August of 2019.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how long have you held the level 14 position?
15· · ·A.· ·Since October of 2020.
16· · ·Q.· ·What are your current job responsibilities at
17 Alphabet?
18· · ·A.· ·I'm responsible for the product -- for the
19 products that are publisher facing in advertising.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what are the names of those products?
21· · ·A.· ·AdManager, the ad exchange which is known as
22 authorized buyers and open bidding, AdMob and AdSense.
23· · ·Q.· ·Do you do work on Google ads?
24· · ·A.· ·So technically that product would not fit into
25 my portfolio, although it is a marketplace.· So those
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 36 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 ads would flow through my products.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And do you do work outside of your current job
·3 responsibilities at Alphabet?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what is that work?
·6· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you rephrase the question?
·7 That's a little ambiguous.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· You described to me earlier what your
·9 job responsibilities were, and we just discussed Google
10 ads which, as you said, flows through the product.· And
11 I just want to make sure that I understand what other
12 products you may work with even though they are not part
13 of your job responsibilities.
14· · ·A.· ·Gotcha.
15· · ·Q.· ·So if you could help me with that, I would
16 appreciate it.
17· · ·A.· ·Sure.· Yeah.· So I'm on the global news
18 initiative board.
19· · ·Q.· ·And what is the global news initiative board?
20· · ·A.· ·So the global news initiative is a fund that
21 Google allocates to help the journalism industry.· So
22 while some of that pertains to advertising, the majority
23 of those activities don't have anything to do with
24 advertising.
25· · · · · · · ·I'm also on the Ads, Inc. board of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 37 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 directors, which is an internal fund to start up new and
·2 unusual initiatives inside of the general ads PA beyond
·3 the portions that I work on directly.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And what -- I'm sorry.· What do you mean by
·5 "PA"?
·6· · ·A.· ·Product area.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And when you say the Ads, Inc. board of
·8 directors is an internal fund, do you mean that Alphabet
·9 provides funding to projects within the company?
10· · ·A.· ·It's a fund that provides funding, primarily
11 externally and sometimes internally.
12· · ·Q.· ·And can you provide an example of what an
13 externally funded project would be?
14· · ·A.· ·Sure.· They give grants to various journalists.
15 They fund trainings for journalism on a global basis,
16 things like that.
17· · ·Q.· ·And are there any other projects that you work
18 on that are outside the scope of your job
19 responsibilities at Alphabet?
20· · ·A.· ·I am responsible for certain fireside chats and
21 trainings for product managers in general across all of
22 Google.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what is the purpose of those fireside
24 chats?
25· · ·A.· ·To train our product managers on how to be
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 38 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 better managers.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And what would you describe as the subject
·3 matter of that training?
·4· · ·A.· ·It's varied.· Depends on what's topical.· For
·5 example, what makes a great manager, how to manage a
·6 team partly remote and partly on-site.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Okay.
·8· · ·A.· ·Things like that.· Career coaching.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Very helpful.· Thank you.
10· · · · · · · ·Are there any other projects that you work
11 on that are outside your job responsibilities at
12 Alphabet?
13· · ·A.· ·Nope.
14· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· And currently to whom do you report
15 at Alphabet?
16· · ·A.· ·I report to
17· · ·Q.· ·And what is
title?
18· · ·A.· ·He's the general manager of YouTube ads and
19 ADVA, apps display and video ads.
20· · ·Q.· ·And to whom does
report?
21· · ·A.· ·To
22· · ·Q.· ·And to whom does
report?
23· · ·A.· ·To
24· · ·Q.· ·And how many people at Alphabet report to you?
25· · ·A.· ·In my organization or directly?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 39 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Directly.
·2· · ·A.· ·Five.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And what are their names and titles?
·4· · ·A.· ·
.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And what are the titles of those five
·7 individuals?
·8· · ·A.· ·In order, director of product management,
·9 director of product management, director of product
10 management, group product manager and administrative -11 executive administrative assistant.
12· · ·Q.· ·And how many people in your organization report
13 to you?
14· · ·A.· ·Approximately 50.
15· · ·Q.· ·And what are the subject matter areas that
16 those 50 people work in who report to you in your
17 organization?
18· · ·A.· ·It's all product management for the products
19 that I described earlier.
20· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, the products you described
21 earlier that are within the scope of your job
22 responsibilities.· Is that correct?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· In your current position, since
25 assuming your position, have your job responsibilities
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 40 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 changed?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Do you currently work on regulatory,
·4 investigation or litigation matters?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Which ones?
·7· · ·A.· ·So there's a number.· So the U.K. ICO relating
·8 to GDPR, the Texas AG suit, this investigation with the
·9 Department of Justice, the U.K. Competition Markets
10 Authority, the ACCC -- that's the Australian Competition
11 something -- and the Irish DPA, Data Protection
12 Authority.
13· · ·Q.· ·Do you work on any other regulatory,
14 investigation or litigation matters?
15· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you -- are you asking about
16 litigation?
17· · ·Q.· ·Other than those listed -18· · ·A.· ·Yeah.
19· · ·Q.· ·-- that you just listed, do you work on any
20 regulatory, investigation or litigation matters?· So
21 yes, it would include litigation.· I'm just trying to
22 make sure your list is complete.
23· · ·A.· ·Got it.· I'm just trying to understand what you
24 mean by "investigation."· Do you mean I'm investigating
25 or do you mean they're investigating?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 41 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·That's a great question.· Thank you for asking.
·2· · · · · · · ·For example, a government agency like us
·3 is investigating, so not any internal investigation that
·4 you're working on but any investigation that comes from
·5 outside of Alphabet.
·6· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Yes, I believe there are others but not
·7 related to the discussion today.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Well, I will just tell you this.· It is my view
·9 that as part of the qualifications of the witness, I
10 need to assess the amount of work you do on these
11 investigative matters.· And unless your counsel objects
12 and instructs you not to answer, all I am looking for is
13 the name of what those are.
14· · · · · · · ·So unless Ms. Elmer would like to enter an
15 objection, please let me know what the names of any
16 other litigation, external investigation or regulatory
17 matters that you work on are.
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· The names of the
19 investigating authorities are fine to share,
20· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.
21· · ·A.· ·New Mexico Attorney General.
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And,
if you need to
23 refer to the letter that you had mentioned earlier that
24 is in front of you today or that you brought with you
25 today to make sure that you've given a complete list,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 42 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 feel free to.
·2· · ·A.· ·The European Commission would be the other one
·3 that is relevant.· Beyond that for investigations, no,
·4 that's it.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are there any litigation
·6 matters other than the Texas AG lawsuit you just
·7 mentioned that you work on currently?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what are those?· Just the names, please.
10· · ·A.· ·Those are relating -- that's a number of cases
11 all relating just to typical IP litigation.
12· · ·Q.· ·Are there any litigation matters on which you
13 are working for Alphabet that do not relate to IP
14 litigation?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Other than the Texas AG
16 lawsuit?
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.· Thank you, Julie.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Other than the Texas AG
19 lawsuit.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And the MDL cases associated
21 with it?
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· You did not,
24 mention the MDL cases associated with that Texas AG
25 lawsuit.· Are you working on the MDL cases associated
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 43 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 with the Texas AG lawsuit?
·2· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· What does MDL refer to?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Multi-district litigation.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Those are the private
·5 plaintiff lawsuits that are associated with the Texas AG
·6 lawsuit.· Are you working on those?
·7· · ·A.· ·I don't know if those are wrapped up in the
·8 same discussions, so I don't know.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· That's fine.
10· · · · · · · ·Just so we're clear, are you a lawyer?
11· · ·A.· ·No.
12· · ·Q.· ·Do you ever provide legal advice for Alphabet?
13· · ·A.· ·No.
14· · ·Q.· ·What percentage of your time as an employee of
15 Alphabet are spent on regulatory, investigation or
16 litigation matters?
17· · ·A.· ·About 60 percent.
18· · ·Q.· ·And how would you describe your role with
19 respect to regulatory, investigative or litigation
20 matters at Alphabet?
21· · ·A.· ·So I'm responsible for defining the direction
22 of our business with respect to the regulatory changes,
23 yeah.
24· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean by "defining the direction of
25 our business"?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 44 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that your
·2 question, Brent, invades the work product doctrine or
·3 the attorney/client privilege, I instruct the witness
·4 not to answer.
·5· · · · · · · ·To the extent that you can answer in a way
·6 that doesn't share privileged information, you may do
·7 so.
·8· · ·A.· ·So with new regulatory changes and prospective
·9 regulatory changes, there likely would be changes
10 required to our business such as things that happened
11 with GDPR.
12· · · · · · · ·So I'm responsible for finding a way to
13 ensure that we continue to comply with the changing
14 regulations as well as the general, you know,
15 competitive marketplace here.· So I'm responsible for
16 charting that path for our business.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And do you provide, as part
18 of this role, any financial projections or business
19 analyses as part of Alphabet's response to potentially
20 required changes to your business in response to these
21 regulations?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
23 answer to the extent that this invades the work product
24 doctrine or the attorney/client privilege.
25· · ·A.· ·I mean, of course I do.· Like we're trying to
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 45 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 run a business.· How do you not take those things into
·2 account?
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And who at Alphabet prepares
·4 these financial projections or business analyses that
·5 you provide as part of this role?
·6· · ·A.· ·Financial is typically prepared by finance in
·7 conjunction with input from legal and, you know, various
·8 working team members, cross-functional.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And can you -- I'm sorry.
10· · · · · · · ·And can you give me an example of who at
11 finance provides you with that information?
12· · ·A.· ·Sure.· Someone like
, who's the
13 director of finance.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what in-house counsel are involved with
15 those projections?
16· · ·A.· ·So depending on the products we're talking
17 about or the relevant subject matter, it likely would be
18 someone like
who has, you know,
19 knowledge of a specific area.
20· · ·Q.· ·And other than financial projections, what
21 other business analyses do you provide as part of this
22 role with respect to regulatory, investigation or
23 litigation matters?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form and also
25 object to the extent that your question seeks to invade
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 46 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 the attorney work product doctrine or the
·2 attorney/client privilege.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I'll ask again,
·
Other than financial projections, what
·5 other business analyses do you provide as part of your
·6 role with respect to regulatory, investigative or
·7 litigation matters?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·9· · · · · · · ·We've been going for about an hour.· Let's
10 take a break.
11· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· He needs to answer my
12 question that is pending, and then we can take a break.
13 I'm happy to do that.
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I've instructed the witness
15 not to answer the question.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
17 instruction not to answer?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I'll say this.· I believe I answered this
19 already.· I think if you're asking for anything further,
20 it would fall into privileged communications with
21 counsel.· And specifically what I said earlier was that
22 I'm responsible for steering the organization through
23 the changes in regulation.
24· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 47 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Going off the record at
·2 9:39 a.m.
·3· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·4· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·5 9:54 a.m.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you for returning,
··8· · · · · · · ·In your August 11th, 2021 deposition you
·9 told me about positions you held at Alphabet before your
10 current position.· Do you have anything to add to the
11 testimony you provided on August 11th, 2021 regarding
12 prior positions you have held at Google?
13· · ·A.· ·No.
14· · ·Q.· ·In your August 11th, 2021 deposition you told
15 me about positions you held prior to joining Alphabet or
16 Google, including jobs that you held at PayPal and other
17 companies.· Do you have anything to add to that
18 testimony?
19· · ·A.· ·Beyond the questions you asked, no.
20· · ·Q.· ·Great.· Are you still a board member and
21 investor in the company
?
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·Is your ownership interest in the company still
24 approximately
?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 48 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·What work do you currently do for that company?
·2· · ·A.· ·I'm a board member.· That's it.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Do you still work for the company
··5· · ·A.· ·Sort of.· It's not really doing any business
·6 right now, and it's not a separate corporation.· It's
·7 just a sole proprietorship.· So, for example, if I refer
·8 a friend to a real estate broker, I might make money
·9 through that or something like that.· But no, I don't do
10 formal work.
11· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thanks for that.
12· · · · · · · ·In your August 2021 deposition you told me
13 about your educational background.· Do you have anything
14 to add to that testimony?
15· · ·A.· ·No.
16· · ·Q.· ·Great.· Is your Alphabet work e-mail address
17 still
google.com?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · ·Q.· ·Do you have any other e-mail addresses?
20· · ·A.· ·No.
21· · ·Q.· ·Does anyone else use your work e-mail address?
22· · ·A.· ·No.
23· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
com?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 49 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
·
gmail.com?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
·
com?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
·
com?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
com?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Do you use any other e-mail addresses that I
14 have not yet mentioned?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes,
com.
16· · ·Q.· ·Are there any others?
17· · ·A.· ·Nope.
18· · ·Q.· ·Have you ever used any of these non-Google
19 e-mail addresses for Google or Alphabet business?
20· · ·A.· ·No.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please up
22 load tab 8 into the Chat.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
24 know when you have this document in front of you.
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'd like the court reporter
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 50 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 to please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 3.
·2· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 3 marked)
·3· · ·A.· ·Okay.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter sent to the
·5 Division on October 28th, 2021 by your counsel,
·6 Ms. Elmer, regarding the civil investigative demand
·7 about which you are testifying today.· Have you seen
·8 this letter before?
·9· · ·A.· ·I don't know if I've seen this letter before,
10 but I have just read it.
11· · ·Q.· ·So prior to today, your testimony is that you
12 have not seen this letter before.· Is that correct?
13· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I don't remember specifically reviewing
14 this letter.
15· · ·Q.· ·Who prepared this letter?
16· · ·A.· ·It looks like Julie Elmer prepared it.
17· · ·Q.· ·Who at Alphabet assisted in the preparation of
18 this letter?
19· · ·A.· ·Our legal team would be my guess.
20· · ·Q.· ·But you don't know?
21· · ·A.· ·I don't know, but I can say with -- I strongly
22 believe that
and
together would have been
23 responsible for communicating with Julie.
24· · ·Q.· ·And what are
and
last names?
25· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· I'm not great with names.· They're
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 51 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 on the call.· Can I ask them to show their names?
·2· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· I can see them as well, which is why I
·3 asked you.
·4· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Mainly I don't want to mess up their
·5 last names.
·6· · ·Q.· ·But it's okay.· We'll just -- the court
·7 reporter is taking them down.
·8· · · · · · · ·So they are the two attorneys who are
·9 present today.· Is that correct?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
12· · · · · · · ·Did any nonlawyers at Alphabet assist in
13 the preparation of this letter?
14· · ·A.· ·To my knowledge, no.
15· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· On the first page of this letter
16 Ms. Elmer wrote beginning in the middle of the first
17 paragraph to this letter, "Please see the information in
18 the file" -- I'm sorry.· Let me start again.
19· · · · · · · ·"Please see the information in the
20 appendix which sets forth the privilege log numbers of
21 documents that the company has withheld for
22 attorney/client privilege, work product protection
23 and/or another cognizable privilege in response to Civil
24 Investigative Demand No. 30471 and that contain the
25 names of the projects identified in the CID schedule."
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 52 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·Did I read that correctly?
·2· · ·A.· ·I believe so.
·3· · ·Q.· ·In identifying the documents listed in the
·4 appendix to this letter, which are at pages 3 through ·5 of Exhibit 3, did Alphabet do a search only for
·6 documents that contain the exact names of the projects
·7 identified in the CID schedule?
·8· · ·A.· ·Can I confer with counsel on this briefly?
·9· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
11· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
12 10:01 a.m.
13· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
14· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
15 10:04 a.m.
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· So I object to your
17 questions, Brent, as being outside the scope of the CID.
18 The CID does not request how we manage our discovery
19 process, how we manage responding to DOJ correspondence,
20 how we do our privilege log.· All of that invades our
21 work product, the work product doctrine.
22· · · · · · · ·And the witness is not prepared to respond
23 to questions about how Freshfields responds to DOJ's
24 correspondence.
25· · · · · · · ·So I object to it as being outside the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 53 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 scope.· He can answer in his individual capacity to the
·2 extent that he knows.
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· So what I'd like to
·4 understand, though, with respect to your scope objection
·5 is the subject line of this letter is "Civil
·6 Investigative Demand No. 30769."· That is the
·7 established CID that
as Alphabet's
·8 representative, is sitting here testifying to.
·9· · · · · · · ·I am surprised that a letter that came
10 many months ago was not reviewed by him, and I am going
11 to take testimony on Alphabet's corporate position.· To
12 the extent that he does not have an answer because he
13 was not prepared, obviously that is the answer that I
14 will get today.
15· · · · · · · ·But with that, I can resume questioning
16 unless you have anything else to say, Ms. Elmer.
17· · ·A.· ·I'd also like to interject.· So as I reviewed
18 the rest of the document -- I apologize here -19 including the documents, and I have seen this list
20 before.· This was part of my preparation.· And I
21 apologize.· The first page with a lot of legalese I did
22 not recognize, but I have viewed this document and I
23 have noted the many documents that were provided.
24· · · · · · · ·So I want to restate.· I have seen this
25 document.· I have reviewed the articles in the piece.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
I
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 54 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 just did not recognize that front page.· So I have seen
·2 this.· But as -- and I'll defer back to Julie with
·3 respect to answering because "I don't know" is the
·4 answer to your question.· I don't know what process
·5 Freshfields used.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
·7· · · · · · · ·So as Alphabet's corporate designee
·8 sitting here today, is it Alphabet's representation this
·9 is a complete list of all documents withheld on the
10 basis of attorney/client privilege, the work product
11 protection and/or another cognizable privilege in
12 response to Civil Investigative Demand No. 30471?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object to your question as
14 improper as it invades the attorney/client privilege.
15 And, more importantly, it invades the work product
16 doctrine.· This is a letter that Freshfields wrote in
17 response to you-all.
18· · · · · · · ·If you'll also note, the letter says that
19 it is in reference to the CID, the document CID.·
20 is not here to talk about how Freshfields put together a
21 privilege log.
22· · · · · · · ·I instruct the witness not to answer this
23 question.
24· · · · · · · ·Your questions are improper.· And let's go
25 on to the scope of the CID, or I will terminate the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 55 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 deposition.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· That is your option, and I
·3 understand your position.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
will you
·5 follow Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·8· · · · · · · ·All right.· One more question,
·
-- or a couple more questions I guess about
10 this, about what you have reviewed.· So you said that
11 you have reviewed pages 3 through 18 to this Exhibit
12 No. 3.· Is that correct?
13· · ·A.· ·Can we put the document back up?
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
15 put that back in the Chat.
16· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· I still have it up separately.
I
17 think I'm okay.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.· So I reviewed 3 through 18, yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·And did you review any of the documents listed
21 here in preparation for this deposition?
22· · ·A.· ·Likely I reviewed the metadata of some of the
23 documents listed here, although it would -- I wouldn't
24 know it by the privilege log number.· Specifically I
25 would know it based on the documents being in my drive.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 56 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, did you use this list to
·2 refresh your recollection with respect to how the
·3 documents related to certain projects?· For example, in
·4 the second or right-hand column, Project Banksy as
·5 related to the first document there, is that how you
·6 would have used this appendix?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection and same
·8 instruction.· You don't have to answer that question,
·
That invades the work product doctrine and
10 attorney/client privilege.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you going to follow that
12 instruction?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·And did you ever communicate to any lawyer
15 about how you were using this list of documents on
16 pages 3 through 8 of appendix -- I'm sorry -- of
17 Exhibit 3?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· Assumes
19 facts.· I think you're misconstruing his testimony,
20 Brent.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'll have the court
22 reporter please read back the question.
23· · · · · · · ·(The record was read as requested.)
24· · ·A.· ·I feel like you're restating -- or you're
25 making an assumption in that that I haven't spoken to.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 57 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·My advice from counsel is that any
·2 communications here are privileged.· So I'm not
·3 declining to answer your question.· I'm saying I don't
·4 understand how you came up with your question because
·5 it's assuming things I didn't convey to you.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Well, you've listened
·7 carefully, and that's very helpful.
·8· · · · · · · ·Just so I'm clear and to help me out, how
·9 again did you use pages 3 through 18 of Exhibit 3 in
10 preparation for this deposition?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· I don't think
12 he testified that he used them.· He testified that he's
13 seen them before, and that's a big distinction.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
how, if at
15 all, did you use the information provided in pages 16 through 18 of Exhibit 3 in preparation for this
17 deposition?
18· · ·A.· ·I reviewed the list.
19· · ·Q.· ·And did you use the project names listed in the
20 second column here, the right-hand column, of pages 21 through 8 of Exhibit 3?
22· · ·A.· ·So I'm confused about that question.· So yes,
23 of course I used the names; but that doesn't have
24 anything to do with this list.
25· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean by --
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 58 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·The names are the projects on the CID.· How
·2 could I testify I didn't use the project names?· So
·3 you're conflating using the names on the right side with
·4 me doing stuff.· So I'm not -- I'm not clear what you're
·5 getting at here.
·6· · · · · · · ·Yes, of course the names were used.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·8· · ·A.· ·But not related to this list.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· That's helpful.· Thank you.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
11 put up tab 9, please.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay,
Please
13 let me know when you have that up.
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I have this up.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Could the court reporter
16 please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 4.
17· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 4 marked)
18· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter sent to the
19 Division on November 15th, 2021 by your counsel,
20 Ms. Elmer, regarding the civil investigative demand
21 about which you are testifying today.· Have you seen
22 this letter before?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·When did you see this letter?
25· · ·A.· ·As part of the preparation and -- earlier this
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 59 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 month.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Did you see the entirety of this letter,
·3 including the first two pages as well as the appendix?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And who prepared this letter?
·6· · ·A.· ·It says that Julie Elmer prepared this letter.
·7· · ·Q.· ·What is Alphabet's position regarding who else
·8 prepared this letter?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I'm going to instruct the
10 witness not to answer.· This is -- well, I'll say this.
11 I object to the question as being beyond the scope.· He
12 may answer in his individual capacity.· But the CID does
13 not ask about Freshfields' preparation of letters, and
14 the witness is not prepared to talk about the process
15 that his outside counsel uses to prepare letters to the
16 DOJ.
17· · · · · · · ·But you may answer to the extent you know
18 in your individual capacity,
19· · ·A.· ·Okay.· I believe
would be involved.
20 That's the extent of my full -- like I do not know for a
21 fact, but I assume that she is involved.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So just so I round this out,
23 is it Alphabet's position today that you are not -- that
24 Alphabet is not going to provide any testimony today
25 regarding who prepared this letter.· Is that correct?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 60 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· As suggested by counsel, yes.
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· That's outside the
·3 scope, Brent.· If you want to have a conversation with
·4 me later about this, I'm happy to do so.
·5· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I appreciate that.· I will
·6 likely take you up on your offer, Ms. Elmer.
I
·7 appreciate that.· But I want to make the record clear
·8 today, and I can move on.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So,
did you in
10 any way use the appendix to this letter listing
11 documents in your preparation for today's deposition as
12 Alphabet's corporate representative?
13· · ·A.· ·Aside from reviewing, no.
14· · ·Q.· ·And how did the -- how did you use the appendix
15 to this letter in reviewing for today's deposition as
16 Alphabet's corporate representative?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection, assumes facts and
18 misconstrues testimony.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I have received Julie's
20 privilege objection.· My question is how, if at all, did
21 you use the appendix to this letter in reviewing for
22 today's deposition as Alphabet's designated corporate
23 representative?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· He's already
25 testified that aside from reviewing it, he did not use
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 61 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 it.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
I'd like an
·3 answer to my question about how, if at all, you used it.
·4 Let me just back up.· I'll make it clearer.
·5· · · · · · · ·When you say "reviewed," what do you mean
·6 by reviewed the documents listed in this letter?
·7· · ·A.· ·I didn't say reviewed the documents listed.
I
·8 said I reviewed the list.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Uh-huh.· And what did you -- how did reviewing
10 the list help you in your preparation?
11· · ·A.· ·It merely made me aware of the documents that
12 were noted here, and that's it.· I did not use this
13 further.
14· · ·Q.· ·All right.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
16 upload tab 6 into the Chat.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
18 know when you have that in front of you.
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'd like the court reporter
20 to mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 5.
21· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 5 marked)
22· · ·A.· ·Okay.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter sent to the
24 Division on September 14th, 2021 by your counsel,
25 Ms. Elmer, regarding the civil investigative demand
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 62 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 about which you are testifying today.
·2· · · · · · · ·Have you seen this letter before?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And when have you seen this letter before?
·5· · ·A.· ·In early February as part of the preparation
·6 process.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And who at Alphabet prepared this letter?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· It's outside
·9 scope.
10· · · · · · · ·You may testify in your individual
11 capacity, if you know,
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'm sorry.· Hold on a sec.
13 So, Ms. Elmer, I'd like to understand the basis for your
14 outside-the-scope objection, given that this letter
15 literally responds to specifications point by point to
16 the CID to which
is sitting in response to
17 today.· Why is that out of scope?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Well, first of all, the DOJ
19 has rejected these letters as being responsive to the
20 CID and has insisted upon
testimony.· A 30(b)(6)
21 witness is the testimony of the company.· That's why
22 we're here today.
23· · · · · · · ·And your CID does not include a
24 specification seeking testimony about outside counsel
25 preparation of letters to the DOJ on any topic,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 63 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 including the topic of this CID.
·2· · · · · · · ·So if you insist on asking the witness
·3 questions about outside counsel's work, I will terminate
·4 the deposition and suggest that you move on to the
·5 specifications that are set forth in the CID.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· I understand your
·7 position.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
is it
·9 Alphabet's position today that this letter does not
10 represent the corporate position of Alphabet with
11 respect to this civil investigative demand to which you
12 are sitting here in response to today?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I am here to testify with the corporate
14 position which supersedes this letter.
15· · ·Q.· ·Does anything in this letter represent the
16 corporate position of Alphabet?
17· · ·A.· ·I believe if we discuss these line by line, you
18 will find a lot of overlaps; and you may also find some
19 discrepancies.
20· · ·Q.· ·So what in this letter represents the corporate
21 position of Alphabet?
22· · ·A.· ·Okay.· This is going to take a long time to
23 walk through.· Would you like to walk through that?
24· · ·Q.· ·Yes.
25· · ·A.· ·Okay.· I think the easiest way to say this is
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 64 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 that we have updated this letter specifically with the
·2 communication on February 25th to correct a couple of
·3 pieces of information that likely outside counsel did
·4 not have full knowledge of.
·5· · · · · · · ·So if you're asking which pieces of this,
·6 I think you'll find them specifically in the letter
·7 dated Feb 25.
·8· · ·Q.· ·So I'm just trying to make this process
·9 simpler.· I just want to understand, because in my
10 reading of this letter, there's some pieces of
11 information here that are not included in the
12 February 25th letter, and I don't know whether that is
13 by mistake or whether or not something supersedes
14 something else.· So that is why I'm asking you these
15 questions.
16· · · · · · · ·So what in this letter is Alphabet's
17 corporate position with respect to the specifications in
18 the CID?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection, asked and answered.
20 I'd like to take a break to discuss an issue of
21 privilege.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'm sorry.· Before you go
23 off the record, are you intending to claw back part of
24 this document?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· No.· The question has been
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 65 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 asked and answered.· He's already answered your
·2 question, Brent.
·3· · · · · · · ·
if you'd like to answer it again,
·4 please go ahead before we go off the record.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Yeah.· So the question
·6 pending is what in this letter is Alphabet's corporate
·7 position with respect to the specifications that you are
·8 here to testify about today in the CID?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Other than what he's already
10 said about the February 25th letter?· What more are you
11 asking for, Brent?
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
if you'd like,
13 we can just walk through this letter and you can tell me
14 what is right, what is wrong, what is superseded and
15 what is not.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you upload
17 into the Chat -- you know what, let's just do it this
18 way.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So,
please
20 just keep this on your computer.· I'll be referring back
21 to it later.· Okay?
22· · ·A.· ·Okay.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, why don't you
24 upload tab 7 into the Chat.
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.· I asked for a break.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 66 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 So let's take a break before we move on to the next
·2 document, please.
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's take a
·4 break.
·5· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·6 10:22 a.m.
·7· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·8· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·9 10:29 a.m.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
I'd just like
12 to clear up one matter before we move on.· I notice that
13 you picked up your phone just before we went on the
14 break.· I just want to make sure to remind you that use
15 of a phone or any other device is not permitted while
16 you're on the record during this deposition.· Do you
17 understand that?
18· · ·A.· ·I don't recall picking up my phone.
19· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Perhaps I was just mistaken, but I just
20 wanted to issue that reminder.· That's totally my
21 mistake.
22· · ·A.· ·I think that was my teacup.
23· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· My mistake, I apologize.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you upload
25 tab 7 into the Chat.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 67 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
·2 please let me know when you have that in front of you.
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Could the court reporter
·4 please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 6.
·5· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 6 marked)
·6· · ·A.· ·Okay.· I have this document.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter sent to the
·8 Division on October 24, 2021 by your counsel, Ms. Elmer,
·9 regarding the civil investigative demand about which you
10 are testifying today.· Have you seen this letter before?
11· · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·When did you see this letter?
13· · ·A.· ·In preparation in early February.
14· · ·Q.· ·Approximately when in early February did you
15 see this letter?
16· · ·A.· ·February 7th.
17· · ·Q.· ·And when did you first see the letter that was
18 previously marked as Exhibit 5 that was sent on
19 September 14, 2021?· Was that also on February 7?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·Who prepared this letter?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection as
23 before.· We're not here to talk about how outside
24 counsel prepares letters, particularly ones that have
25 been rejected by the DOJ, as being acceptable responses
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 68 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 to CID No. 30769.
·2· · · · · · · ·But if you know who prepared the letter,
·3 you may say so,
in your individual capacity.
·4· · ·A.· ·I believe Julie Elmer prepared this letter.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Did you or anyone else at
·6 Alphabet assist in the preparation of this letter?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection, same scope
·8 objection, outside scope.
·9· · · · · · · ·You may testify in your individual
10 capacity if you know,
11· · ·A.· ·I don't know.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· On page 1 of the letter
13 Ms. Elmer wrote in the first full paragraph, "In
14 response to your letter of September 17th, 2021 and
15 based on further investigation, the company submits the
16 following information in response to the Division's
17 civil investigative demand for 30(b)(6) deposition
18 testimony (CID) issued August 23, 2021."
19· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·What further investigation did anyone at
22 Alphabet do in preparing this letter?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
24 answer to the extent that it calls for -- or because it
25 calls for work product.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 69 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
·2 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I don't know how I can answer that
·4 without potentially violating privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you upload
·7 tab 20, please, into the Chat.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
·9 know when that is in front of you.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Could the court reporter
11 please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 7.
12· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 7 marked)
13· · ·A.· ·I have this in front of me.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter that has
15 been marked as Alphabet Exhibit 7 that was attached to
16 an e-mail sent to the Division at 8:47 p.m. Eastern Time
17 on Friday, February 25th, from your counsel, Ms. Elmer.
18· · · · · · · ·So, first of all, do you know why
19 Ms. Elmer sent me this letter?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object as calling for work
21 product information.· I instruct the witness not to
22 answer.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you going to follow
24 Ms. Elmer's instruction?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes, with the exception if you actually read
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 70 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 the letter, it says this letter corrects counsel's
·2 letters.· So I am willing to say that.
·3· · · · · · · ·Other than that, I think privilege
·4 applies.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what errors were made that needed to be
·6 corrected in the counsel's letters of September 14th,
·7 2021 and October 4th, 2021?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Are you asking for -- I think,
·9 Brent, if you have a specific question that you can
10 direct the witness to, I think that would be easier.
11 You know, the scope of your CID does not include topics
12 of how does outside counsel prepare letters.· So this is
13 something that he is not prepared to testify for in his
14 capacity as a corporate designee.· So I think you're
15 going to need to point him to specific items in the
16 letters and ask him specific questions.
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you for that,
18 Ms. Elmer.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Let me just confirm one
20 thing for you,
Ms. Elmer just told us
21 that as to what errors were made that needed to be
22 corrected in the counsel's letters of September 14th,
23 2021 and October 4th, 2021, that you were not prepared
24 as the corporate designee to testify to those topics.
25 Do you agree with that?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 71 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Again, Brent, I object to the
·2 entire line of questioning as being improper because it
·3 is about outside counsel work product.· This is not a
·4 topic that was listed in your CID.
·5· · · · · · · ·And just because a letter has a "re" line
·6 that is referring to the CID doesn't mean that it
·7 relates to a specification set forth in the CID.· We've
·8 had a lot of process disputes about this CID, and I am
·9 not going to allow the witness to answer questions about
10 letters that are drafted by Freshfields, full stop.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· And,
are you going to follow Ms. Elmer's
13 instruction not to answer my question?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I think she's provided a fairly
15 straightforward reason why.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Did you provide any information to
17 Alphabet's counsel that assisted in the preparation of
18 this February 25th letter?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection and same
20 instruction.
21· · · · · · · ·Don't answer that,
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you going to follow
23 Ms. Elmer's instruction?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I believe that's privileged.
25· · ·Q.· ·Are you using this letter to assist you in
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 72 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 testifying today as the corporate designee, as
·2 Alphabet's corporate representative?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I'm using this as a portion.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Have you had this letter in front of you during
·5 the entirety of this deposition so far?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And do you intend to use this letter to assist
·8 you with your testimony throughout the remainder of this
·9 deposition?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·So I ask again.· And if you would like to
12 refuse to answer, that is your prerogative.· But did you
13 provide any information, whether written or oral, to
14 Alphabet's counsel that assisted in any way in the
15 preparation of this letter?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And,
I'll state this,
17 that I object to the question to the extent that it
18 invades the privilege.· To the extent that you can
19 answer the question without invading the privilege, you
20 may answer.
21· · ·A.· ·I provided information to counsel.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· In what form?
23· · ·A.· ·Orally.· And this -- I will say that the letter
24 is consistent with Google's official position.
25· · ·Q.· ·So is it correct that the entirety of this
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 73 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 letter is representative of Alphabet's corporate
·2 testimony today?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection.· The DOJ has
·4 already rejected letters as being responsive to the CID
·5 and has insisted on us putting a witness up live, which
·6 we are doing here today.
·7· · · · · · · ·So I think you guys have already made
·8 clear that the -- this letter is not the complete
·9 representation of Alphabet's testimony; rather, the
10 witness' testimony is Alphabet's testimony per the DOJ's
11 own insistence over the last six months.
12· · · · · · · ·So I object to that question as assuming
13 facts, being misleading, being argumentative and trying
14 to confuse the witness.· Why don't you re-ask your
15 question and make it more clear, Brent.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· When you state that this
17 letter reflects Google's official position, what parts
18 of the letter reflect Google's official position?
19· · ·A.· ·So Google's position is consistent with
20 everything that's contained in this Feb. 25 letter.· And
21 I am also here to ask any additional questions that you
22 might have.
23· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
24· · · · · · · ·Did you write any part of this letter?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object as to scope; but,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 74 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·
to the extent you can answer in your individual
·2 capacity and if you know, you may answer.
·3· · ·A.· ·No.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All righty.· Let's move on,
·5 keeping this exhibit up to help us both.· I'm sorry.
·6 Let me back up.
·7· · · · · · · ·You have a hard copy of this letter in
·8 front of you.· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·I will now move on to ask you about Project
11 Sunday, which is part of specifications 1a and
12 specification 2.
13· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Sunday" for
14 the project?
15· · ·A.· ·I don't know for certain, but I believe it was
17· · ·Q.· ·What is Project Sunday?
18· · ·A.· ·Project Sunday was an analysis to respond to
19 potential regulatory action.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what was the goal of Project Sunday?
21· · ·A.· ·Without invading privileged information, it was
22 to inform our leadership about our options.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what were Alphabet's objectives as part of
24 Project Sunday?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
I advise you to be
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 75 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 cautious of invading the work product doctrine or the
·2 privilege.· But to the extent that you can answer
·3 without doing so, you may.
·4· · ·A.· ·Sure.· You asked the objectives?· Is that
·5 right?
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Yes.· I'll just restate.
·7· · · · · · · ·What were Alphabet's objectives as part of
·8 Project Sunday?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
10· · ·A.· ·To understand the implications of our potential
11 responses to regulatory actions.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Were there any other
13 objectives that Alphabet had as part of Project Sunday?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·And do you say "no" because any other
16 objectives are protected in Alphabet's view by privilege
17 or because there were no other objectives?
18· · ·A.· ·There were no other objectives.
19· · ·Q.· ·And what are -- what in Alphabet's view were
20 the business implications of Alphabet's potential
21 responses to regulatory actions as a part of Project
22 Sunday?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object to that question as
24 invading the work product doctrine and instruct the
25 witness not to answer.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 76 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·2 instruction?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·What outside counsel were involved with Project
·5 Sunday?
·6· · ·A.· ·Outside counsel, for that, I'll need to look
·7 through the letter.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, if it helps you, I'm happy to
·9 just work through the letter.· I just need your sworn
10 testimony that what the letter says is or is not
11 accurate.
12· · · · · · · ·So we can go piece by piece through that
13 if that's a good starting point for you.
14· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I would appreciate that, and I'll
15 reiterate that the letter is here to assist as well to
16 make sure that we have as correct a set of facts as
17 possible.· So I'm happy to work through in conjunction
18 with that.
19· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So on Exhibit 7, page 4 under the
20 heading Project Sunday, let me know when you have that
21 in front of you.
22· · ·A.· ·I do.
23· · ·Q.· ·Is this list on the second bullet point of
24 outside counsel a full, complete and accurate list of
25 all outside counsel who worked on Project Sunday?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 77 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Is the third bullet point a full and complete
·3 list of all Google in-house counsel who worked on
·4 Project Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Is the fourth bullet point a full and complete
·7 list of all Google employees who worked on Project
·8 Sunday?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·What was the role of -11· · ·A.· ·And can I just -- I want to make sure that
12 we're clear about semantics here.· When you say "worked
13 on," there's a fairly large distinction between "worked
14 on" and "was made aware of."· So I don't want to convey
15 that everyone on this list was an active working member
16 of this project.
17· · · · · · · ·I would say that a subset of these people
18 worked on it and a larger subset of this group were made
19 aware of the information here.
20· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I appreciate that.
21· · · · · · · ·So on this fourth bullet point the first
22 name is
What was that individual's
23 responsibility and work performed as to Project Sunday?
24· · ·A.· ·So his responsibility was to designate his
25 direct report,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
to lead the corporate
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 78 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 development aspects of the project; and that was his
·2 entire responsibility.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·4· · · · · · · ·And what was
responsibility
·5 and what work did she do on Project Sunday?
·6· · ·A.· ·I can't speak to the work she did because I
·7 think that would violate privilege, but her
·8 responsibility was a combination of project manager and
·9 representative in her corporate capacity.
10· · ·Q.· ·So let me get this refusal on the record.· What
11 work did
do for Project Sunday?
12· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I think you're asking me to tell you
13 what we did in a project that was specifically directed
14 by legal to do.· So I don't understand how I could do
15 that without violating the privilege of this project.
16· · ·Q.· ·If you refuse to answer my question, I
17 understand that.· Are you refusing to answer my question
18 as to what work
did for Project Sunday?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·What department does
work in at
21 Google?
22· · ·A.· ·Corporate development.
23· · ·Q.· ·What was the work that
performed
24 for Project Sunday?
25· · ·A.· ·He worked for
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
and provided analysis.
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 79 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And what department does
work in?
·2· · ·A.· ·Corporate development.· I'm sorry.· Did you say
·3 what does he work in or what did he work in?
·4· · ·Q.· ·At the time he worked on Project Sunday, what
·5 department did
work in?
·6· · ·A.· ·Corporate development.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
do for Project
·8 Sunday?
·9· · ·A.· ·As stated, analysis.
10· · ·Q.· ·And what types of analysis did
do?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object and instruct the
12 witness not to answer to the extent it invades the work
13 product doctrine.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow that
15 instruction?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·Other than privileged information, can you
18 describe any work
did on Project Sunday?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection, asked and answered.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
other than
21 privileged information, can you describe any work that
did on Project Sunday?
23· · ·A.· ·Nope.
24· · ·Q.· ·What work did
do on Project Sunday?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
To
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 80 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 the extent that answering would invade the work product
·2 doctrine, I instruct you not to answer.
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.· The response is identical to what I gave
·4 you for
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what department does
·
work in -- worked in at Alphabet at the time
·7 of Project Sunday?
·8· · ·A.· ·Corporate development.
·9· · ·Q.· ·What work did
do for Project Sunday?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
11· · ·A.· ·She did no work on the project.
12· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· What were her
13 responsibilities with respect to Project Sunday?
14· · ·A.· ·To designate me to complete portions of the
15 project and to review the outcome.
16· · ·Q.· ·What did
do to review the outcome of
17 Project Sunday?
18· · ·A.· ·She listened to a presentation.
19· · ·Q.· ·And did
make any decisions with
20 respect to Project Sunday based on the information
21 provided to her?
22· · ·A.· ·No, no decisions were made.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what were your responsibilities with
24 respect to Project Sunday?
25· · ·A.· ·To provide analysis.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 81 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·What types of analysis were you to provide as
·2 part of your job responsibilities with respect to
·3 Project Sunday?
·4· · ·A.· ·That would invade privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·So are you refusing to answer my question about
·6 your job responsibilities on Project Sunday on the basis
·7 of privilege?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes, of course.
·9· · ·Q.· ·What work did you do with respect to Project
10 Sunday?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Instruct the witness not to
12 answer to the extent that responding would invade the
13 work product doctrine.
14· · · · · · · ·
if there is a way to respond that
15 would not invade the work product doctrine or the
16 privilege, you may do so.
17· · ·A.· ·I provided an analysis and I gave a
18 presentation.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· When did you give this
20 presentation?
21· · ·A.· ·October -- either September or October, in that
22 time frame, of 2020.
23· · ·Q.· ·And to whom did you present?
24· · ·A.· ·To the list of Google employees included here.
25· · ·Q.· ·Did you present to any Google employees who are
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 82 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 not listed here?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·What was the format of the presentation?
·4· · ·A.· ·There was a slides document, and it was
·5 provided over a GVC videoconference.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else give that presentation other
·7 than you?
·8· · ·A.· ·Portions, yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And who were those other people who delivered
10 portions of that presentation?
11· · ·A.· ·
and
12· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else present besides the people we
13 have just mentioned?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·Is there any other work that you did for
16 Project Sunday other than the presentation given in
17 September or October of 2020?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
19· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· What's the instruction?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Which is to the extent that
21 you can answer without invading the work product
22 doctrine or privilege, you may do so.
23· · ·A.· ·Sure.· I believe the presentation was given -24 when
moved to a different role, I believe
25 the presentation was given as a -- for awareness to her
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 83 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 successor, who was
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.· And
·3 approximately what was the date of that presentation?
·4· · ·A.· ·Best guess, late April 2021.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what was
set of
·6 responsibilities with respect to Project Sunday?
·7· · ·A.· ·Sure.· He was responsible for providing
·8 analysis.
·9· · ·Q.· ·What kind of analysis was he in charge of
10 providing as part of Project Sunday?
11· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I can't answer that, you know, per
12 privilege.
13· · ·Q.· ·So to be clear, you're refusing to answer my
14 question on the basis of privilege.· Is that correct?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And the work product doctrine.
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.· Obviously we
18 can have that as a continuing objection to speed this
19 along.· That's fine with me.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· Great.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What department does
work in at Google at the time of Project
23 Sunday?
24· · ·A.· ·In the -- he's in the Ads division.
25· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Could you explain more about what
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 84 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 you mean by the Ads division and what products he
·2 covers?
·3· · ·A.· ·He was responsible for buy-side products, not
·4 including Google ads.· So I believe he was in a
·5 division -- I'm sorry.· The divisions have changed names
·6 over time, but he was responsible for DB360 and the
·7 product DCM, the campaign manager.
·8· · ·Q.· ·DoubleClick Campaign Manager.· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· And what work did
do
11 for Project Sunday?
12· · ·A.· ·He was a recipient or a listener to the
13 presentation.
14· · ·Q.· ·And by "the presentation," you mean the
15 presentation given in September/October of 2020.· Is
16 that correct?
17· · ·A.· ·Yep.
18· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job
19 responsibilities with respect to Project Sunday?
20· · ·A.· ·I can give you what his responsibilities were
21 in general; but I think with respect to the project, I
22 think that would invade privilege.
23· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And are you refusing to answer my
24 questions specifically with respect to Project Sunday on
25 the basis of privilege as to
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
job
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 85 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 responsibilities?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And what generally outside -- just generally at
·4 Alphabet were
job responsibilities at the
·5 time of Project Sunday?
·6· · ·A.· ·So he worked for the CFO, and his job was to
·7 understand financial impact and provide guidance to the
·8 businesses.
·9· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry for interrupting you.
10· · · · · · · ·And when you say "the CFO," do you mean
11 Ruth Porat?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
14· · · · · · · ·What was
job
15 responsibilities with respect to Project Sunday?
16· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· He listened to the presentation.
17· · ·Q.· ·What work, if any, did
produce
18 as part of Project Sunday?
19· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I think you're going to get a consistent
20 answer.· So I don't know if you want to keep asking
21 every time.
22· · ·Q.· ·I must.· So I'm just going to ask you.· What
23 work product did
produce as part of
24 Project Sunday?
25· · ·A.· ·He didn't produce any work.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 86 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·2· · · · · · · ·And what were
job
·3 responsibilities at Alphabet at the time of Project
·4 Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·He was a director of finance in Ads.
·6· · ·Q.· ·What work did
, do as part of
·7 Project Sunday?
·8· · ·A.· ·She provided analysis.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what kinds of analysis did she provide?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
11 answer as it invades the work product doctrine and
12 attorney/client privilege.
13· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
15· · · · · · · ·And what job responsibilities did
16 have at the time of Project Sunday?
17· · ·A.· ·She was a -18· · ·Q.· ·I apologize.· With respect specifically to
19 Project Sunday.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Wait.· Please ask the question
21 again, Brent.· It got garbled.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I appreciate that, Julie.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So with respect specifically
24 to Project Sunday, what were
job
25 responsibilities?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 87 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction,
·2· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· To provide analysis.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And you are otherwise
·4 refusing to answer on the basis of privilege.· Is that
·5 correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·At the time of Project Sunday what were
·
job responsibilities at Google?
·9· · ·A.· ·She was a finance manager.
10· · ·Q.· ·And to whom did she report?
11· · ·A.· ·To
.
12· · ·Q.· ·What work did
do with
13 respect to Project Sunday?
14· · ·A.· ·He listened to a presentation.
15· · ·Q.· ·And is that only the presentation in September
16 or October of 2020?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·What responsibilities did
have
19 with respect to Project Sunday?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· To the
21 extent that you can answer without invading the
22 privilege, you may.
23· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I can't answer.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Was
a key
25 decision-maker with respect to Project Sunday?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 88 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·So you're asking a speculative question that
·2 assumes decisions would have been -- or decisions were
·3 made.· So I guess I don't know how to answer your
·4 question.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, I asked because in a previous
·6 letter sent by Ms. Elmer,
was described as
·7 a key decision-maker.· So I'm just seeking clarification
·8 as to whether or not that's correct.· Obviously, if it's
·9 not correct and you've corrected it here in testimony,
10 I'm fine with that.
11· · · · · · · ·My question is simply was
a
12 key decision-maker with respect to Project Sunday?
13· · ·A.· ·No.· I think that prior letter was incorrect.
14· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· What work did
do with
15 respect to Project Sunday?
16· · ·A.· ·He listened to the presentation.
17· · ·Q.· ·Did he do any other work with respect to
18 Project Sunday?
19· · ·A.· ·No.
20· · ·Q.· ·What responsibilities did
have
21 with respect to Project Sunday?
22· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that.
23· · ·Q.· ·And why not?
24· · ·A.· ·Privilege and work product.
25· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And did
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
attend both the
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 89 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 presentation in late April 2021 and the presentation in
·2 September or October of 2020?
·3· · ·A.· ·I am -- I'm certain he attended the one in
·4 October.· I don't know if he would have attended given
·5 it was materially the same presentation.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· What work did
do with
·7 respect to Project Sunday?
·8· · ·A.· ·He listened to the presentation.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Did he produce any other work with respect to
10 Project Sunday?
11· · ·A.· ·No.
12· · ·Q.· ·What were
responsibilities with
13 respect to Project Sunday?
14· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that.
15· · ·Q.· ·And why not?
16· · ·A.· ·Privilege.
17· · ·Q.· ·What were
responsibilities with
18 respect to Project Sunday?
19· · ·A.· ·She listened to the presentation.
20· · ·Q.· ·Did she create any work product -21· · ·A.· ·No.
22· · ·Q.· ·-- in response to Project Sunday?
23· · ·A.· ·Did she create any work product?
24· · ·Q.· ·Did she do any work?· I apologize.· Did she do
25 any work other than just listening to the presentation
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 90 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 with respect to Project Sunday?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And, lastly, what did
do with respect
·4 to Project Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·He listened to the presentation.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Did he create any written work product or
·7 anything else for Project Sunday?
·8· · ·A.· ·No.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job responsibilities
10 with respect to Project Sunday?
11· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that.
12· · ·Q.· ·Why not?
13· · ·A.· ·Privilege.
14· · ·Q.· ·Who initiated Project Sunday?
15· · ·A.· ·Ted Lazarus.
16· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else initiate Project Sunday?
17· · ·A.· ·It likely -- or it may have been in conjunction
18 with one or more of the senior management folks, as he
19 would have spoken with them to advise on issues
20 happening.
21· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean by "senior management folks"?
22 Who are those individuals?
23· · ·A.· ·
or
or
24· · ·Q.· ·And are any of those individuals lawyers?
25· · ·A.· ·Are you asking are they acting in the capacity
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 91 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 as a Google lawyer or are they -·2· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· That is my question.
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And which individuals are you
·4 referring to, Brent?
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are
·
or any of those senior
·7 management folks acting for Google as attorneys?
·8· · ·A.· ·No.
·9· · ·Q.· ·What event began Project Sunday?
10· · ·A.· ·I think it would be more consistent to say what
11 events precipitated it, and it was a host of global
12 regulatory action across privacy and antitrust.
13· · ·Q.· ·And did Mr. Walker begin Project Sunday by
14 sending an e-mail, starting a discussion?· What
15 precipitated, what began Project Sunday in Alphabet's
16 view?
17· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Did you say Mr. Walker?
18· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Mr. Lazarus.· I apologize.· I'll
19 ask again.· I'm sorry.· That's my fault.
20· · · · · · · ·Did Mr. Lazarus begin Project Sunday by
21 sending an e-mail, starting a discussion or doing
22 something else?
23· · ·A.· ·I believe he had a discussion, and I don't know
24 if it was an e-mail or a discussion.· But I believe he
25 had a discussion with
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
to instruct him to
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 92 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 allocate a project lead.· And then shortly thereafter I
·2 was instructed along with
in the finance
·3 group about our respective parts.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And who was the project lead that
·5 designated?
·6· · ·A.· ·
·7· · ·Q.· ·So within Project Sunday then did you report to
··9· · ·A.· ·I'm not sure I understand that.· I think you
10 could have a project lead and then you work as a team
11 with your relevant subject matter experts.
12· · ·Q.· ·And how would you describe the role of a
13 project lead with respect to what
was doing
14 for Project Sunday?
15· · ·A.· ·A coordinator.
16· · ·Q.· ·And a coordinator of what?
17· · ·A.· ·Just time frames, work product deliverables and
18 presentations.
19· · ·Q.· ·When did Project Sunday end?
20· · ·A.· ·Ended approximately -- I mean, effectively the
21 presentation was the final -- sort of the final like -22 work ended just at or before that final presentation.
23· · ·Q.· ·And by "that final presentation," do you mean
24 the presentation you and others gave on September or
25 October 2020?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 93 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·Q.· ·So no work went on with respect to Project
·3 Sunday between October of 2020 and late April of ·4 when a presentation was given at the point
·5 transitioned jobs.· Is that correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Has any work on Project Sunday gone on after
·8 April -- late April 2021?
·9· · ·A.· ·No.· No work has gone on.
10· · ·Q.· ·What was the cost to Alphabet associated with
11 Project Sunday, whether specified in dollars or hours?
12· · ·A.· ·It's very hard to give a cost.· It was an
13 analysis.· And so aside from outside counsel fees and
14 some individual time from the project members that we
15 discussed, there were no costs.
16· · ·Q.· ·And how much has Alphabet paid to outside
17 counsel in fees with respect to Project Sunday?
18· · ·A.· ·That's also very difficult to pinpoint because
19 we have counsel retained for a variety of issues, and a
20 lot is going on there.· So detangling what was for this
21 versus what was for, you know, handling many other
22 aspects of both litigation and ongoing compliance are -23 would be difficult.
24· · · · · · · ·So I guess that's the extent I can answer
25 that.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 94 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·So sitting here today as Alphabet's designated
·2 corporate representative, do you have any reasonable
·3 estimate of the amount that Alphabet paid to outside
·4 counsel with respect to Project Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·Can I confer briefly with counsel?
·6· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
·7· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record?· Off
·8 the record at 11:09 a.m.
·9· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
11 11:13 a.m.
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Could the court
13 reporter please read back the question.
14· · · · · · · ·(The record was read as requested.)
15· · ·A.· ·No, I don't for the reasons that I mentioned
16 earlier around many projects ongoing and really the
17 advice blurring between a number of different projects.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Did you look at billing
19 records from outside counsel to attempt to determine how
20 much Alphabet spent with respect to Project Sunday?
21· · ·A.· ·I did not.
22· · ·Q.· ·Did you do any other work to attempt to
23 determine whether Alphabet -- I'm sorry.· Strike that.
24· · · · · · · ·Did you do any other work to attempt to
25 determine the amount of money Alphabet spent on outside
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 95 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 counsel with respect to Project Sunday?
·2· · ·A.· ·No, I did not.
·3· · ·Q.· ·How many Alphabet employee hours have been
·4 spent on Project Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·That's impossible to answer because we don't
·6 track time internally.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Did you do anything to attempt to form a
·8 reasonable estimate of the amount of Alphabet employee
·9 hours that have been spent on Project Sunday?
10· · ·A.· ·That I could, you know, answer with full
11 surety, no.
12· · ·Q.· ·My question is about a reasonable estimate.
13 Did you do any work to attempt to form a reasonable
14 estimate with respect to the number of Alphabet employee
15 hours spent on Project Sunday?
16· · ·A.· ·So I could give a ballpark estimate, but that's
17 about as good as we could do.· If you find that
18 informative, great; but it would be with the caveat that
19 it is impossible to know the amount of time individuals
20 spend on a specific project that's not part of a
21 meeting.
22· · ·Q.· ·I appreciate your explanation.· What is the
23 ballpark estimate?
24· · ·A.· ·30 hours.
25· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And how did you come to make that
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 96 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 assessment?· What materials did you consider?
·2· · ·A.· ·Calendar.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Anything else?
·4· · ·A.· ·General understanding of the final work
·5 product.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Please name each governmental
·7 investigation or litigation that serves as a basis for
·8 Alphabet's work product privilege claims with respect to
·9 Project Sunday.
10· · ·A.· ·Sure.· The U.K. ICO, the Irish DPA, U.S.
11 Department of Justice, the Texas AG, the U.K. CMA and I
12 believe the EC.· Yes, the EC also.
13· · ·Q.· ·I apologize.· I failed to do this because it
14 was out of order.· But if you wanted to turn to page 15 of Exhibit 7, you have provided a list.· I just want to
16 make certain that that list is complete with respect to
17 all litigations and government investigations that form
18 the basis for Alphabet's privilege claims with respect
19 to Project Sunday.· Is that correct?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I will interject here to the
21 extent that this list does not include the private
22 litigation that is in the MDL, which is where the State
23 of Texas' litigation is now pending.
24· · · · · · · ·But with that caveat, you may answer,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 97 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·I'll say this is materially all.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· And by "materially
·3 all," you mean everything listed on Exhibit 7, page 2 as
·4 well as, as Ms. Elmer noted, the MDL litigation that
·5 includes the State of Texas.· Is that correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Sorry.· Was your question what active
·7 investigations?
·8· · ·Q.· ·No.· My question is what investigations,
·9 litigation or regulatory matters was Project Sunday
10 initiated in response to?
11· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So I think you have to separate those
12 out.· You're asking for regulatory matters as well,
13 which is an entirely different set.
14· · · · · · · ·So if you want to talk regulatory matters,
15 I'll have to start including many countries or regions
16 that have put into effect some -- either privacy or
17 antitrust regulations.· So that list is going to be much
18 longer here.
19· · · · · · · ·But if you want to speak to the first two
20 items, I can answer that this list materially provides
21 answers for the first two.
22· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, this list provides answers to
23 what investigations or litigation were involved with -24 Alphabet believes were involved with the initiation of
25 Project Sunday.· Is that correct?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 98 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes, that's correct.
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'll note here that the
·3 list -- if you look at the letter itself, the list is
·4 talking about active government regulation or
·5 investigations.· It is not talking about litigation.
·6· · · · · · · ·So I don't want the record to be muddled
·7 here.· Are you asking him about the list of government
·8 investigations that's in the letter, or are you also
·9 asking him about litigation that is the basis of the
10 privilege?
11· · · · · · · ·And, by the way, the litigation that is
12 the basis of the company's work product claims is not
13 within scope.· So if you could maybe un-compound your
14 question, I think it would be helpful.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· That's fine.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So what government
17 investigations form the basis for Project Sunday?
18· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So that, I can answer more precisely,
19 and that is consistent with the list that you'll find on
20 page 2.
21· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
22· · · · · · · ·Are there any government investigations
23 that are not included on the list on page 2 of Exhibit 24 that Project Sunday was initiated in response to?
25· · ·A.· ·Are there any investigations?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 99 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·A.· ·Not that I'm aware of.
·3· · ·Q.· ·What litigations was Project Sunday initiated
·4 in response to?
·5· · ·A.· ·To get precise here, I need to speak with
·6 counsel for a minute.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
·8· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
·9· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thanks.
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record,
11 11:21 a.m.
12· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
13· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record,
14 11:30 a.m.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
what
16 litigations was Project Sunday initiated in response to?
17· · ·A.· ·So I don't think I have an answer specifically
18 about what litigations.· I think it was primarily on the
19 investigations that we had just discussed, which is
20 listed in No. 2.
21· · · · · · · ·And very specifically there, these were
22 serious-enough investigations that we were very worried
23 or very concerned that they would turn into litigation
24 and protracted, you know, engagement with a number of
25 these different authorities.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 100 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·So that's -- at the time none of those
·2 were litigations, but that really was the basis for why
·3 we needed to start mapping out analyses.
·4· · ·Q.· ·So to be clear, as Alphabet's corporate
·5 designee, are you saying that there are no other -- or
·6 no litigations that Alphabet believes were part of the
·7 reason to initiate Project Sunday?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form of the
·9 question as garbled.· Could you please rephrase it.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· As Alphabet's corporate
11 designee, is it correct that there are no litigations
12 that Alphabet believes were part of the reason to
13 initiate Project Sunday?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I object to the extent
15 that this question goes beyond the scope of the CID.
16· · · · · · · ·But,
you can answer in your
17 individual capacity if you know.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Actually, let me address
19 Ms. Elmer's representation.
20· · · · · · · ·Alphabet has claimed privilege, both in
21 its privilege logs as to attorney/client and work
22 product privilege, over documents and testimony
23 associated with Project Sunday.· It is squarely within
24 scope.· And if he refuses to answer in his capacity as
25 Alphabet's representative, that is fine; and I
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 101 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 understand your objection.
·2· · · · · · · ·But I want to make clear that the
·3 Division's position is that these questions are squarely
·4 within scope.· So with that, let me repeat the question.
·5· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)·
you can answer
·6 according to your counsel's instructions as you see fit.
·7· · · · · · · ·As Alphabet's corporate designee, is it
·8 correct that there are no litigations that Alphabet
·9 believes were part of its reason to initiate Project
10 Sunday?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I have the same objection
12 as to scope and to the extent that
is not
13 an attorney, but he may answer individually if he knows.
14 He's already provided an answer as the corporate
15 designee that I think was very clear, and you are
16 attempting to garble the record.
17· · · · · · · ·What do you mean by "any litigations"?
18 What is that?
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
as Alphabet's
20 corporate designee, are there any litigations that are
21 not listed in Exhibit 7 that Alphabet believes were part
22 of its reasons to initiate Project Sunday?
23· · ·A.· ·And are you talking about active litigations or
24 anticipation of litigation?
25· · ·Q.· ·Either active or anticipated litigation.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 102 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Okay.· Well, the anticipated I believe covers
·2 this list.· And I'll say I don't know if there are other
·3 litigations, but this list that we've discussed here was
·4 serious enough on its own that any reasonably
·5 responsible corporation would undertake analysis to plan
·6 for the future.
·7· · ·Q.· ·For each of the government investigations
·8 listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7, on what date did Alphabet
·9 anticipate litigation?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object to this question as
11 invading the attorney work product doctrine, the
12 attorney/client privilege, and instruct the witness not
13 to answer.
14· · · · · · · ·If you want to ask when the government
15 investigations began, he's prepared to answer that.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· No.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· My question is -- and, of
18 course,
should you choose to follow your
19 counsel's instruction not to answer, that is your
20 prerogative.
21· · · · · · · ·For each of the government investigations
22 listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7, on what date did Alphabet
23 anticipate litigation?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.· And same instruction to
25 the witness.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 103 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·Let's take a break to discuss this.· I'd
·2 like to take a break to discuss an issue of privilege,
·3 and then we can come back and respond to your question.
·4· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.
·5· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'd ask for that as well.
·6 Thank you.
·7· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·8 11:35 a.m.
·9· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
11 11:50 a.m.
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So, Brent, I'd like to address
13 your response to my scope objection.· If you'd please
14 point me to the spec in the CID that asks for a
15 corporate designee to identify the litigation and the
16 government investigations that were a reason to initiate
17 Project Sunday, I'd like to see that.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· It's a very simple
19 schedule, only two specifications here.· Obviously,
20 specification 1a and everything related and all of
21 specification 2 have to deal with questions with respect
22 to business reasons, as well as other conclusions,
23 findings or recommendations made, reached or adopted by
24 Google relating to internal projects with the code name
25 Project Sunday.·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
has refused to respond to
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 104 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 many questions that are within that scope.
·2· · · · · · · ·And to the extent that Alphabet is raising
·3 a privilege claim, I am entitled squarely within the
·4 scope of the notice to understand what the facts, not
·5 the law, the facts are with respect to what those claims
·6 are.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· Well, you're still
·8 unable to point to a specification that asks for a
·9 designee to testify about the litigation that was a
10 reason to initiate Project Sunday.· So I reiterate my
11 scope objection that I made earlier.
12· · · · · · · ·Now,
has already provided
13 testimony about the identities of the government
14 authorities that were actively investigating the company
15 before all of the projects at issue in the CID were
16 undertaken.
17· · · · · · · ·And he's also testified that Exhibit 7,
18 our letter of February 25th, is consistent with his
19 testimony and the company's position about when those
20 active government investigations began.
21· · · · · · · ·So I reiterate my scope objection; but to
22 the extent that he can answer in his individual capacity
23 without violating the work product doctrine or the
24 privilege, he may.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
I just
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 105 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 need to make sure that I get any refusals or nonanswers
·2 on the record.· So I repeat -·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· That's not what I said.
·4 That's not what I said.· I said "to the extent."· So why
·5 don't you repeat your question.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· Let me be clear for
·7 the record.· I just need to make sure that to the extent
·8 a question is not answered, I need to know the reason
·9 why and I need to know whether that refusal is made in
10 Alphabet's corporate capacity or whether it's personal
11 to
12· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· So with that, my question is
13 for each of the government investigations listed on
14 page 2 of Exhibit 7, on what date did Alphabet
15 anticipate litigation?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So same scope objection and
17 instruction; but you may answer,
to the extent
18 that you can in your individual capacity.
19· · ·A.· ·Sorry.· I apologize.· I need to speak with
20 counsel for just one quick minute.· I apologize.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
22· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
23 11:53 a.m.
24· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
25· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 106 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 11:57 a.m.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· My question,
·4 is that for each of the government investigations listed
·5 on page 2 of Exhibit 7, on what date did Alphabet
·6 anticipate litigation?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I object to that question
·8 as invading the attorney/client privilege and the
·9 attorney work product doctrine as it invades the opinion
10 of counsel, in-house and outside counsel, also
11 attorney/client communications.· I also reiterate the
12 same scope objection that I made earlier.
13· · · · · · · ·But to the extent that you can answer,
without invading the privilege, please do so.
15· · ·A.· ·So I provided the dates that are consistent
16 with what's in the letter, which are primarily all in
17 2019 with the exception of the ACCC.· And that's when
18 those investigations started.· So as corporate
19 representative, those are the dates that I provide as
20 investigations starting.
21· · · · · · · ·I can answer in a personal capacity of
22 when I believe -- when I believe we viewed these as
23 anticipating litigation would have been, you know, by Q24 of 2019, given the number and just the nature of the
25 investigations and what we'd seen.· So that's in my
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 107 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 personal capacity, I'll note that.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And so in your personal
·3 capacity, when you say "Q4 of 2019," what dates does
·4 that cover in 2019?
·5· · ·A.· ·I'm confused.· Are you asking me to articulate
·6 what a quarter is?
·7· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· Do you mean September through December of
·8 2019 is when Google anticipated litigation, or do you
·9 mean something else?
10· · ·A.· ·I believe -11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form to the
12 extent it mischaracterized what a quarter is in a year.
13· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· I just think this is a fairly
14 straightforward question, so what am I missing here?
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· On what precise date within
16 Q4 of 2019 in your personal capacity did Alphabet
17 anticipate litigation with respect to the investigations
18 listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· And I
20 instruct the witness not to answer to the extent it
21 invades the attorney/client privilege and the work
22 product doctrine.
23· · ·A.· ·I'd say that it's -- yeah.· I guess I'll answer
24 this in two ways.
25· · · · · · · ·First off, if you're asking for when I
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 108 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 might have conferred with counsel or one of our senior
·2 lawyers had conferred with counsel and our business
·3 leaders about a determination, I think that's
·4 privileged.· I think anyone would agree with that.
·5· · · · · · · ·If you're asking for my personal view,
·6 there was a growing series of investigations that were
·7 taking place; and so the likelihood was continuing to
·8 increase up through and into the beginning of Q4,
·9 including with your own suit -- or your own
10 investigation, I'm sorry.· Let me be precise.· I'm not a
11 lawyer, so bear with me.
12· · · · · · · ·I think it's that combination that really
13 made it appear that litigation would be, you know, very
14 anticipated at that point.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you for your personal
16 testimony on that topic.
17· · · · · · · ·Just to close this out, sitting here today
18 as Alphabet's corporate designee in response to the CID,
19 does Alphabet have any testimony to offer with respect
20 to the date on which it anticipated litigation with
21 respect to the investigations listed on page 2 of
22 Exhibit 7?
23· · ·A.· ·I think we've mentioned the scoping argument
24 there.· You know, I have provided my personal view,
25 given that it was not my understanding that this would
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 109 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 be covered.
·2· · ·Q.· ·So you were not prepared as Alphabet's
·3 corporate designee sitting here today in response to the
·4 CID to offer any testimony with respect to the dates on
·5 which Alphabet anticipated litigation with respect to
·6 the investigations listed on page 2, Exhibit 7?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I reiterate the same scope
·8 objection and the same objection to the extent that this
·9 question is improper and invades the work product
10 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
11· · · · · · · ·There is no CID specification asking for a
12 witness to testify on this topic, Brent, and these are
13 improper questions.
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· So, Ms. Elmer, let me just
15 ask you for the basis of your privilege claim.· Are you
16 saying that the dates on which Alphabet anticipated
17 litigation are properly privileged subject to an
18 instruction not to answer?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I am not saying that they're
20 properly privileged.· I'm saying that this witness is
21 not a corporate designee on that topic because you in
22 your CID did not put that topic down there.· And if you
23 had, you know, we would be having a different
24 discussion; but you did not.
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· We can disagree on the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 110 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 scope of the notice.· I believe this is plainly within
·2 scope.· But if
wants to say as the designee
·3 that he does not have any prepared answer, that is fine.
·4 I just need him to say that, and we can move on.
·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· This is outside the scope of
·6 the CID.· This is outside the scope of the CID.· We did
·7 not bring a witness here today to talk about the
·8 company's thought process, how their attorneys think.
·9 That is not why the witness is here today.
10· · · · · · · ·He is here to provide nonprivileged,
11 nonwork product facts regarding six topics, six projects
12 at issue in the CID; and you are way off the
13 reservation.
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· If you want to instruct
15 your witness not to answer my question, that is fine.
16 I'm just going to ask it one more time.· If he has no
17 answer, he has no answer; and I understand that.
I
18 understand your out-of-scope objection.
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Repeat the question, and then
20 we can move on.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
you are not
22 prepared as Alphabet's corporate designee sitting here
23 today in response to the CID to offer any testimony with
24 respect to the dates on which Alphabet anticipated
25 litigation with respect to the investigations listed on
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 111 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 page 2, Exhibit 7?
·2· · ·A.· ·I can offer -- as a corporate designee, I can
·3 offer that Project SingleClick, which was the first in
·4 the series of these projects, would never have been
·5 undertaken if we did not anticipate litigation.· And
·6 that project started in December 2019.
·7· · · · · · · ·But I can't answer your other question the
·8 specific way you phrased it because I think that -- in
·9 my opinion, that violates -- like you're asking me to
10 tell you exactly my conversations with a lawyer or our
11 internal conversations as a corporate with our counsel
12 and our business leaders.
13· · ·Q.· ·To be clear,
I'm not asking you
14 for what you told your lawyers or anything else like
15 that.· All I'm asking for is Alphabet's position on the
16 dates on which it anticipated litigation in response to
17 the investigations listed on page 2, Exhibit 7.· What
18 are those dates?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Brent, he just told you what
20 the date was.· He has answered your question.
21· · ·A.· ·I just don't understand how this would not be a
22 privileged conversation.· You're asking for our
23 combination of our general manager and legal analysis to
24 a regulatory situation.· I just don't get what you're
25 asking and how that would be fair.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 112 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· So just to confirm,
·2 and, again, we can close this out and move on.· I am
·3 simply asking, are you saying you are not going to give
·4 me a response because you believe that it would be
·5 privileged,
·6· · ·A.· ·I gave you a response.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· He's already provided you a
·8 response, Brent.· He answered your question.· He said
·9 that SingleClick in December of 2019 would not have been
10 undertaken had litigation not been anticipated.· He's
11 answered your question.· Please stop badgering and
12 harassing the witness.
13· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I am simply attempting to
14 just close out this line of questioning.· If he is not
15 prepared today to testify on it, that is perfectly fine.
16 I just have to know that.
17· · · · · · · ·If you think it's outside of the scope,
18 you can instruct him not to answer.· These are all
19 simple solutions.
20· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· My question -- I'm just
21 trying to close this out -- is,
on what
22 dates did Alphabet anticipate litigation for each
23 investigation listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· If you do not have an
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 113 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 answer, that is okay.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And I would caution counsel
·3 that objections are to be limited to protect the
·4 privilege, preserve a Fifth Amendment right or otherwise
·5 stated shortly and plainly.· If nothing else, we can
·6 just move on.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'll remind the questioner not
·8 to harass the witness.· Same scope objection, asked and
·9 answered.· And I instruct the witness not to answer to
10 the extent that the answer would invade attorney/client
11 privilege or the work product doctrine.
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· To be clear, because
brought this up himself, is it your
14 position, Ms. Elmer, today that the dates on which
15 Alphabet anticipated litigation are privileged?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· No.· It is my position that
17 this witness is not the corporate designee on that topic
18 and that that particular question invades attorney work
19 product, opinion work product.
20· · · · · · · ·The date on which counsel for a company
21 decides that a government investigation is likely to
22 lead to litigation is a matter of attorney opinion work
23 product.
24· · · · · · · ·So no, I have not brought a witness here
25 today to testify about opinion work product of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 114 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 attorneys.· So let's move on.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
do you refuse
·3 to answer my question on the basis of your counsel's
·4 advice?
·5· · ·A.· ·I feel like I've answered your question four
·6 times already.· So no, I believe I did answer your
·7 question.
·8· · ·Q.· ·
do you refuse to provide any
·9 additional information in response to my question based
10 on your counsel's advice?
11· · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
13· · · · · · · ·As part of Project Sunday, is Alphabet
14 considering any divestitures?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
16 answer because the question invades the privilege and
17 work product.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow your
19 counsel's instruction?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·Prior to Project Sunday, since 2019, has
22 Alphabet considered divesting any of its AdTech
23 products?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I'm sorry.· Outside of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 115 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Project Sunday, since 2019, has Alphabet considered
·2 divesting any of its AdTech products?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
·4 answer to the extent that the question invades the
·5 privilege or attorney work product.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I don't understand,
·7 Ms. Elmer, the basis for your privilege instruction,
·8 given that I said "outside of Project Sunday."· Are you
·9 saying that everything outside of Project Sunday is
10 privileged?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I think we're here about a lot
12 of projects, Brent, today.· So why don't you ask a
13 better question.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· As part of any projects
15 outside of Project Sunday, did Alphabet consider any
16 divestitures of its AdTech products?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Is your privilege
19 instruction, Ms. Elmer, based on the notion that the
20 names of projects outside of Project Sunday are
21 privileged?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· It is not.
23· · · · · · · ·And we've been going for quite some time,
24 and I think we've reached our lunch break time.· So why
25 don't we take a lunch break, and then we can come back.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 116 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's go off
·2 the record.
·3· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Going off the record at
·4 12:10 p.m.
·5· · · · · · · ·(Luncheon recess)
·6· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·7 12:52 p.m.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Thanks for
·9 returning,
I'm just going to finish off
10 the question I had earlier.
11· · · · · · · ·As part of any projects outside of Project
12 Sunday, did Alphabet consider any divestitures of its
13 AdTech products?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Brent, do you mean the other
15 projects listed in the CID, or do you mean any other
16 projects at Google ever?
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Any other projects at
18 Google ever since 2019.
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· So I object to
20 your question as being outside the scope of the CID, but
may answer in his personal capacity if he can to
22 the extent that such an answer would not invade the
23 privilege or work product.
24· · ·A.· ·So as the corporate designee relating to these
25 projects --
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 117 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Well,
I'm sorry to
·2 interrupt.· I'm sorry to interrupt.· But because this
·3 question is going beyond the scope of the CID, I'm
·4 instructing you to answer in your personal capacity
·5 here.
·6· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Oh, okay.
·7· · ·A.· ·Then I would say I can't answer due to
·8 privilege.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is one of the -- and
10 what are the names of projects for which Alphabet was
11 considering divestitures of its AdTech products?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
13 answer the question because the question invades the
14 attorney/client privilege and the work product doctrine.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow your
16 counsel's instruction?
17· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Are you actually asking me, like, about
18 the privileged contents?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· He is, and I instruct you not
20 to answer.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And that's fine.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· As part of -- I'm sorry.
23 And are you going to follow your counsel's instruction
24 not to answer?
25· · ·A.· ·Yeah.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 118 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·As part of Project Sunday, is Alphabet
·2 considering any changes to the way its AdTech products
·3 operate?
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you going to follow your
·6 counsel's instruction?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Did Project Sunday incorporate any business
·9 analyses previously performed by Alphabet employees
10 before Project Sunday began?
11· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry, can you repeat it?
12· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· Did Project Sunday incorporate any
13 business analyses performed by Alphabet employees before
14 Project Sunday began?
15· · ·A.· ·So my understanding is there was an industry
16 report that had been prepared in the general course of
17 normal business separate from the project and that
18 pieces of that, namely, facts, were taken and then
19 incorporated into the project.
20· · · · · · · ·Yeah.· That's for a portion of the
21 project; and, yeah, that's the extent of my
22 understanding there.
23· · ·Q.· ·And who performed that -- or who created that
24 industry report that you just described?
25· · ·A.· ·And actually, I want to amend my last answer
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 119 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 after I answer this.
·2· · · · · · · ·So Lazard, the investment bank, was on a
·3 general retainer for general industry trends.· So they
·4 had provided that report as part of a separate sort of
·5 ongoing, what's going on in industry retainer.· So they
·6 were unaware of its use in this project.
·7· · · · · · · ·And again I'll say that that was a
·8 collection of facts that were then used.· So that's
·9 that.
10· · · · · · · ·I want to say also there were pieces of
11 analysis from other projects listed in the CID that
12 were -- that were used and incorporated in Project
13 Sunday.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what are the names of those projects whose
15 pieces of analyses were included in Project Sunday?
16· · ·A.· ·SingleClick and Stonehenge.
17· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And other than work from Projects
18 SingleClick, Stonehenge and Lazard's work as you
19 previously described, was any other business analysis
20 performed by an Alphabet employee incorporated into
21 Project Sunday?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form as
23 mischaracterizing testimony and assuming facts.
24· · · · · · · ·But you may answer.
25· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you repeat?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 120 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Sure.· And is there any
·2 other business analysis other than from Project
·3 SingleClick, Project Stonehenge and Lazard incorporated
·4 into Project Sunday -·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form -- go
·6 ahead.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· -- that was undertaken prior
·8 to the beginning of Project Sunday?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form as
10 mischaracterizing testimony, assuming facts and
11 misleading.
12· · · · · · · ·But you may answer if you can.
13· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· I'm still not -14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Other than what you've just
15 listed, were there any other business analyses performed
16 by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of Project
17 Sunday that were incorporated into Project Sunday?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the
19 mischaracterization of SingleClick and Stonehenge as
20 business analyses.· Also object to the
21 mischaracterization of any work provided by Lazard as
22 being the work of a Google employee.
23· · · · · · · ·Other than that, you may answer if you
24 can,
25· · ·A.· ·I'm not aware of any other prior work that had
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 121 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 been done that was contributed to Project Sunday.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
·3· · · · · · · ·And what data sources did Alphabet
·4 employees rely upon for any financial analyses prepared
·5 for Project Sunday?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object as invading the work
·7 product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
·8· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So I can't answer for those reasons.
·9· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'm sorry.· To be clear,
10 are you instructing
not to answer?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow your
13 counsel's instruction?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·So if you turn to Exhibit 7, page 4 at the
16 bottom -- let me know if you need us to refresh that or
17 if you have it up.
18· · ·A.· ·Is this the 225 -- oh, no, wait.· That's
19 No. 20.
20· · ·Q.· ·That's my internal tab number.· That is
21 Exhibit 7.· So it is the February 25th letter.
22· · ·A.· ·Okay.
23· · ·Q.· ·Let me know when you have that up.
24· · ·A.· ·Page 4, yes.· I have that up.
25· · ·Q.· ·So I just want to make sure that in the last
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 122 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 bullet point that spills over to the next page, does
·2 that accurately summarize Lazard's involvement in
·3 providing work that was used in Project Sunday?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.· And -·5· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Go ahead.
·6· · ·A.· ·To be very specific, work not for Project
·7 Sunday but work that was subsequently used in Project
·8 Sunday, yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And who on Google's corporate development team
10 interfaced with Lazard?
11· · ·A.· ·
He's the primary contact with
12 Lazard.
13· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else from Alphabet interact with
14 Lazard with respect to the project as described on
15 page 4 of Exhibit 7?
16· · ·A.· ·With respect to the general retainer agreement,
17 I believe
likely interacts with them
18 occasionally.
19· · ·Q.· ·And did Lazard make a presentation to any
20 Alphabet employee with respect to the general overview
21 of the AdTech industry as described at the top of page 22 of Exhibit 7?
23· · ·A.· ·That, I don't know.· At the very least they
24 provided a document.
25· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I'll now turn to ask you about Project
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 123 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Monday, which is part of specifications 1b,
·2 specification 2.
·3· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Monday" for
·4 the project?
·5· · ·A.· ·I did.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And what was the subject matter of Project
·7 Monday?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
·9 answer to the extent that it would invade the privilege;
10 but, otherwise, you may answer.
11· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· It was an analysis for a particular
12 remedy to be undertaken due to the anticipated
13 litigation.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what was the particular
15 remedy to be undertaken?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
17· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· That's privileged.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So will you follow your
19 counsel's instruction not to answer?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·So turning to page 5 of Exhibit 7, is this a
22 complete list in bullet point 2 of all outside counsel
23 who worked on Project Monday?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·And is this a complete list of all Google
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 124 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 in-house counsel who worked on Project Monday?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes, although, again, I want to distinguish
·3 between "worked on" and "made aware of."
·4· · ·Q.· ·And what is that distinction?
·5· · ·A.· ·In that I don't know if all of them were
·6 contributing to the document as much as possibly, you
·7 know, this would have been provided to them but they
·8 likely didn't do -- many of them likely didn't do work,
·9 quote unquote, work.
10· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And who initiated Project Monday?
11· · ·A.· ·I did.
12· · ·Q.· ·Did Mr. Schindler initiate Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·No.· I think I just told you I did.
14· · ·Q.· ·And did anyone else initiate Project Monday?
15· · ·A.· ·No.
16· · ·Q.· ·What was -- what were your job responsibilities
17 with respect to Project Monday?
18· · ·A.· ·To steward the business through regulatory -19 potential regulatory action.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what work did you do with respect to
21 Project Monday?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And,
I instruct you not
23 to answer to the extent that answering would invade the
24 work product doctrine or privilege.· But if there's a
25 way that you can answer with not invading the privilege,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 125 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 then you may do so.
·2· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sure.
·3· · ·A.· ·In conjunction with legal counsel, I authored a
·4 potential remedy.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And which legal counsel did
·6 you author that in conjunction with?
·7· · ·A.· ·Ted Lazarus and
and I believe
·8 possibly
·9· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Could you spell that last name?
10· · ·A.· ·It's a first name,
11· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· Could you spell that for us, please.
12· · ·A.· ·
.
13· · ·Q.· ·I see now.· Okay.· And is his last name
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
17· · · · · · · ·And that's listed at the last line of
18 Google's in-house counsel included.· Is that correct?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·And when did you author that legal remedy?
21· · ·A.· ·So that was approximately -- it was early
22 March 2021.
23· · ·Q.· ·And did you write that legal remedy down in a
24 document?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 126 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·What form did that document take?
·2· · ·A.· ·A written docs, document.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Did you make any presentations to anyone at
·4 Alphabet with respect to that legal remedy?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And when did you make that presentation?
·7· · ·A.· ·In the April/May time frame.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And I'm sorry.· To be clear, do you mean
·9 April/May 2021?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·And who was at the presentation in April or
12 May 2021?
13· · ·A.· ·Scott Spencer,
14 possibly
Ted Lazarus,
And that would have been it.
15· · ·Q.· ·And what was Mr. Lazarus' role in the
16 presentation?
17· · ·A.· ·Audience and -- yeah, primarily audience, but
18 also, you know, had provided legal advice.
19· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else present the legal remedy that
20 you authored in the April or May 2021 presentation?
21· · ·A.· ·I suspect that may have happened up the chain
22 that I wasn't personally aware of.· But yeah, I do
23 believe that the contents of this were presented up to
24 senior management without me.
25· · ·Q.· ·And who did the presentation of that legal
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 127 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 remedy after April or May 2021?
·2· · ·A.· ·I believe
and/or
·3· · ·Q.· ·And who attended that presentation in senior
·4 management of the legal remedy that you had authored?
·5· · ·A.· ·I believe it might have been
·
Those are the ones that I'm aware -- that
·7 I'm -- that I believe are likely.
·8· · · · · · · ·Also, actually, now that I think about it
·9 as well, I believe in March some of this would have been
10 presented as well to
and she may have
11 presented it up further as well.
12· · ·Q.· ·And returning to this list, what was
job responsibility with respect to
14 Project Monday?
15· · ·A.· ·Are you asking what work he performed or are
16 you asking -17· · ·Q.· ·What were his job responsibilities with respect
18 to Project Monday?
19· · ·A.· ·I mean, primarily he was the audience.
20· · ·Q.· ·Did
make any decisions based on
21 the presentation of Project Monday?
22· · ·A.· ·No decisions were made regarding Project
23 Monday.
24· · ·Q.· ·I apologize.· Did
do any work with
25 respect to Project Monday?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 128 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·No.
·2· · ·Q.· ·What were
job responsibilities
·3 with respect to Project Monday?
·4· · ·A.· ·As audience.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what do you mean by "as audience"?
·6· · ·A.· ·Meaning it was presented to him -- I believe it
·7 was presented to him as a document.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And did
make any decisions with
·9 respect to Project Monday?
10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·What were Mr. Schindler's job responsibilities
12 with respect to Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·I don't know if he was read in or not to
14 Project Monday.· So if he was, it would be the same
15 answers I've just given for
and
If he
16 wasn't read in, then he wasn't part of the project.
17· · ·Q.· ·In preparing for this deposition as Alphabet's
18 corporate representative, what did you do to attempt to
19 determine whether
was read in to Project
20 Monday?
21· · ·A.· ·I think we checked to see if he was included on
22 the document specifically, given there was no formal
23 presentation of this as there was in Project Sunday.
24· · · · · · · ·So I believe his name was on the document,
25 which means someone likely shared the document with him.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 129 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·But you did not as part of your preparation
·2 speak to or receive information about whether
·3 Mr. Schindler participated in Project Monday.· Is that
·4 correct?
·5· · ·A.· ·That is correct, yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·What was
job responsibility with
·7 respect to Project Monday?
·8· · ·A.· ·This would be the same as I've said for
·
and
10· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
do with respect to
11 Project Monday?
12· · ·A.· ·It would be the same.
13· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· If you could complete your answer.
14 This would be the same as?
15· · ·A.· ·As for
and
16· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job responsibilities
17 with respect to Project Monday?
18· · ·A.· ·The same.
19· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry?
20· · ·A.· ·This is going to be the same for, like, just
21 about everyone on this list.· So do you want me to
22 identify who the working team members were or identify
23 who falls into this same bucket just for expediency?
24· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
25· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So the following group all were just
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 130 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 audience and had no other associated work.· So
·
Scott Spencer -- actually, no, let me separate
·3 that.
·4· · · · · · · ·
all had no involvement other than audience,
·
as well.
·8· · · · · · · ·Then the working members of the team were
·9 Scott Spencer,
and me, along with
10 counsel, of course.
11· · ·Q.· ·And which counsel were part of the working team
12 for Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·Ted Lazarus primarily.
14· · ·Q.· ·Were any other of the listed Google in-house
15 counsel part of the working team for Project Monday?
16· · ·A.· ·I believe
and
would have provided
17 some amount of advice as well.
18· · ·Q.· ·Are there any other Google in-house -- I'm
19 sorry.
20· · ·A.· ·And maybe
.
21· · ·Q.· ·Are there any other Google in-house counsel
22 that are not listed here who are part of the working
23 team for Project Monday?
24· · ·A.· ·Actually, it's likely that
was involved
25 in some initial document creation but not in the -- but
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 131 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 not in the further working team.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, that's
who is
·3 listed here?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes, that's right.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And so let me just ask my question to round
·6 this out.· Are there any other Google in-house counsel
·7 that are not listed here who were part of the working
·8 team for Project Monday?
·9· · ·A.· ·No.
10· · ·Q.· ·And when did Project Monday begin?
11· · ·A.· ·Early March 2021.
12· · ·Q.· ·And what event began Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·The creation of a document.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what document do you mean when you say "the
15 creation of a document"?
16· · ·A.· ·A document of a remedy.· I don't want to say
17 anything further for privilege.
18· · ·Q.· ·And that is, to be clear, the document that was
19 presented in April or May of 2021.· Is that correct?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I wouldn't say presented, but it was a
21 document that was completed.
22· · ·Q.· ·When did Project Monday end?
23· · ·A.· ·May 2021.
24· · ·Q.· ·And how did Alphabet determine that Project
25 Monday ended in May of 2021?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 132 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·No further work was done on the project.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Did someone at Alphabet make the decision to
·3 close or end Project Monday?
·4· · ·A.· ·No.· I don't think it was anything that
·5 definitive.· I think basically I looked at what we had
·6 and decided enough analysis had been performed and put
·7 it on a shelf.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Have any meetings with respect to Project
·9 Monday occurred since May of 2021?
10· · ·A.· ·No, though given this was an analysis, you
11 know, the knowledge -- the knowledge persists, and we're
12 still under, you know, the eight investigations
13 mentioned here.· So it's likely that the work product
14 from that is factoring into our thinking.· So I'll note
15 that.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· At any time did anyone at Alphabet
17 discuss Project Monday with an individual or entity not
18 employed by Alphabet other than outside counsel?
19· · ·A.· ·No.
20· · ·Q.· ·Did any discussions of Project Monday occur
21 with Lazard?
22· · ·A.· ·No.
23· · ·Q.· ·What was the cost associated -- I'm sorry.
24· · · · · · · ·What was the cost to Alphabet associated
25 with Project Monday specified in dollars or hours?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 133 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·So I don't believe there's any dollars that I
·2 would note explicitly here that could be, like, easily
·3 disentangled.· This was a smaller project, so I think
·4 the hours would be, you know, a small fraction of those
·5 that I had noted on Project Sunday.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And sitting here today as Alphabet's corporate
·7 designee, what is your reasonable estimate as to the
·8 number of employee hours spent on Project Monday?
·9· · ·A.· ·Ten.
10· · ·Q.· ·And that is across the company or just for you
11 personally?
12· · ·A.· ·Across the company.
13· · ·Q.· ·And sitting here today as Alphabet's corporate
14 designee, how much has Alphabet spent on outside counsel
15 with respect to Project Monday?
16· · ·A.· ·This is hard to answer.· I would say not a lot,
17 but I don't know how to get into -- like even if I
18 looked at timelines, I don't think that could be
19 determined.· So a small amount.
20· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And what, translated into dollars, if
21 you have any reasonable estimate, does "a small amount"
22 mean?
23· · ·A.· ·I don't know.
24· · ·Q.· ·Okay.
25· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I don't know.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 134 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Did you do anything in preparation for this
·2 deposition to determine the amount that Alphabet spent
·3 on outside counsel with respect to Project Monday?
·4· · ·A.· ·I did review calendar entries of attorneys that
·5 would have been present on the calls, and it was not
·6 easily discernible.· And if I looked further in, I don't
·7 think I would have gotten to an answer.· So I didn't
·8 spend time there because I don't believe it would have
·9 assisted.
10· · ·Q.· ·And what government investigations served as a
11 basis for Alphabet initiating Project Monday?
12· · ·A.· ·This is going to be the same discussion we had
13 for Sunday.
14· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear then, is the list of government
15 investigations that caused Alphabet to initiate Project
16 Sunday listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes, that's correct, although I would say -18 yeah.· In particular the first seven listed, the last
19 one was, you know, less of an impact, but I would say
20 the first seven had a -- were primary.
21· · ·Q.· ·And by "last one listed," you mean the
22 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.· Is that
23 correct?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Is there any litigation, whether anticipated or
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 135 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 actual, that the project was undertaken in response to?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·What is that litigation?
·4· · ·A.· ·The anticipated litigation are the first seven
·5 listed here.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Is there any other litigation not listed here
·7 that Project Monday was undertaken in response to?
·8· · ·A.· ·That were primary cause?· I don't believe so.
·9 I think this is -- this is materially the list.· There
10 may have been some others that, you know, potentially
11 could rise to that but not -- I don't believe they're
12 primary.· I think that's the question you're asking.
13· · ·Q.· ·No.· My question is, is there any litigation,
14 whether anticipated or actual, that Project Monday was
15 undertaken in response to?
16· · ·A.· ·Is there any litigation or anticipated
17 litigation?
18· · ·Q.· ·Either.
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So other than the ones that
20 he's already testified about that are listed in the
21 letter?
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.· I'm just trying to
23 determine whether this list is complete, and if not,
24 what those litigations, whether actual or anticipated,
25 are.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 136 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the extent that it's
·2 already been asked and answered.
·3· · · · · · · ·But you can answer again,
·4· · ·A.· ·Well, if you're asking other anticipated
·5 litigation like -- we're under a lot of scrutiny
·6 globally.· So yeah, of course there are going to be
·7 other considerations.· But to the extent they were
·8 materializing, this is the list I think at the time that
·9 we're -- where we had a -- you know, a belief in
10 anticipated litigation.
11· · · · · · · ·If you're asking were there any other
12 possibly that were -- yes, although I can't name them
13 specifically.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Were there any
15 regulations that Alphabet initiated Project Monday in
16 response to?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the extent that it
18 exceeds the scope of the CID.
19· · · · · · · ·But you may answer in your personal
20 capacity, if you know,
21· · ·A.· ·I think regulations are an aspect that have to
22 be considered in all of this.· I guess maybe if you can
23 be precise in your question again, and I'll try to
24 answer as best I can.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What are the names of any
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 137 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 regulations that caused Alphabet to initiate Project
·2 Monday?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so I object because this
·4 is a question that invades the attorney/client privilege
·5 and the work product doctrine, and I instruct the
·6 witness not to answer.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Will you follow your
·8 counsel's instruction?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Were there any draft presentations prepared
11 regarding Project Monday that were not finalized?
12· · ·A.· ·It's possible, yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how many -14· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I think there were two or three
15 documents, and my guess is -- I believe one of them was
16 finalized and two of them were not.
17· · ·Q.· ·And who wrote the documents that were not
18 finalized?
19· · ·A.· ·I wrote one of them, and our legal team had
20 begun writing another of them and likely had -- I likely
21 contributed to that one.
22· · ·Q.· ·And who on the legal team began writing the
23 other non-finalized document?
24· · ·A.· ·I believe the doc was created by
25 likely had authoring by Ted Lazarus and
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
and
-- some
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 138 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 contributions by
and
·2· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry, two clarifications.· Do you mean
·3 Alex Bergersen?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what was the last name that you mentioned?
·6· · ·A.· ·
·7· · ·Q.· ·That's
.· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·That's correct.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
11· · · · · · · ·Did any Alphabet employee create a
12 financial forecast as part of Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·I think that's privileged.
14· · ·Q.· ·I'll ask again.· If your counsel wants to
15 object, she can.
16· · · · · · · ·Did any Alphabet employee create a
17 financial forecast as part of Project Monday?
18· · ·A.· ·It's still privileged.· I think I answered it.
19 You're asking me what -20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· Brent, our position
21 here is that you guys are not entitled to know the
22 substantive details of these work product and
23 attorney/client privileged projects.· We're here to
24 provide, you know, a verbal privilege log, and that's
25 what we're doing.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 139 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· So I'll ask the
·2 question again; if you want to instruct him not to
·3 answer, let's do that and we'll move forward.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Did any Alphabet employee
·5 create a financial forecast as part of Project Monday?
·6· · ·A.· ·How many times are you going to ask me?
·7· · ·Q.· ·You need to answer my question unless your
·8 counsel specifically instructs you not to answer based
·9 on this; then we can just move on.
10· · ·A.· ·For the third time, that's privileged.· I don't
11 understand the disagreement here.
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· Brent, if you want me
13 to do a song and dance, okay.· I instruct him not to
14 answer to the extent that it seeks information protected
15 by the work product doctrine and the attorney/client
16 privilege.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· And,
do
18 you have any information to provide me subject to your
19 counsel's instruction regarding privilege?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And work product.
21· · ·A.· ·Again -22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· No.· My question,
is do you have any information to provide
24 me subject to your counsel's instruction regarding any
25 privilege?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 140 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Or work product.
·2· · ·A.· ·Do I have anything to provide?· No, I don't.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Do you have information that
·4 you know but are refusing to provide on the basis of
·5 privilege?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· That's ridiculous, Brent.
I
·7 really instruct you to stop harassing the witness here.
·8 That's enough.· He's answered your question.· Let's move
·9 on to the other topics in the CID.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Counsel, I need a
11 refusal -12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· No.· You don't need.· You've
13 already gotten year answer, Brent.
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· So, Ms. Elmer, I think we
15 both know that as a legal requirement I need to ask the
16 question and he needs to refuse if he's going to refuse
17 on the basis of a valid privilege, and that's fine.
18· · · · · · · ·We can move forward professionally and
19 quickly through this, but procedure needs to be
20 followed.· And to the extent you would like to refuse to
21 follow that procedure, that is your choice.
22· · · · · · · ·But we are where we are today and I'm
23 going to keep asking.· To the extent he refuses to
24 answer for some other reason or is not responsive to my
25 questions, we have other remedies, and that's fine.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 141 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So my question is do you
·2 have information that you know but are refusing to
·3 provide on the basis of privilege?
·4· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that for two reasons: one, due
·5 to privilege and, two, because I think this is
·6 obnoxious.
·7· · ·Q.· ·My question is simply,
whether
·8 you have information that you're withholding on the
·9 basis of privilege, which is fine.· I just need to know
10 that that information exists.
11· · ·A.· ·I can't answer whether information exists or
12 not because that would violate privilege.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· What information -- what do
14 you mean by "information," Brent?· Maybe if you can ask
15 a better question, we can get somewhere.· Why don't you
16 rephrase your question.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
my question is
18 did any Alphabet employee provide -- I'm sorry.
19· · · · · · · ·Did any Alphabet employee create a
20 financial forecast as a part of Project Monday?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so
has
22 already declined to answer on the basis of the work
23 product doctrine.· What more do you need?
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Is that correct,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 142 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· As part of Project Monday, is Alphabet
·3 considering any divestitures?
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
·5 to answer the question to the extent that it seeks
·6 information that invades the attorney/client privilege
·7 and the work product doctrine.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you answer my question,
·10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·As part of Project Monday, did Alphabet
12 consider divesting any of its AdTech products?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I have the same instruction.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you answer my question,
16· · ·A.· ·Nope.
17· · ·Q.· ·As part of Project Monday, is Alphabet
18 considering any acquisitions?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
20· · ·A.· ·Decline to answer.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· On the basis of work product
22 privilege.· Is that correct?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Right.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· As part of Project Monday,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 143 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 is Alphabet considering any changes to the way its
·2 AdTech products operate?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection -- or same
·4 instruction.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow your
·6 counsel's instruction?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Did Project Monday incorporate any other
·9 financial analyses previously performed by Alphabet
10 employees?
11· · ·A.· ·I think that it's not something that I can
12 answer again for the same reasons.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Why don't we take a break to
14 discuss -- a quick break to discuss an issue of
15 privilege.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
18 1:32 p.m.
19· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
20· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
21 1:39 p.m.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Well, thank you
23 for returning,
24· · · · · · · ·I want to make clear for the record that
25 the indications of attorney/client and work product
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 144 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 privileges are legal judgments.· This is not a matter of
·2 mere process.· I'm just trying to move this along
·3 efficiently.· But it is a significant issue that counsel
·4 for the witness make the appropriate objections and,
·
you as the witness either accept your
·6 advice of counsel and refuse to answer the question on
·7 the basis of privilege or that you provide an answer to
·8 the question since this is a legal issue and we have
·9 confirmed through your testimony today and otherwise
10 that you are not an attorney.
11· · · · · · · ·So with that, let me move on.· What data
12 sources did Alphabet employees rely upon for any
13 financial analyses prepared for Project Monday?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so, Brent, I object and
15 instruct the witness not to answer as your question is
16 seeking information regarding the contents of documents
17 that have been properly withheld as work product.· So I
18 am instructing the witness not to answer the question on
19 that basis.
20· · · · · · · ·In addition, I'm objecting to your
21 question as assuming facts not in evidence and as
22 misleading.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
will you
25 follow your counsel's instruction not to answer?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 145 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
·3 upon for any divestiture analyses prepared for Project
·4 Monday?
·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and same
·6 objection.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And,
will you
·8 follow that instruction?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
11 upon for any pricing analyses prepared for Project
12 Monday?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and same
14 objection.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
will you
16 follow that instruction?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·Are there any successor projects to Project
19 Monday?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to your question as
21 outside the scope of the CID and as invading the work
22 product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
23· · · · · · · ·I instruct the witness not to answer the
24 question.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow that
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 146 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 instruction?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·All right.· I will now ask you about Project
·4 SingleClick, which is part of specifications 1d and
·5 specification 2.· So if you'd turn to Exhibit 7, page 2.
·6 That's the file name that begins with 20 previously in
·7 front of you.· Please,
let me know when
·8 you are there.
·9· · ·A.· ·I am there.
10· · ·Q.· ·Who chose the name "Project SingleClick" for
11 this project?
12· · ·A.· ·I believe it was
.
13· · ·Q.· ·And what is the subject matter of Project
14 SingleClick?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
16 answer to the extent that answering would invade the
17 privilege or work product doctrine, but you may answer
18 if you can do so without invading the privilege,
19· · ·A.· ·Sure.· It was an analysis of potential remedies
20 to some anticipated regulatory actions.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And was the project
22 undertaken in anticipation of litigation concerning
23 Google's AdTech business?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·And what was the goal of Project SingleClick?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 147 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· You may
·2 answer to the extent you would not waive the privilege
·3 or invade the work product doctrine.
·4· · ·A.· ·To be properly prepared if regulatory actions
·5 occurred.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What outside counsel were
·7 involved in Project SingleClick?
·8· · ·A.· ·They're listed in the second bullet point
·9 here -10· · ·Q.· ·Were any -- sorry.
11· · ·A.· ·-- on page 2.
12· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And we are referring to
14 Exhibit No. 7.· Is that right?
15· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
17· · · · · · · ·Were any outside counsel who worked on
18 this project not listed here?
19· · ·A.· ·No.
20· · ·Q.· ·What Alphabet employees who are not lawyers
21 worked on, approved or evaluated Project SingleClick?
22· · ·A.· ·Those are listed in bullet point 4 here on
23 page 2 of Exhibit 7.
24· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And what was
role on Project
25 SingleClick?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 148 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·To provide initial scoping of the project.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And did she have any other job responsibilities
·3 on Project SingleClick?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.· As a general manager, this falls within
·5 her business.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And what business is that?
·7· · ·A.· ·Running the ADVA division.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And did
do any work with respect to
·9 Project SingleClick?
10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·Who initiated Project SingleClick?
12· · ·A.· ·This was a combination of
and Ted
13 Lazarus.
14· · ·Q.· ·And how was Project SingleClick initiated?
15· · ·A.· ·Through a verbal discussion.
16· · ·Q.· ·And which Alphabet employees were involved in
17 that verbal discussion?
18· · ·A.· ·Ted Lazarus and
myself and
.
20· · ·Q.· ·
is listed under "Google employees
21 included."· Is that correct?
22· · ·A.· ·That's correct.
23· · ·Q.· ·What was
job responsibility with
24 respect to Project SingleClick?
25· · ·A.· ·Contributor.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 149 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And what contributions did
make?
·2· · ·A.· ·That would violate privilege.
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· So I'll give the
·4 instruction.· To the extent that this question invades
·5 the work product doctrine or privilege, I instruct the
·6 witness not to answer.· If there is a way to answer
·7 without invading either one of those, then you may do
·8 so.
·9· · ·A.· ·He's an engineer.· That's all I can answer.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
11· · · · · · · ·What was
job responsibility
12 with respect to Project Monday -- I'm sorry, Project
13 SingleClick?· My apologies.
14· · ·A.· ·He's a contributor.
15· · ·Q.· ·What did his contributions involve?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· But if
17 there's a way to answer without invading the work
18 product doctrine or the attorney/client privilege, you
19 may do so.
20· · ·A.· ·He's a product manager.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And when you say, "He's a
22 product manager," what do you mean?
23· · ·A.· ·I mean his role at Google is as a product
24 manager in the AdManager product.
25· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 150 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·And what were your job responsibilities
·2 with respect to Project SingleClick?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· If there's
·4 a way to answer without invading the privilege, you may
·5 do so.
·6· · ·A.· ·My role is to provide high-level guidance.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is your role to provide
·8 high-level guidance -- I'm sorry.· Strike that.
·9· · · · · · · ·To whom was your role to provide
10 high-level guidance?
11· · ·A.· ·To both the working team and to my leadership.
12· · ·Q.· ·And who was on the working team with respect to
13 Project SingleClick?
14· · ·A.· ·This is everyone in bullet 4 except for
16· · ·Q.· ·And who was part of the leadership with respect
17 to Project SingleClick?
18· · ·A.· ·
19· · ·Q.· ·And what was
role with respect
20 to Project SingleClick?
21· · ·A.· ·He's my engineering partner.
22· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean by "engineering partner"?
23· · ·A.· ·He's responsible for engineering for the same
24 products I'm responsible for.
25· · ·Q.· ·And what was
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
job responsibility
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 151 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 with respect to Project SingleClick?
·2· · ·A.· ·She is in charge of AdManager as a product
·3 manager.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And at the time of Project SingleClick, did she
·5 report to you?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·When did Project SingleClick begin?
·8· · ·A.· ·December of 2019.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And did Project SingleClick begin with the
10 conversation between Mr. Lazarus,
and others
11 that you referenced earlier?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·And did Project SingleClick evolve into Project
14 Stonehenge?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · ·Q.· ·And how did Project SingleClick evolve into
17 Project Stonehenge?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And, again, to the extent that
19 answering would invade the privilege or work product
20 doctrine, I instruct you not to answer.· But if there's
21 a way to answer without invading the privilege, please
22 do so.
23· · ·A.· ·Stonehenge was further investigation and
24 analysis into one of the areas that SingleClick had
25 looked into.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 152 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what was the area
·2 SingleClick looked into?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I do instruct the witness not
·4 to answer because that is invading the privilege and the
·5 work product doctrine.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow your
·7 counsel's instruction?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·So is it Alphabet's position then that Project
10 SingleClick ended in February 2020?
11· · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·Are there any parts of Project SingleClick that
13 are ongoing other than aspects that have been merged
14 into Project Stonehenge?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So object to the form to the
16 extent it's misleading or assumes facts.
17· · · · · · · ·But you may answer.
18· · ·A.· ·You know, the project was -- work on this
19 project ceased in February.· I'll say the same thing I
20 said earlier, which is that the knowledge persists and,
21 you know, finds its way into analysis as we work with
22 these other investigations.· But the specific work on
23 this project ceased in February.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· In total how many
25 meetings occurred at Alphabet for Project SingleClick?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 153 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Approximately 15 to 20.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And how many of those 15 to 20 meetings were
·3 attended by inside or outside counsel for Google?
·4· · ·A.· ·I would say nearly all of them.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what was Mr. Lazarus' role on Project
·6 SingleClick?
·7· · ·A.· ·His was the primary legal oversight.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And who else from Google's in-house attorney
·9 team provided legal oversight of Project SingleClick?
10· · ·A.· ·Oversight?·
11· · ·Q.· ·And by "
and
you mean
as listed
12 here?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·Were any other in-house attorneys for Google
15 involved in Project SingleClick?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.· On the working team specifically,
.
18· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
19· · · · · · · ·At any time other than your attorneys,
20 Alphabet's attorneys, did anyone at Alphabet discuss
21 Project SingleClick with an individual or entity not
22 employed by Alphabet?
23· · ·A.· ·Are you asking if there was outside counsel?
24· · ·Q.· ·No.
25· · ·A.· ·Are you asking others?· No, no others outside
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 154 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 of outside counsel.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I appreciate that.· Thank you.
·3· · · · · · · ·What was the cost to Alphabet associated
·4 with Project SingleClick specified in dollars or hours?
·5· · ·A.· ·Again, hard to measure internally because we
·6 don't track that.· And the outside pieces also are
·7 entangled in a number of other projects.· So it's just
·8 very hard to give an estimate.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what other projects are the outside pieces
10 entangled with?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
12 to answer because that invades the attorney/client
13 privilege and the work product doctrine.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
15 instruction?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·How many employee hours to a reasonable
18 estimate as Alphabet's corporate designee were spent on
19 Project SingleClick?
20· · ·A.· ·SingleClick, or are we on Stonehenge?
21· · ·Q.· ·SingleClick.
22· · ·A.· ·45 hours.
23· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, that 45-hour estimate is for
24 all Alphabet employees.· Is that correct?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 155 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Turning to Exhibit 7, page 2, is this a
·2 complete list of all government investigations that
·3 caused Google to begin Project SingleClick?
·4· · ·A.· ·Your question is is this the list that
·5 caused -·6· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· I'll restate.
·7· · · · · · · ·Turning to Exhibit 7, page 2, is this a
·8 complete list of all government investigations that
·9 caused Google to begin Project SingleClick?
10· · ·A.· ·So, no.· The ACCC had not started yet with the
11 investigation.· So I wouldn't include that one.
12· · · · · · · ·Then I would also say I don't know if
13 there were others at the time that informed our -- the
14 advice as we were speaking with legal, but I would say
15 that these are the primary -- materially speaking, these
16 are the ones that were top of mind.
17· · · · · · · ·So there may be others.· You're asking if
18 I knew of any others that might have, and I don't know
19 because I don't know what was affecting our legal
20 opinion.
21· · ·Q.· ·What did you do in preparation for this
22 deposition to determine which government investigations
23 caused Alphabet to initiate Project SingleClick?
24· · ·A.· ·I conferred with our legal team and reviewed
25 this list of investigations.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 156 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And sitting here today, you have nothing to add
·2 as Alphabet's corporate representative to the list of
·3 government investigations with the exception of the ACCC
·4 investigation that caused Alphabet to initiate Project
·5 SingleClick.· Is that correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I think this is more than -- I think
·7 seven investigations are more than sufficient basis for
·8 us to have anticipated litigation.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Is there any litigation, whether anticipated or
10 actual litigation, that the project was initiated in
11 response to?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Asked and answered.
13· · ·A.· ·I think that's the same question that I just
14 answered.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· My initial question was
16 about government investigations; and my question now is
17 is there any litigation, whether anticipated or actual
18 litigation, that Project SingleClick was initiated in
19 response to?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And the reason for my
21 objection, Brent, is because he has already testified
22 that the active government investigations were
23 anticipated litigation.· I think maybe if you would
24 break down your compound question, we might get
25 somewhere.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 157 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
are the
·2 government investigations listed here the basis for
·3 Alphabet's anticipated litigation that caused it to
·4 initiate Project SingleClick?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Other than the government investigations listed
·7 here, are there any litigations, whether actual or
·8 anticipated, that caused Project SingleClick -- that
·9 caused Alphabet to initiate Project SingleClick?
10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·Were any presentations prepared regarding
12 Project SingleClick?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·How many presentations were prepared regarding
15 Project SingleClick?
16· · ·A.· ·One presentation.
17· · ·Q.· ·Who authored that presentation?
18· · ·A.· ·It was a working team led primarily by
.
20· · ·Q.· ·And when did that presentation begin getting
21 prepared?
22· · ·A.· ·Right away and, like most documents, evolved
23 over the course of the project.
24· · ·Q.· ·By "right away," do you mean
25 began preparing the presentation in December of 2019?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 158 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·It was either in like mid/late December or very
·2 early January, yes.· Right in that time frame is when
·3 that was started.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And who assisted in the drafting of that
·5 presentation?
·6· · ·A.· ·So that would be the following people:·
·9· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Let me back up.· I want to make
10 sure we're talking about the same thing.
11· · · · · · · ·If you could turn to page 2 of Exhibit 7,
12 I'm still asking about Project SingleClick.
13· · ·A.· ·Yep.
14· · ·Q.· ·Are you speaking now about a different project?
15· · ·A.· ·No.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So that's my fault.· I'll ask again.
17· · · · · · · ·Who assisted in drafting the presentation
18 that
began drafting in December or January
19 of either December '19 or January '20?
20· · ·A.· ·
.
22· · ·Q.· ·And to whom was that presentation given at
23 Alphabet?
24· · ·A.· ·
25· · ·Q.· ·And when was that presentation given to
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 159 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
··2· · ·A.· ·The evolving presentation over the course of
·3 the project and the final one being in February 2020.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Who attended that presentation in February of
·5 2020?
·6· · ·A.· ·
me,
and then the rest
·7 of the Google employees listed here, and
·8· · ·Q.· ·Does that include all Google in-house counsel
·9 listed in the third bullet point under Project
10 SingleClick on page 2 of Exhibit 7?
11· · ·A.· ·Very likely.· There might have been one or two
12 or three missing from that final presentation, but -13· · ·Q.· ·Were any -- I'm sorry.
14· · ·A.· ·But the majority would have been there.
15· · ·Q.· ·Were any draft presentations prepared regarding
16 Project SingleClick that were not finalized?
17· · ·A.· ·No.
18· · ·Q.· ·Did any Alphabet employee create a financial
19 forecast as part of Project SingleClick?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so are you asking, Brent,
21 for the contents of the Project SingleClick documents?
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· My initial question is
23 simply whether any Alphabet employee created a financial
24 forecast as part of Project SingleClick.
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Sounds to me like your
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 160 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 question is getting at the substance of a work product
·2 project.· So on that basis I'll instruct the witness not
·3 to answer.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·5 instruction?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Did Alphabet project, model or otherwise
·8 consider any cost savings as a part of Project
·9 SingleClick?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
12 instruction?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·Did Project SingleClick incorporate any other
15 financial analyses created by Alphabet employees prior
16 to Project SingleClick?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
19 instruction?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
22 upon for any financial analyses prepared for Project
23 SingleClick?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· And also
25 object to the form as assuming facts not in evidence.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 161 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·2 instruction not to answer?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
·5 upon in preparing presentations for Project SingleClick?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and object to
·7 the form as assuming facts not in evidence.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·9 instruction not to answer?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·All righty.
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record
13 briefly.
14· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
15 2:05 p.m.
16· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
18 2:11 p.m.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Thanks for
20 taking that break,
21· · · · · · · ·I will now ask you about Project
22 Stonehenge, which is part of specifications 1c and
23 specification 2.
24· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Stonehenge"
25 for the project?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 162 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·I think it was a few people on the original
·2 working team, the SingleClick, including
·3· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Turning to Exhibit 7, page 3.· Let me
·4 know when you have that in front of you.
·5· · ·A.· ·Okay.
·6· · ·Q.· ·What was the subject matter of Project
·7 Stonehenge?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· To the extent that the
·9 question invades the privilege of work product, I
10 instruct the witness not to answer.
11· · · · · · · ·But,
if there's a way to answer
12 without invading the privilege, please do so.
13· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Given the anticipated regulatory
14 actions, we did an analysis of potential remedies.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· What was the goal of
16 Project Stonehenge?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
18· · ·A.· ·To be prepared in case of any litigation.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Was one of the
20 objectives of Project Stonehenge to consider
?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
23 answer because the question invades the attorney/client
24 privilege and the work product doctrine.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow that
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 163 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 instruction,
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
·4 upload into the Chat tab 18.
·5· · · · · · · ·I'd like the court reporter to mark this
·6 document as Alphabet Exhibit 8.
·7· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 8 marked)
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Please let me know when you
·9 have it in front of you,
10· · · · · · · ·While you are doing that, I will let you
11 know a couple things.· No. 1, this is a document
12 produced to us by Alphabet that was identified as
13 related to Project Stonehenge and Project Banksy in
14 Ms. Elmer's November 15, 2021 letter.· It begins with
15 Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00660900 and ends in Bates
16 No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00660904.· It is a document that has
17 been produced to us in redacted form.
18· · · · · · · ·Please let me know when you have finished
19 reviewing the document,
20· · ·A.· ·Okay.· There's a lot here.· So give me a
21 minute.
22· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· So we need to take a
24 break to discuss an issue of privilege.
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's go off
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 164 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 the record.
·2· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·3 2:14 p.m.
·4· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·5· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·6 2:34 p.m.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.·
--
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So before we get back started,
·9 we are going to claw back Exhibit No. 8.· We will
10 reproduce a redacted copy later in the deposition today.
11· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And how long until that
12 redacted copy is produced to us?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I do not have a reasonable
14 estimate at this time, but I promise you it will be
15 before the deposition is over.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
was one of the
18 objectives of Project Banksy consideration of
?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
21 answer because this question invades the attorney/client
22 privilege and work product doctrine.
23· · · · · · · ·Also, did you mean Project Banksy?
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I did.
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 165 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
will you
·2 follow Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And actually, I should clarify
·5 my instruction.· Are you asking about Project Banksy,
·6 the remedies project, Brent, or are you asking about
·7 Bansky, the concept that was a feature that was
·8 discussed prior to the remedies project?· In what
·9 context are you using that term?
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· That is a good question,
11 and it's hard to go out of order with Bansky, but since
12 this document was listed in your November 15th letter as
13 related to both, I will ask, but let me rephrase.
I
14 appreciate that.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So was one of the objectives
16 of Project Banksy, the product that is listed in the
17 specification to the CID to which you are testifying
18 today, was one of the objectives for that project
19 consideration of
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· Same instruction,
21 and I'm going to need to go off the record to discuss an
22 issue of privilege.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.
24· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
25 2:36 p.m.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 166 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·2· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·3 2:40 p.m.
·4· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Before we broke
·5 for that privilege consultation, my question was, so was
·6 one of the objectives of Project Banksy, the project
·7 that is listed in the specification to the CID for which
·
has appeared here today, was one of the
·9 objectives for that project consideration of
?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
12 to answer because your question invades the work product
13 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
15 Ms. Elmer's instruction,
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·What did Alphabet consider in evaluating
?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow that
21 instruction not to answer,
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet use in
24 considering
?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 167 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow the
·2 instruction not to answer,
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Who at Alphabet worked on the concept of
·
?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and also as
·7 being outside the scope.· Perhaps if you rephrase your
·8 question, we may get somewhere.
·9· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I guess it's hard for me to
10 understand why, Ms. Elmer, that question's outside the
11 scope given that
appeared to be
12 related to Project Stonehenge, but perhaps I have that
13 wrong.· If so, you can let your objection stand, and
can either tell me that or not.· But it's
15 hard for me to evaluate the scope of your objection
16 without knowing more about it.
17· · · · · · · ·In any event, you can instruct him as
18 appropriate.· I will ask again.
19· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· Who at Alphabet worked on
20 the concept of
?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
22 answer questions that invade the work product doctrine
23 or would tend to reveal the substance of projects that
24 are privileged and work product.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Subject to that instruction,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 168 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
what can you tell me about who at Alphabet
·
·2 worked on the concept of
?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·4· · ·A.· ·I follow my counsel's advice not to answer.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Did Alphabet
·6 ultimately implement
?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
·9 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·And the last question on this, what
12 relationship, if any, does
have
13 to Alphabet's pricing decisions?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
16 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer,
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·All right.· Let's move on.
19· · · · · · · ·In Alphabet's view, what does it mean for
20 a product such as
?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I'd like to take a break to
23 discuss an issue of privilege.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's take a break.· Off
25 the record.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 169 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·2 2:43 p.m.
·3· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·4· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·5 2:54 p.m.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Before we broke
·7 for the break,
I asked you, In Alphabet's
·8 view, what does it mean for a product such as
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that your
11 question calls for testimony regarding any work product
12 projects or privileged projects, I instruct the witness
13 not to answer because the answer would invade the
14 attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine.
15· · · · · · · ·To the extent that your question goes
16 beyond the scope of the six projects set forth in the
17 CID, I instruct -- the witness is not here as corporate
18 designee on any topics that go beyond those, but he may
19 answer in his individual capacity if he can answer in a
20 way that would not invade the privilege or work product.
21· · ·A.· ·Okay.· Then I'll speak to the -- to what the
22 document is referring to in an individual capacity and
23 not as a -- I'm sorry,
.
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· Just so we're
25 clear here, there is no exhibit that is on the record or
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 170 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 no document that is sitting before us right now.· So
·2 we're just talking about Mr. Nakamura's question.
·3· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.
·4· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you restate the question, and
·5 I'll be happy to answer.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I will restate.
·7· · · · · · · ·In Alphabet's view, what does it mean for
·8 a product such as
?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I give the same
11 admonishment.· He will be testifying in his individual
12 capacity here.
13· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.
14· · ·A.· ·Okay.·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 171 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
.
·
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you for that.
·3· · · · · · · ·
?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I give the same
·7 admonishment,
and you'll be testifying in your
·8 individual capacity because this goes beyond the scope
·9 of the CID.
10· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sure.
11· · ·A.· ·You said
, and what was the
12 third?
13· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Sure.· I'll repeat.
14· · · · · · ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 172 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·4· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
·5· · · · · · · ·And in Alphabet's view, what does it mean
·6 for a product such as
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I give the same
·9 admonishment.· The witness is not testifying in
10 Alphabet's view but in his personal capacity, as this
11 question is beyond the scope of the CID.
12· · ·A.· ·
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you for that.
20· · · · · · · ·
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection and
24 instruction.· The witness is not testifying about
25 Alphabet's view because your question goes beyond the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 173 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 scope of the CID, but he may testify in his personal
·2 capacity.
·3· · ·A.· ·
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you for that.
13· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you upload
14 into the Chat, please, tab 15.
15· · · · · · · ·Could the court reporter mark this as
16 Exhibit 9.
17· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 9 marked)
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
19 know when you have that in front of you.
20· · · · · · · ·While that is happening, let me read this
21 into the record.· This is a document produced by
22 Alphabet beginning in Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-23 ending in Bates No. 5843.· The subject is regarding
25· · · · · · · ·This document is part of an e-mail thread.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 174 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 It's the top e-mail in a thread that contained an e-mail
·2 that was identified in Ms. Elmer's November 15th, ·3 letter as related to Project Stonehenge.
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Again, we're going to need to
·5 break to discuss an issue of privilege.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sounds good.· Let's go off
·7 the record.
·8· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·9 3:02 p.m.
10· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
11· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
12 3:13 p.m.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· I can hear
14 somebody's -15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Hold on.· Let's go back off
16 the record.
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
18 3:13 p.m.
19· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
20· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
21 3:14 p.m.
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right, Brent, we are
23 clawing back Exhibit 9.· We will do the same thing as
24 for Exhibit 8.· We will be providing an updated redacted
25 version of this document before the end of the day
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 175 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 today.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Absolutely you may
·3 claw that back.
·4· · · · · · · ·I will just make one note for the record
·5 that I had planned on introducing this document so as to
·6 establish that my questions with respect to the
·were within the scope of
·9 the CID notice.· But with that, we can just move on.
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I still maintain my scope
11 objection that to the extent that those features are not
12 related to a privileged project and relate to some other
13 context, that those features do fall outside the scope
14 of the deposition notice.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Thank you.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
what is
?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Again, same admonishment.
19 This question goes outside the scope of the CID notice,
20 and so the witness will be testifying in his personal
21 capacity and not in his capacity as corporate designee.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
?
24· · ·A.· ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 176 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·
·9· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
10· · · · · · · ·
?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
is providing this testimony in his personal
15 capacity, as this question goes beyond the scope of the
16 CID.
17· · ·A.· ·Sure.·
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment, same
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 177 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 objection as beyond the scope.·
is
·2 providing this testimony in his personal capacity as the
·3 question goes beyond the scope of the CID.
·4· · ·A.· ·
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· My question,
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment, same scope
15 objection.·
is providing this testimony in
16 his personal capacity.· I believe that this question has
17 already been asked and answered, and I object to it as
18 vague and ambiguous and misleading.
19· · · · · · · ·But you may answer in your personal
20 capacity if you can,
21· · ·A.· ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 178 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.·
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment and scope
·8 objection.
·9· · · · · · · ·But you may answer.
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection.
15· · ·A.· ·
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
21· · · · · · · ·
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection.·
24 will be testifying in his personal capacity as the
25 question goes beyond the scope of the CID.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 179 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.·
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· The same scope objection.
12 This testimony will be in personal capacity, as this
13 question goes beyond the scope of the CID.
14· · ·A.· ·
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to form, also same
21 scope objection.· This testimony will be a personal
22 capacity testimony, as the question goes beyond the
23 scope of the CID.
24· · ·A.· ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 180 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
14· · ·A.· ·
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection.· I'm
16 sorry.
17· · · · · · · ·Go ahead.
18· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yep.· I'm sorry.
19· · ·A.· ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 181 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection.
·9· · ·A.· ·
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you for that.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I will just note for the
19 record that it is my view that had I been allowed to
20 question
as Alphabet's representative on
21 the document that was just clawed back, I would have had
22 more questions; but that's just for the record.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So a new line of
24 questioning.· Did Alphabet consider
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 182 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
as part of Project Stonehenge?
·
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
·3 to answer the question because the question invades the
·4 work product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow that
·6 instruction,
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· So, Ms. Elmer, it is the
·9 Division's position that Google has waived privilege
10 over this particular line of inquiry.
11· · · · · · · ·Seumas, could you please put in the Chat
12 tab 27.· And I would like the court reporter to mark
13 this as Alphabet Exhibit 10.
14· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 10 marked)
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Alphabet Exhibit 10 is an
16 excerpt from the August 11th, 2021 deposition of
As you can see in this excerpt which
18 contains the title page, the reporter's certification
19 and an excerpt, on page 197 I asked
this
20 question with respect to Stonehenge and additional work
.
22· · · · · · · ·He responded.· There was no clawback of
23 this transcript, motion to strike or anything else.
24· · · · · · · ·And as a result, not only have six months
25 passed, but I believe that Alphabet has waived the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 183 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 ability to claim privilege over this line of
·2 questioning.
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· We dispute your waiver
·4 argument, and we'll just have to take that up at a later
·5 time.· But we are not going to waive the privilege in
·6 today's deposition.
·7· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I understand.· Thanks for
·8 your position.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So let's move back to
10 Exhibit 7.· So turning to Exhibit 7, page 3.· Let me
11 know when you have that in front of you,
12· · ·A.· ·Is this the February 25th letter?
13· · ·Q.· ·Yes, it is.
14· · ·A.· ·Yep.
15· · ·Q.· ·Under Project Stonehenge the second bullet
16 point, is this a complete list of all outside counsel
17 who were involved in Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · ·Q.· ·And is the third bullet point a complete list
20 of all Google in-house counsel who were involved in
21 Project Stonehenge?
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·And is bullet point No. 4 a complete list of
24 all Google employees other than Google in-house counsel
25 who were involved in Project Stonehenge?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 184 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes, with the same note that some of these were
·2 on the working team and others were more of the
·3 audience.
·4· · ·Q.· ·All right.· That's very helpful.
·5· · · · · · · ·So who among these Google employees was on
·6 the working team?
·7· · ·A.· ·So I'll go in order here.·
13· · ·Q.· ·Was there a leadership -14· · ·A.· ·The nonlawyers.· And then there were lawyers.
15· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Yes.· That's my fault.
16· · · · · · · ·Who were the lawyers who were on the
17 working team for Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·
.· Those were the primary
19 day-to-day.
20· · ·Q.· ·And was there a leadership team associated with
21 Project Stonehenge?
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·Who was on that leadership team associated with
24 Project Stonehenge?
25· · ·A.· ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
, along with
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 185 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 I would include
in there.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And were there any key decision-makers with
·3 respect to Project Stonehenge?
·4· · ·A.· ·That assumes that a decision was reached, so
·5 that's impossible for me to answer.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And that is because no decision was reached
·7 with respect to Project Stonehenge.· Is that correct?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job
10 responsibilities?
11· · ·A.· ·Sure.· It's
She is the lead product
12 manager for AdManager.
13· · ·Q.· ·And what work did she do for Project
14 Stonehenge?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I object to the extent
16 that answering the question would call for information
17 that invades the work product doctrine or the
18 attorney/client privilege.
19· · · · · · · ·However, if there's a way to answer the
20 question without invading the privilege, please do so.
21· · ·A.· ·Sure.· Before I do that, I should have noted
22 that
was part of the leadership team.
23· · · · · · · ·So her job was to lead the project as we
24 considered remedies for potential antitrust litigation
25 and privacy litigation.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 186 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you for that.
·2· · · · · · · ·And what were
job
·3 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment, but you may
·5 answer if there's a way to do so without invading the
·6 privilege.
·7· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· He's responsible for all engineers, for
·8 all of the publisher products, including AdManager, so
·9 he was a contributor.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what work did
do as part of Project Stonehenge?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
13· · ·A.· ·He provided guidance.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And guidance to whom?
15· · ·A.· ·To the working team and to leadership.
16· · ·Q.· ·And when you say "leadership," do you mean the
17 leadership team we just discussed for Project Stonehenge
18 or some other leadership team?
19· · ·A.· ·I basically mean
20· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job responsibilities
21 with respect to Project Stonehenge?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
23· · ·A.· ·So he's responsible for the commercialization
24 of our publisher products and how we bring them to
25 market.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 187 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what work did
·2 do with respect to Project Stonehenge?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·4· · ·A.· ·He provided guidance to the working team.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what were your job
·6 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·8· · ·A.· ·Primarily as an audience and to provide
·9 guidance to both the working team and to leadership.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what work did you do
11 with respect to Project Stonehenge?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
13· · ·A.· ·I provided guidance to the working team and to
14 leadership.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What were
job
16 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
18· · ·A.· ·He works for
and he's a project manager
19 on AdManager.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what work did
do for Project Stonehenge?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
23· · ·A.· ·Analysis.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what analysis did
perform?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 188 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'd instruct the witness not
·2 to answer because the question invades the work product
·3 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·5 instruction?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· What were
job
·8 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
·9· · ·A.· ·Apologies.· Can I have one minute?
10· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· No problem.
11· · ·A.· ·Okay.· I'm ready to continue.
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment, but you may
13 answer to the extent you can without invading the
14 privilege,
15· · ·A.· ·I apologize.· Can you repeat the question.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Absolutely, no problem.
17· · · · · · · ·What were
job
18 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
19· · ·A.· ·He is a senior engineering leader on the
20 AdManager team.
21· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
do with respect to
22 Project Stonehenge?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
24· · ·A.· ·Analysis.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what sort of analysis
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 189 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 did
perform as part of Project Stonehenge?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
·3 answer because the question invades the work product
·4 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·6 instruction?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Did you say "yes"?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· My fault.
11· · · · · · · ·What were Mr.
job responsibilities
12 with respect to Project Stonehenge?
13· · ·A.· ·He's the engineer responsible for AdManager.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what work did Mr.
perform as part of
15 Project Stonehenge?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
17· · ·A.· ·He was a contributor to the working team.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What contributions did
19 Mr.
make to the working team?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· If you can answer the question
21 without invading the privilege or work product doctrine,
22 you may; otherwise, I instruct the witness not to
23 answer.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Do you have any response
25 that you can provide,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
subject to your
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 190 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 counsel's instruction?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·All right.· And lastly on this list, what were
·
job responsibilities with respect to Project
·5 Stonehenge?
·6· · ·A.· ·So she's the general manager for AVAD, which
·7 includes the publisher products.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And what work did she perform with respect to
·9 Project Stonehenge?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
11· · ·A.· ·Primarily audience, and she obviously among
12 this list has the senior responsibility to decide how to
13 steward the business in light of regulatory
14 potentialities.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Were any Alphabet employees
16 or executives not listed here involved in considering
17 any part of Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·Not to my knowledge based on the diligence that
19 we performed.
20· · ·Q.· ·And when did Project Stonehenge begin?
21· · · · · · · ·I'm sorry.· You're muted,
22· · ·A.· ·My apologies.
23· · · · · · · ·Stonehenge began in February of 2020.
24· · ·Q.· ·What event began Project Stonehenge?
25· · ·A.· ·Primarily the completion of a prior project at
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 191 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 which point we decided to investigate a particular line
·2 of remedies.· And that prior project was precipitated by
·3 the seven investigations that were noted on page 2 of
·4 Exhibit 7.
·5· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· I appreciate the precision.
·6· · · · · · · ·And did Project Stonehenge evolve into
·7 Project Banksy as listed on the CID specification
·8 schedule?
·9· · ·A.· ·No.
10· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· When did Project Stonehenge end?
11· · ·A.· ·June 2020.
12· · ·Q.· ·Was there any event or occurrence that marked
13 the end of Project Stonehenge in Alphabet's view?
14· · ·A.· ·This was more of a completion of analysis to
15 our satisfaction.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· How many meetings in total occurred at
17 Alphabet for Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·I'd say on the order of 25.
19· · ·Q.· ·And of those 25 meetings, how many were
20 attended by Alphabet's attorneys?
21· · ·A.· ·The majority, large majority.
22· · ·Q.· ·How many Alphabet employee hours have been
23 spent on Project Stonehenge?
24· · ·A.· ·About 50.
25· · ·Q.· ·And how much did Alphabet spend on outside
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 192 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 counsel as related to Project Stonehenge?
·2· · ·A.· ·That's tough to answer, again, because this is
·3 conflated with many other ongoing projects and difficult
·4 to ascertain from the available data.· So I suspect it's
·5 a small to medium amount, likely more than SingleClick.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I appreciate that.
·7· · · · · · · ·And what records or information did you
·8 look at to come to the estimate you just provided that
·9 it is a small to medium amount and more than
10 SingleClick?
11· · ·A.· ·There were more meetings, as indicated by the
12 calendaring and the length of the project and analysis.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how many of the approximately 25 meetings
14 that occurred as a result of Project Stonehenge were
15 attended by Google's outside counsel?
16· · ·A.· ·A few.
17· · ·Q.· ·Less than five?
18· · ·A.· ·On the order of five.
19· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· If you could turn to page 2 of
20 Exhibit 7.
21· · ·A.· ·(Witness complies.)
22· · ·Q.· ·Is this a list of government investigations
23 that caused Alphabet to initiate Project Stonehenge?
24· · ·A.· ·The first seven, yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·And that, to be clear, excludes the Australian
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 193 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Competition and Consumer Commission.· Is that correct?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And are there any of these investigations on
·4 this list on Exhibit 7, page 2 that Alphabet anticipated
·5 litigation or it was dealing with actual litigation that
·6 caused it to initiate Project Stonehenge?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form of the
·8 question as compound.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· You can answer if you
10 understand,
11· · ·A.· ·I was going to ask some clarifying questions
12 because I wasn't sure which specific question you're
13 asking.
14· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· So with respect to anticipated
15 litigation, did Alphabet anticipate any litigation from
16 any of the investigations on this list other than the
17 ACCC investigation that caused it to initiate Project
18 Stonehenge?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.· We anticipated litigation.
20· · ·Q.· ·And is there any actual litigation other than
21 the investigations listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7 that
22 Alphabet initiated Project Stonehenge in response to?
23· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So you're asking for any investigation
24 that are not on this list or litigation not on this
25 list?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 194 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Any litigation not on this list.
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to be clear, you're asking
·3 for any actual litigation not on this list, correct?
·4 You're not talking about government investigations;
·5 you're talking about actual litigation?
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes, that's correct.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:·
do you understand the
·8 question?
·9· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do understand the
10 question, but I would like to sidebar with you briefly.
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· We'll take a quick
12 break.
13· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.
14· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
15 3:45 p.m.
16· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
18 3:49 p.m.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
is there any
20 actual litigation other than the investigations listed
21 on page 2 of Exhibit 7 that Alphabet initiated Project
22 Stonehenge in response to?
23· · ·A.· ·No.
24· · ·Q.· ·Is there any anticipated litigation other than
25 the investigations listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7 that
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 195 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Alphabet initiated Project Stonehenge in response to?
·2· · ·A.· ·I'll answer generally no.· You can't know
·3 what's going to happen.· But we undertook based on
·4 these -- primarily on these seven.
·5· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And were any -- I'm sorry.
·6· · · · · · · ·Were any presentations prepared regarding
·7 Project Stonehenge?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·How many?
10· · ·A.· ·One.
11· · ·Q.· ·On what date was that presentation given?
12· · ·A.· ·That was given approximately early June 2020.
13· · ·Q.· ·And who worked on creating that presentation?
14· · ·A.· ·That group that I walked through earlier.· It's
15 an extensive list of employees and counsel.
16· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, does that involve all
17 individuals listed in bullet points 3 and 4 of page -18 under the heading Project Stonehenge on page 3 of
19 Exhibit 7, or does that include only the working group
20 individuals that you identified?
21· · ·A.· ·Only the working group.
22· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
23· · · · · · · ·And who attended the presentation given in
24 early June 2020 about Project Stonehenge?
25· · ·A.· ·The group in bullets 3 and 4 and a few people
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 196 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 from bullet 2.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And who were the individuals from bullet 2 that
·3 attended the June 2020 presentation given about Project
·4 Stonehenge?
·5· · ·A.· ·I believe, and I'm not sure I can remember the
·6 specific detail, but I believe it was
·7 and
, if I recall.
·8· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· The second name you said was
?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.· They're both listed in bullet 2.
11· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· Just found it.
12· · · · · · · ·Were any draft presentations prepared for
13 Project Stonehenge that were not finalized?
14· · ·A.· ·No.· The draft turned into the final product.
15· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Did any Alphabet employee create a
16 financial forecast as a part of Project Stonehenge?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So object to the extent that
18 the question is attempting to get at the substance of
19 Project Stonehenge documents which are work product and
20 privileged.· To the extent that the question can be
21 answered without invading the privilege, the witness may
22 do so.
23· · ·A.· ·I am not able to.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Did Alphabet project,
25 model or otherwise consider any cost savings as a part
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 197 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 of Project Stonehenge?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you able to provide an
·4 answer subject to your counsel's instructions,
··6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· My question was are you able to
·8 provide an answer subject to your counsel's
·9 instructions?
10· · ·A.· ·I am not able to provide an answer.
11· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
12· · · · · · · ·As part of Project Stonehenge, is Alphabet
13 considering any changes to the ways its AdTech products
14 operate?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
16 answer because the question invades the work product
17 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow that
19 instruction,
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·As part of Project Stonehenge, is Alphabet
22 considering changing the pricing associated with any of
23 its AdTech products?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 198 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer,
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Did Project Stonehenge incorporate any other
·4 analyses previously created by Alphabet employees prior
·5 to the beginning of Project Stonehenge?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that you can
·7 answer the question without invading the privilege or
·8 work product, you may do so; otherwise, I instruct the
·9 witness not to answer.
10· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you repeat it one more time.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Sure.· Did Project
12 Stonehenge incorporate any analyses previously created
13 by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of Project
14 Stonehenge?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what analyses previously
18 created by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of
19 Project Stonehenge were incorporated into Project
20 Stonehenge?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So same instruction.· If you
22 can answer without invading the privilege or the work
23 product doctrine, you may do so.· If your answer would
24 invade the work product doctrine or the privilege, I
25 instruct you not to answer.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 199 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·I think the extent to which I can answer is
·2 that analysis from Project SingleClick was used, but I
·3 can't go into the details without invading the
·4 privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
·6· · · · · · · ·What data sources did Alphabet employees
·7 rely upon for any financial analyses prepared for
·8 Project Stonehenge?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So object to the form as
10 assuming facts not in evidence, and I also instruct the
11 witness not to answer to the extent that doing so would
12 invade the work product doctrine or the attorney/client
13 privilege.
14· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I'm unable to answer.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Can we take a quick break?
17 I'm sorry.· It's for me.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yeah.· No problem.· That's
19 fine, Julie.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Can we take ten minutes?· I've
21 got to get a bite to eat.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yeah.· That's totally fine.
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.· Thank you.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· You're welcome.
25· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 200 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 3:56 p.m.
·2· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·3· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We're back on the
·4 record at 4:03 p.m.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Thank you for
·6 returning,
I just have one more question.
·7 What data sources did Alphabet's employees rely on for
·8 any pricing analyses prepared for Project Stonehenge?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I instruct the witness not
10 to answer because the question invades the work product
11 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.· I also
12 object to the form as assuming facts not in evidence.
13· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And,
will you
14 follow your counsel's instruction not to answer?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
17 put in the Chat tab 14.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
19 Please let me know when you have that in front of you.
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· While you are downloading
21 it, this is a document produced by Alphabet beginning at
22 Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00030150, ending in Bates
23 No. 0159.· It is a document that was produced in
24 redacted form and identified in Ms. Elmer's
25 November 15th letter as related to Project SingleClick
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 201 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 and Project Stonehenge.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· With that, please let me
·3 know when you have reviewed this document.
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· We'll be clawing
·5 this one back as well.· And I'd like to take a break to
·6 discuss an issue of privilege, but I can tell you we'll
·7 be clawing that one back as well.
·8· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Sounds good.· Go off
·9 the record.
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
11 4:05 p.m.
12· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
13· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
14 4:16 p.m.
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So as I stated a moment ago,
16 we'll be clawing back this exhibit as well and
17 reproducing a copy that we can use in the deposition
18 shortly.
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Thank you.· Do you
20 have any estimate, Ms. Elmer, with respect to the other
21 documents that were clawed back as to when they will be
22 produced to me?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Momentarily.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Just for the record for
25 completeness, I would like the court reporter to have
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 202 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 marked the exhibit that was just clawed back as
·2 Exhibit 11; but, of course, you may claw it back.
·3· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 11 marked)
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· With that, I'll
·5 move on.
·6· · · · · · · ·
I would now like to ask you
·7 about Project Banksy which is part of specifications 1f
·8 and specification 2.
·9· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Banksy" for
10 the project?
11· · ·A.· ·I suspect it was the lead engineer working on
12 the project,
13· · ·Q.· ·
is that what you just said?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· What was the subject -- I'm sorry,
16 let me back up.
17· · · · · · · ·Let's refer to Exhibit 7, which is the
18 February 25th letter sent by your counsel, Ms. Elmer,
19 page 4.· Please let me know when you have that in front
20 of you.
21· · ·A.· ·Yep, I do.
22· · ·Q.· ·Great.· What is the subject matter of Project
23 Banksy?
24· · ·A.· ·So as laid out in
testimony,
25 there's two parts to it.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 203 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·One was an early examination of header
·2 bidding as a project feature, and then, secondly, it
·3 morphed into a product or into an effort that was a
·4 response to a particular antitrust investigation.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what antitrust investigation was the second
·6 Project Banksy a response to?
·7· · ·A.· ·The French Competition Authority.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And what were Alphabet's objectives as part of
·9 Project Banksy?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So to the extent that this -11 well, actually, I instruct the witness not to answer the
12 question as it invades the work product doctrine and the
13 attorney/client privilege.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow that
15 instruction,
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·Turning now to bullet point 2 that starts on
18 page 4 and runs into page 5 of Exhibit 7, is this a full
19 and complete list of all outside counsel who worked on
20 the second Project Banksy?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·And is the first full bullet point on page 4 a
23 full and complete list of all Google in-house counsel
24 who worked on the second version of Project Banksy?
25· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I just want to again specify that not
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 204 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 everyone here worked on it.· Some were made aware of the
·2 project.
·3· · ·Q.· ·But in terms of anyone who worked on the
·4 project, is that a full and complete list?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'd like to clarify.· I think,
·8 Brent, in your earlier question about a bullet point
·9 that started on page 4 and runs into page 5, what you
10 meant to say was bullet point 2 that starts on page 11 and runs into page 4.
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.· Thank you, Julie.
13 That is what I meant.· I appreciate that.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And so on the second full
15 bullet point on page 4, is this a full and complete list
16 of Google employees who worked on or were an audience
17 for Project Banksy?
18· · ·A.· ·There may be a few others who were an audience.
19· · · · · · · ·And I think it's important to note in a
20 project like this, especially given the tight relation
21 to a regulatory matter, that it would have gone up the
22 chain for acknowledgments, though I don't -- I wouldn't
23 necessarily classify the cross-functional leadership up
24 the chain as an audience as much as they were very
25 briefly made aware, possibly asked for a simple ack.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 205 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·So I'll just note that there may be some
·2 names in executive leadership not included here in that
·3 capacity.· So it's really a question of what you mean by
·4 audience.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what do you mean by "simple ack"?
·6· · ·A.· ·An ack, acknowledgment.· So, for example, if
·7 the working team came up with a plan in conjunction with
·8 counsel that they intended to supply to a regulatory
·9 authority, they would pass that to me; I would ask some
10 questions.
11· · · · · · · ·And then once that's to my satisfaction,
12 it would go up to my superiors in product, maybe
13 engineering, maybe general management, maybe finance,
14 maybe legal, so further up the chain there.· And they
15 would be informed but not necessarily in a presentation.
16· · · · · · · ·It would be more of a, Hey, here's what we
17 plan to do.· We want to make you aware.· Do you have any
18 concerns?· If not, we're going to move forward.· Please
19 acknowledge this e-mail.· And then they would simply say
20 "ack" or "I agree."
21· · · · · · · ·And that's generally how these matters
22 work because of the complicated structures in our
23 corporate environment.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· I appreciate that explanation.
25 It's very helpful.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 206 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·So what are the names in executive
·2 leadership not included in this bullet point that would
·3 have been possibly asked for a simple a-c-k, ack?
·4· · ·A.· ·I imagine
and Kent Walker and
·5 possibly Philipp.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And when you say "Philipp," you mean Philipp
·7 Schindler.· Is that correct?
·8· · ·A.· ·That's right, yep.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And is it common for Mr. Walker to be involved
10 in these sorts of simple ack issues?
11· · ·A.· ·I don't think these happen very often.· So here
12 we're talking about, you know, a potential settlement
13 with a regulatory authority.· As you can empathize,
14 these things don't happen very often.· So when they do,
15 it's important that our, you know, chief legal and
16 public affairs officer is aware and supportive.
17· · ·Q.· ·Just to be clear, Mr. Walker then is both your
18 chief legal and public affairs officer.· Is that
19 correct?
20· · ·A.· ·To my knowledge, yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·And as part of the Project Banksy, the version
22 that we are now discussing, which is the second version,
23 who was on the working team with respect to Project
24 Banksy?
25· · ·A.· ·So I'm reading from the fourth bullet point
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 207 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 which is on page 4 of Exhibit 7,
Yeah, those are the employees, the
·5 nonlawyer employees.
·6· · · · · · · ·And then I would note
, actually, pretty much everyone on the
·8 in-house Google counsel was part of the working team
·9 here.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· I appreciate that.
11· · · · · · · ·And who, if anyone, was on the leadership
12 team with respect to Project Banksy?
13· · ·A.· ·
and then
14 several of the in-house counsel.
15· · ·Q.· ·And which specific in-house counsel were on the
16 leadership team?
17· · ·A.· ·Ted and
and
18· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Is there anyone else?
19· · ·A.· ·No.
20· · ·Q.· ·And so what were
responsibilities
21 with respect to Project Banksy?
22· · ·A.· ·He's a product manager on AdManager.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what work did he perform with respect to
24 Project Banksy?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so to the extent that you
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 208 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 can answer the question without invading the work
·2 product doctrine or the attorney/client privilege, you
·3 may; otherwise, I instruct you not to answer.
·4· · ·A.· ·He provided product management.· That's the
·5 extent of the detail I can go into.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And am I correct in that you
·7 cannot provide more detail because it would require you
·8 to divulge privileged information?· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
11· · · · · · · ·And what were
job
12 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
13· · ·A.· ·Engineering.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
perform with
15 respect to Project Banksy?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
17· · ·A.· ·Engineering.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is it that you cannot
19 provide more detail because it would be disclosing
20 privileged information?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·What were
job responsibilities
23 with respect -- I apologize, with respect to Project
24 Banksy?
25· · ·A.· ·Can I confer for a second?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 209 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· Let's go off the record.
·2· · ·A.· ·Thank you.
·3· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·4 4:29 p.m.
·5· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·6· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· On the record at
·7 4:33 p.m.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What were
job
·9 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
10· · ·A.· ·General engineering.
11· · ·Q.· ·Can you provide any more detail as to what you
12 mean by "general engineering"?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And just to be clear, since
16 we just took a break, do you mean that you're refusing
17 to answer on the basis of Ms. Elmer's privilege
18 instruction?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And work product.
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What were
job
23 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
24· · ·A.· ·He leads commercialization with the publisher
25 community.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 210 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
perform with
·2 respect to Project Banksy?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So to the extent you can
·4 provide an answer to the question without invading the
·5 work product doctrine or the attorney/client privilege,
·6 you may; otherwise, I instruct you not to answer.
·7· · ·A.· ·He and his team would be responsible for public
·8 outreach.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And public outreach to whom?
10· · ·A.· ·To publishers.
11· · ·Q.· ·And as part of Project Banksy, did
12 team actually reach out to any publishers?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·And which publishers did
team
15 reach out to as part of Project Banksy?
16· · ·A.· ·I don't know.· It would have been probably a
17 small- to medium-sized group.
18· · ·Q.· ·Did you review any documents in preparation for
19 this deposition that would have helped you understand
20 which publishers he reached out to as a part of Project
21 Banksy?
22· · ·A.· ·No, I didn't.· It's a fairly standard process
23 that we go through with, you know, hundreds of different
24 product launches.· So this would have been fairly
25 ordinary.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 211 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job
·2 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I object -- or instruct the
·4 witness not to answer to the extent that his answer
·5 would invade the privilege.· But if there is a way that
·6 he can provide an answer without invading the privilege,
·7 he may do so.
·8· · ·A.· ·She provided legal guidance and leadership.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is there any further
10 information you can provide me with respect to the legal
11 guidance and leadership?
12· · ·A.· ·Everything would be privileged there, so I
13 apologize.· I cannot.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what was Mr. Lazarus' job responsibilities
15 with respect to Project Banksy?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
17· · ·A.· ·Given he's our general product counsel for ads,
18 he would have been also involved in leadership and
19 guidance to the team.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what guidance did
21 Mr. Lazarus provide to the team with respect to Project
22 Bansky?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· The
24 question invades the attorney/client privilege, and I
25 instruct the witness not to answer.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 212 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·2 instruction?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And lastly, what were
job
·5 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· To the extent that you can
·7 answer without invading the privilege, you may.
·8· · ·A.· ·Well, he was product counsel for AdManager at
·9 the time.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Is there any more
11 information you can provide about his job
12 responsibilities?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
14· · ·A.· ·Other than being product counsel, no.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· When did Project
16 Banksy begin?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So are you referring to the
18 second type of Project Banksy, the remedies analysis, in
19 your question?
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.· Thank you.· I'll
21 rephrase.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· When did the Project Banksy
23 remedies analysis begin?
24· · ·A.· ·Approximately spring of 2020.
25· · ·Q.· ·And do you have any better approximation of on
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 213 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 what date or month Project Banksy remedies analysis
·2 began?
·3· · ·A.· ·April.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·5· · · · · · · ·And what event began Project Banksy?
·6· · ·A.· ·The investigation from the French authority.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And how many meetings regarding Project Banksy
·8 have taken place since -- the remedies Project Banksy
·9 have taken place since April of 2020?
10· · ·A.· ·A lot.
11· · ·Q.· ·What is your reasonable estimate as Alphabet's
12 designee about the number of meetings that have taken
13 place regarding Project Banksy, the remedies analysis?
14· · ·A.· ·Approximately 50 to 60.
15· · ·Q.· ·And how many of those 50 to 60 meetings were
16 attended by Google's in-house counsel?
17· · ·A.· ·So this depends, but I would say likely -- I
18 would say about half.
19· · ·Q.· ·And how many of those 50 to 60 meetings were
20 attended by Google's outside counsel?
21· · ·A.· ·Probably about a quarter.
22· · ·Q.· ·And at any time did anyone at Alphabet discuss
23 the remedies Project Banksy with an individual or entity
24 other than Alphabet's lawyers that was not employed by
25 Alphabet?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 214 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So are you excepting here the
·2 publisher outreach?
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Or discussions with
·5 regulators?
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Well, my question is at any
·7 time did anyone at Alphabet discuss the remedies Project
·8 Banksy with an individual or entity other than
·9 Alphabet's lawyers that was not employed by Alphabet?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· I object to the
11 question as vague.· I think maybe if you break it down
12 by time period or type of third party, it might be
13 helpful.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Other than the publishers
15 you referred to earlier, did anyone at Alphabet discuss
16 Project Banksy with an individual or entity not employed
17 by Alphabet, the remedies version of Project Banksy,
18 other than with Alphabet's outside counsel?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.
20· · · · · · · ·You may answer if you know.
21· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I need about one minute with
22 counsel.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· Go off the record.
24· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
25 4:40 p.m.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 215 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·2· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·3 4:44 p.m.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.·
to
·5 the best of your knowledge, did anyone at Google discuss
·6 Project Banksy's remedy portion with any third party
·7 that was not representing Google as legal counsel?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what were the third parties with whom
10 remedies Project Banksy was discussed?
11· · ·A.· ·So I can construct a timeline of who was spoken
12 with?
13· · ·Q.· ·That would be great, thank you.
14· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So the first non-counsel party we spoke
15 with was the regulator in France.· After we reached an
16 agreement there, we spoke with our customers to design
17 an appropriate solution; and then we further
18 commercialized the product and spoke with more customers
19 after -- or actually, we posted a -- we made a blog post
20 in conjunction with the settlement, and then we further
21 commercialized.
22· · ·Q.· ·And in the second step, the customers you spoke
23 to to design an appropriate solution, who were those
24 customers?
25· · ·A.· ·I can't speak to them directly, but I can give
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 216 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 you the general character of them were publishers who
·2 were interested in including header bidding in their
·3 setups or who already did and for which this product
·4 would be a good enhancement for them.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what did you discuss with those customers
·6 with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
·7· · ·A.· ·I think we were confirming, validating
·8 particular features or subfeatures that would be
·9 included in the header bidding manager.
10· · ·Q.· ·And what were those particular features that
11 would be included in the header bidding manager?
12· · ·A.· ·Now you're into like some pretty technical
13 details.·
19· · ·Q.· ·And what subfeatures did Alphabet discuss with
20 customers as part of this process?
21· · ·A.· ·Those are the subfeatures.· The feature is
22 header bidding manager.· Yeah.· Those are the
23 subfeatures.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that clarification.
25· · · · · · · ·When communicating with these third-party
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 217 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 customers, did Alphabet employees propose this solution
·2 as an alternative to header bidding?
·3· · ·A.· ·Not really.· It's more of a facilitation of
·4 header bidding and an integration of header bidding into
·5 AdManager.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And approximately how many customers did
·7 Alphabet employees speak with as a part of this second
·8 step in your timeline?
·9· · ·A.· ·On the order of ten.
10· · ·Q.· ·And who were those ten customers?
11· · ·A.· ·I don't know.
12· · ·Q.· ·Who at Alphabet would be knowledgeable about
13 the identities of those ten customers?
14· · ·A.· ·
and either
16· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
17· · · · · · · ·Let me loop back to close out one
18 question.
19· · · · · · · ·Of the approximately 50 to 60 meetings
20 that occurred as a result of remedies Project Banksy,
21 what percentage of those meetings did not involve any
22 legal counsel, whether inside or outside counsel?
23· · ·A.· ·About half.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
25· · · · · · · ·What was the cost associated with Project
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 218 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Banksy specified in the number of employee hours worked
·2 on remedies Project Banksy?
·3· · ·A.· ·My best guess would be on the order of 2 to
·4 300 hours.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And how much did Alphabet pay to outside
·6 counsel in fees as a result of Project Banksy?
·7· · ·A.· ·Again, this is difficult to answer just because
·8 it's intertwined with the other issues that I can't
·9 speak to.· So it's hard for me to provide an estimate.
10 But I suspect, given it was entangled with a settlement
11 that was a much larger settlement, that I imagine it was
12 a lot.
13· · ·Q.· ·Which is to say larger than Project
14 SingleClick.· Is that correct?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I think it's fair to say that regulators
16 require a lot of legal time.
17· · ·Q.· ·And has Alphabet paid any money to any
18 nonlawyer third parties as a result of remedies Project
19 Banksy?
20· · ·A.· ·No.· Any nonlawyer third parties as part of a
21 remedy.· I can't speak to parts of a settlement that
22 would have been outside of this portion.· So I just want
23 to caveat my answer with that.
24· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Were there parts of a settlement
25 that were outside of Project Banksy with the French
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 219 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Competition Authority?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· The question goes beyond the
·3 scope of the CID, but the witness may answer in his
·4 individual capacity if he knows.
·5· · ·A.· ·My understanding is that there were several
·6 other aspects to the settlement apart from this project
·7 that have -- that are not involved in my products, which
·8 may or may not have included some type of payment, which
·9 I think was your question.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Yes.· No.· That's helpful,
11 and I appreciate that clarification.
12· · · · · · · ·So turning to page 2 of Exhibit 7 -- and
13 that's the February 25th letter -- which of the
14 government investigations listed here served as a basis
15 for Alphabet's initiation of remedies Project Banksy?
16· · ·A.· ·Primarily the French Competition Authority, and
17 I would also say with, you know, additional concern from
18 the U.K. CMA, Texas, the U.S. Department of Justice and
19 the EC.
20· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
21· · · · · · · ·And are there any government
22 investigations that are not listed here that caused
23 Alphabet to initiate Project Banksy remedies?
24· · ·A.· ·No.
25· · ·Q.· ·And was any actual litigation the cause of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 220 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Alphabet initiating remedies Project Banksy?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· You're talking about actual
·3 lawsuits?
·4· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.
·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Is that correct?
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· That's distinct from
·8 government investigations, correct?
·9· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes, that's correct.
10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Was there any anticipated
12 litigation other than the government investigations
13 listed here that caused Alphabet to initiate the
14 remedies Project Banksy?
15· · ·A.· ·No.
16· · ·Q.· ·Were any presentations prepared regarding
17 Project Banksy?
18· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Could you repeat.
19· · ·Q.· ·I apologize.· Were any presentations prepared
20 regarding remedies Project Banksy?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·How many?
23· · ·A.· ·Several.
24· · ·Q.· ·And numerically what do you mean by "several"?
25· · ·A.· ·Meaning there were analysis documents and other
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 221 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 types of documents all the way through to launching
·2 products.· So, I mean, that typically involves a number
·3 of different documents for each of those stages of the
·4 process.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what was the final presentation made -- I'm
·6 sorry.
·7· · · · · · · ·When was the final presentation made
·8 regarding project remedies Bansky?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form, assumes
10 facts.
11· · · · · · · ·You may answer if you understand.
12· · ·A.· ·I think you're suggesting the project's done,
13 and I would dispute that the project is done.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· That is fair.
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Hey, Brent, I'm sorry.· Can we
16 take a quick break?
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· Let's go off the
18 record.
19· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
20 4:56 p.m.
21· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
22· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
23 5:00 p.m.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
25 When was the latest presentation made with respect to
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 222 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 remedies Project Banksy?
·2· · ·A.· ·Very recently.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And who made that presentation?
·4· · ·A.· ·
·5· · ·Q.· ·And who helped prepare that presentation?
·6· · ·A.· ·
·
and likely the program manager,
, and either
.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
·9· · · · · · · ·And who attended the most recent
10 presentation with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
11· · ·A.· ·That would have been
12 myself,
,
That's the likely lead set.
13· · ·Q.· ·Okay.
14· · ·A.· ·Probably also
.
15· · ·Q.· ·And did any attorneys attend the most recent
16 presentation with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.· Likely that would have been
who I
18 believe is not listed on here as in-counsel because
19 she's relatively recent.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what is
last name?
21· · ·A.· ·I believe it's
.· I can look that up
22 or submit it to you shortly.
23· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· We can get that from your counsel later.
24· · · · · · · ·And who created the first presentation
25 with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 223 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·I believe that would have been
·2 and
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'm sorry.· Before we move on,
·4 I just wanted to confirm
last name is
·5· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Thank you.
·6· · ·A.· ·I apologize.· I'm terrible with names, so bear
·7 with me.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· No problem.· I'm glad you
·9 gave us the information.
10· · · · · · · ·So who attended the first presentation
11 with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
12· · ·A.· ·
.· That's it.
14· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
15· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· That's it.
16· · ·Q.· ·Did any attorneys attend the first remedies
17 Project Banksy presentation?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.· That would have been
19 remember if
and I don't
was involved at that point.
20· · ·Q.· ·Did any Alphabet employee create a financial
21 forecast as a part of Project Remedies Bansky?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that your
23 question is seeking the contents of the privileged and
24 work product documents, I instruct the witness not to
25 answer.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 224 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I unfortunately can't answer for
·2 privilege.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
·4· · · · · · · ·And did Alphabet project, model or
·5 otherwise consider any cost savings as a part of
·6 remedies Project Banksy?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow your
·9 counsel's instruction not to answer,
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·As part of remedies Project Banksy, is Alphabet
12 considering changing the pricing of any of its ad tech
13 products?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow your
16 counsel's instruction not to answer,
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·Did Project Banksy, the remedies version,
19 incorporate any other analyses created by Alphabet
20 employees prior to the beginning of Project Banksy?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Can we take a break to discuss
22 an issue of privilege?
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.
24· · ·A.· ·Can you restate it before we break?
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Sure.· Did the remedies
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 225 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 version of Project Banksy incorporate any analyses
·2 created by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of
·3 Project Banksy, the remedies version?
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.
·5· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
·6· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·7 5:06 p.m.
·8· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·9· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
10 5:14 p.m.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
12 Before the break I asked you whether the remedies
13 version of Project Banksy incorporated any analyses
14 created by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of
15 the project.
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·And what were those analyses?
18· · ·A.· ·Well, we performed a lot of analyses in the
19 initial Bansky effort prior to the regulatory
20 (inaudible).
21· · ·Q.· ·And what were the names of those analyses?
22· · ·A.· ·I can't speak to that because that would be
23 privileged.
24· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Can you provide any more information
25 about the analyses that were performed as part of the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 226 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 initial Bansky effort?
·2· · ·A.· ·Sure.· If you're more specific, I can.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Well, all I have is the answer you gave as to,
·4 "And what were those analyses?
·5· · · · · · · ·"We performed a lot of analyses in the
·6 initial Bansky effort prior to the regulatory portion."
·7· · · · · · · ·And so my question is what were those
·8 analyses?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· And point of
10 clarification here, you know, were you asking whether to
11 name the analyses that were incorporated into the
12 remedies project, or are you asking him just what type
13 of analyses were performed in the original project
14 generally?
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· The names of the analyses
16 that were incorporated into the remedies project.
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.· And to that question I
18 instruct the witness not to answer because answering
19 would invade the work product doctrine.
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
22 instruction?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
25 upon for any financial analyses prepared for remedies
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 227 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Project Banksy?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and object to
·3 the form.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you answer that
·5 question,
·6· · ·A.· ·No.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And are there any successor projects to Project
·8 Banksy?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
10 answer because that project invades the attorney/client
11 privilege and the work product doctrine.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what is the name of the
13 successor project to Project Banksy?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· And will you follow
16 that instruction,
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·Is there a successor project to Project Banksy?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Will you follow
21 that instruction,
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And, Ms. Elmer, is your
24 position on behalf of Alphabet that the existence of a
25 successor project to Project Banksy is properly
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 228 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 protected by privilege?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· My position is that it's
·3 beyond the scope of the CID.
·4· · · · · · · ·And, you know, this whole exercise is
·5 borderline.· I think the CID for the most part, the
·6 topics that are set forth in it are not valid because
·7 they attempt to invade the attorney/client privilege and
·8 the work product doctrine.
·9· · · · · · · ·We're not going to go beyond the scope of
10 the CID to talk about more privileged projects and work
11 product projects.· We're just not going to do that, not
12 in the deposition here today.
13· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.·
14 will you follow Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer my
15 question?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·Let me now turn to Project Quantize, which is
18 part of specifications 1g and specification 2.
19· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Quantize" for
20 the projects?
21· · ·A.· ·I did.
22· · ·Q.· ·And if you could turn, please, to Exhibit 7,
23 which is the February 25th letter, on page 5 of the PDF.
24 Please let me know when you have that in front of you.
25· · ·A.· ·I do.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 229 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·What was the subject matter of Project
·2 Quantize?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that you can
·4 answer the question without invading the privilege, you
·5 may do so,
otherwise, I instruct you not to
·6 answer.
·7· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· So I was seeking legal advice with
·8 respect to GDPR and its impact on our products.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And from whom were you
10 seeking legal advice?
11· · ·A.· ·From our in-house P counsel and our privacy
12 counsel.
13· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean when you say "P counsel"?
14· · ·A.· ·Product counsel.
15· · ·Q.· ·And what is the name of your product counsel?
16· · ·A.·
17· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And what is the name of the privacy
18 counsel you just referenced?
19· · ·A.· ·That's
and
20· · ·Q.· ·And were any product counsel involved with
21 Project Quantize?
22· · ·A.· ·No.
23· · ·Q.· ·Is the third bullet point that runs from page 24 to page 6 of Exhibit 7 a full and complete list of all
25 Google employees who are not in-house counsel who worked
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 230 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 on Project Quantize?
·2· · ·A.· ·The actual team that worked on it was a very,
·3 very small subset of this list.· This is more of the
·4 audience that the legal advice went out to.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And who in this list was part of that very
·6 small subset that was part of the actual team that
·7 worked on Project Quantize?
·8· · ·A.· ·Me,
and
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what were your job responsibilities with
10 respect to Project Quantize?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I admonish the witness that he
12 be mindful not to invade the privilege with his answer.
13· · ·A.· ·To establish the goals of the project.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is there any more
15 information you can provide subject to Ms. Elmer's
16 instruction?
17· · ·A.· ·No.· That would speak to the legal advice I was
18 seeking.
19· · ·Q.· ·And what work did you perform with respect to
20 Project Quantize?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
22· · ·A.· ·I established the team and the problem
23 statements.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And other than establishing
25 the team and the problem statements, is there any other
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 231 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 information you can provide subject to Ms. Elmer's
·2 instructions with respect to the work you performed on
·3 Project Quantize?
·4· · ·A.· ·No.
·5· · ·Q.· ·In total how many meetings occurred at Alphabet
·6 for Project Quantize?
·7· · ·A.· ·Approximately eight.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And when did the first meeting occur for
·9 Project Quantize?
10· · ·A.· ·In October of 2020.
11· · ·Q.· ·And when did the last meeting occur for Project
12 Quantize?
13· · ·A.· ·February of 2021.
14· · ·Q.· ·And how many of those approximately eight
15 meetings were attended by Google's in-house counsel?
16· · ·A.· ·All of them.
17· · ·Q.· ·At any time did anyone at Alphabet discuss
18 Project Quantize with any third party other than outside
19 counsel employed by Alphabet?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form, assumes
21 facts.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· At any time did anyone at
23 Alphabet discuss Project Quantize with any third party?
24· · ·A.· ·No.
25· · ·Q.· ·How many employee hours in your reasonable
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 232 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 estimate have been spent on Project Quantize?
·2· · ·A.· ·20.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Was Project Quantize undertaken in response to
·4 any investigations?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And what investigations was Project Quantize
·7 undertaken in response to?
·8· · ·A.· ·The U.K. ICO, the Irish DPC.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Any other investigations that Project Quantize
10 was undertaken in response to?
11· · ·A.· ·Those were the two primary.
12· · ·Q.· ·Was there any anticipated litigation that
13 Project Quantize was undertaken in response to?
14· · ·A.· ·Did you say anticipated litigation?
15· · ·Q.· ·Yes.
16· · ·A.· ·Can I have sidebar quickly?
17· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
19· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
20 5:24 p.m.
21· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
22· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· On the record at
23 5:27 p.m.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.·
25 was there any anticipated litigation that Project
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 233 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 Quantize was undertaken in response to?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Are there any other regulations other than GDPR
·4 that Project Quantize was undertaken in response to?
·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I object to this question
·6 as invading the attorney/client privilege and instruct
·7 the witness not to answer.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Will you follow
·9 Ms. Elmer's instruction?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·All right.· Were any presentations prepared by
12 Alphabet employees regarding Project Quantize?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·How many?
15· · ·A.· ·Two.
16· · ·Q.· ·And when were those presentations made?
17· · ·A.· ·The presentations were made in December of 18 and then again with a larger group in January/February.
19· · ·Q.· ·In January and February of 2021.· Is that
20 right?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes, that's right.
22· · ·Q.· ·And who prepared the December 23 presentation?
24· · ·A.· ·
.
25· · ·Q.· ·And who attended the December
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 234 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 presentation?
·2· · ·A.· ·Me,
That's it.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Who created the January or February ·5 presentation as part of Project Quantize?
·6· · ·A.· ·It's the same presentation.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And who attended that presentation in January
·8 or February of 2021 about Project Quantize?
·9· · ·A.· ·So that would be the rest of the people you see
10 in bullet 3 on page 6 of Exhibit 7 in addition to legal
11 counsel.
12· · ·Q.· ·So the individuals who attended the Project
13 Quantize presentation in January or February of 14 about Project Quantize are the Google in-house counsel
15 included in the second-to-last bullet point on page 5 of
16 Exhibit 7 and the Google employees included listed on
17 the final bullet point on page 5 running over to page 18 of Exhibit 7, correct?
19· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Let me be very clear.· The second bullet
20 point is in-house counsel; the third bullet point is the
21 employees.· And I believe all of them were involved in
22 the January and/or February presentation.
23· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
24· · · · · · · ·Did Alphabet employees rely on any data
25 sources in preparing any analyses for Project Quantize?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 235 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So to the extent that
·2 responding to this question would invade the privilege,
·3 I instruct the witness not to answer.· If there's a way
·4 to answer the question without invading the privilege,
·5 you may do so.
·6· · ·A.· ·I guess I can say the text of the general
·7 protection regulation was one data source, and beyond
·8 that, I can't speak further.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And the reason you cannot
10 speak further is because of Ms. Elmer's privilege
11 instruction.· Is that correct?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Did Alphabet consider making any pricing
14 changes to its ad tech products as a result of the work
15 done for Project Quantize?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
17· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I choose not to answer per privilege.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
20 upload into the Chat tab 12, please.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
22 know when you have this in front of you.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Could the court reporter
24 please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 12.
25· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 12 marked)
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 236 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· This is a letter sent from;
·2 your counsel, Ms. Elmer, to me and the Antitrust
·3 Division on February 17th, 2022.· Let me know when it's
·4 in front of you.
·5· · ·A.· ·It's in front of me.
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'm going to object to any
·7 questions regarding this particular document or any of
·8 the topics set forth in it as outside the scope of the
·9 CID.
10· · · · · · · ·So the witness' testimony will be in his
11 personal capacity and not as a 30(b)(6) witness.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I'm going to ask you
13 narrowly,
only about, as you see in the
14 second full paragraph, "the future of 'display review'
15 and meeting that occurred in 2020."
16· · · · · · · ·So my questions with respect to that are
17 first was Project Sunday presented as part of that
18 future of display review that occurred in 2020?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
20 answer the question because the future of display review
21 is a privileged and work product project and this
22 question is beyond the scope of the CID.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· And will you
24 follow that instruction,
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 237 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·Was Project Monday presented as part of the
·2 future of display review?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Will you follow
·5 that instruction?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Was Project Stonehenge presented as part of the
·8 future of display review?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
11 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Was Project SingleClick presented as part of
14 the 2020 future of display review?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
17 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer,
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · ·Q.· ·Was Project Banksy remedies, the remedies
20 version of that, presented at the future of display
21 review in 2020?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
24 instruction not to answer,
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 238 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · ·Q.· ·And lastly, was Project Quantize presented at
·2 the 2020 future of display review?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Will you follow
·5 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer my question,
··7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's go off
·9 the record.
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
11 5:35 p.m.
12· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
13· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
14 5:45 p.m.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.· Could the court
16 reporter please mark what has been put in the Chat as
17 Alphabet Exhibit 30 [sic].· This document is a document
18 that has been reproduced after a clawback from
19 Alphabet's counsel with additional redactions applied.
20 It is a document that begins with Bates
21 No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00205841, ending in Bates No. 5843.
22· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 13 marked)
23· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)·
I would like
24 to direct your attention to the third page of this
25 document ending in Bates No. 5842.· Could you please let
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 239 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 me know when you are there.
·2· · ·A.· ·I am there.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Looking at the first full bullet point on
·4 page 4 of this PDF, did Project Stonehenge involve
·5 Alphabet's consideration of
?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
·8 to answer the question.· It's an improper question that
·9 attempts to invade the privilege, the work product
10 doctrine, and on that basis instruct the witness not to
11 answer.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
13 instruction,
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·And was the
discussion
16 mentioned in this bullet point one that was done
17 separately from Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·I don't know how to answer that with invading
19 the privilege.
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Ms. Elmer, are you
21 instructing
then not to answer my question?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Let's take a break to discuss
23 an issue of privilege.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's go off
25 the record.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 240 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·2 5:47 p.m.
·3· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·4· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·5 5:49 p.m.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And,
·7 question was was the
my
discussion
·8 mentioned in this bullet point on Exhibit 13, one, a
·9 discussion that was done separately from Project
10 Stonehenge?
11· · ·A.· ·I can't answer questions about what was part of
12 Stonehenge or not, as that would violate privilege.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Brent, I think if you were to
14 ask the witness whether there were
15 discussions that were business discussions and not part
16 of a work product project, he might be able to answer
17 your question.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· I will give
19 that a shot.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Were there
discussions that were business discussions that
22 occurred that were not part of a work product project?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·And when did those discussions take place?
25· · ·A.· ·All the time for as long as I can personally
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 241 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 remember and from what I've seen over the past five to
·2 ten years, quite regularly.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And was Alphabet's consideration of
?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I'm going to object to
·7 this question as exceeding the scope of the CID, but the
·8 witness may answer in his individual capacity.
·9· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I'll go so far as to say yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And was the consideration of
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection, but he
14 may answer in his individual capacity.
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And was
17 was Alphabet's consideration of
part of Project Stonehenge?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
20 answer the question because your question invades the
21 work product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
24 instruction?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 242 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And before we put this
·2 aside, I will register the Division's position that we
·3 believe that privilege has been waived over this
·4 document and the redactions that were made were not
·5 appropriate.· So with that,
you can put
·6 that aside.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And we dispute that position,
·8 but that is not a discussion for this deposition.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And -- I'm sorry.· Go ahead.
10· · ·A.· ·I just think it's -11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:·
that's okay.
12· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.
13· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
did you have
14 anything to add?
15· · ·A.· ·Well, I just think real briefly in a document
16 like this that starts to talk to smaller groups that are
17 cross-functional, there's -- it's very difficult to get
18 anything done in an organization this size without
19 talking to the cross-functional partners on any given
20 project.
21· · · · · · · ·So I just want -- like I know I had talked
22 about it at the VP level and the acknowledgments and
23 leadership as well, but it's also the case in these
24 types of projects and all the projects we've been
25 talking to, like you have to solicit all various
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 243 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 functions to get any sort of progress on those.
·2· · · · · · · ·I get the feeling that a lot of the
·3 questions are around, you know, why were there so many
·4 people involved here.· And it's because like to get
·5 anything done -- like legal can't answer these
·6 questions.· These get pushed back to -- usually the
·7 starting point, legal says, Hey, there's something
·8 wrong.· And then I've got to go figure out how to solve
·9 that; and to do that, it's going to have implications
10 across the entire company.
11· · · · · · · ·So that's just a pattern that I don't
12 think we really discussed, but I hope that sheds some
13 light into why you see the cross-functional teams as the
14 working groups in all of these areas.
15· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you,
I appreciate
16 that.
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
18 load into the Chat tab 31, please.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
20 when you have that in front of you.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· While that is downloading
22 for you, I will note that this is an -- could the court
23 reporter please mark this as Exhibit 14 for Alphabet.
24· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 14 marked)
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And this Exhibit 14 was a
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 244 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 document that was clawed back by Alphabet's counsel
·2 during this deposition and reproduced to us with
·3 additional redactions applied.· This is a document that
·4 begins with Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00660900 and ends in
·5 Bates No. 0904.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
I plan only to
·7 ask you about the first page.· Please let me know when
·8 you have reviewed that.
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I reviewed it.
10· · ·Q.· ·The first question is did Alphabet consider
as part of Project Stonehenge?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
13 answer the question because your question invades the
14 work product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· And with respect
16 to
question on May 13, 2020, to your
17 knowledge, is there a PRG or one-page document that was
18 produced as part of
?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Go ahead,
I'm sorry.
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Ms. Elmer, did you have
22 anything?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· No, I didn't.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Thank you.· And with
25 that, I will note, again, that the Division believes
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 245 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 that this document has been inappropriately clawed back
·2 and that privilege has been waived and that I should
·3 have been able to examine
as the Alphabet
·4 representative on what has now been redacted.· But with
·5 that, I have no further questions on this document.
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· We dispute your position, and
·7 we're not going to argue about it here on the
·8 deposition.
·9· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Fair enough.
10· · · · · · · ·Seumas, could you please put in the Chat
11 tab 32.
12· · · · · · · ·While this is being uploaded, this is -13 if I can have the court reporter please mark this as
14 Alphabet Exhibit 15.
15· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 15 marked)
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· This is a document that was
17 clawed back by Alphabet's counsel during this deposition
18 and had additional redactions applied.· It is a document
19 that begins in Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-0030150, ending in
20 Bates No. 0159.
21· · · · · · · ·For the record, I'd like to point the
22 witness' attention to PDF page 4.· That is a page ending
23 in Bates No. 0152.· I will note that additional
24 redactions have been applied to several lines to a
25 bullet point that begins "Antitrust worked with
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 246 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·
and
to build up expertise on the team to
·2 effectively work on regulation and antitrust inquiries."
·3 The rest of that bullet point has now been redacted.
·4· · · · · · · ·I had planned to examine
·5 Alphabet's representative, on what has now been
·6 redacted, and the Division believes that those
·7 redactions are inappropriate as waiver has occurred and
·8 that the redactions were in the first instance
·9 inappropriate in any event with respect to work product
10 and attorney/client privilege.
11· · · · · · · ·With that and subject to anything
12 Ms. Elmer would like to add, I have no further questions
13 on this document.
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· We dispute your position with
15 respect to waiver for all of the reasons that we've set
16 forth in prior correspondence with you, particularly
17 given the tremendous scope of the document production
18 that's been made in this matter; but we're not going to
19 argue about it here with you at the deposition.
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I appreciate that.· And
21 with that, I have no further questions subject,
22 Ms. Elmer, to any questions you might ask
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I do not have any questions.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· With that, no
25 further questions.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page YVer1fPage 247 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · ·Thank you,
and thank you,
·2 Counsel, for staying so late.· Really appreciate it.
·3 And that's all I have.
·4· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· This concludes today's
·5 deposition given by
The time off the
·6 record is 5:59 p.m.
·7· · · · · · · ·(Proceedings concluded at 5:59 p.m.)
··
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 245Page 248 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · · · · · ·CHANGES AND SIGNATURE
·2 WITNESS NAME:
·3 DATE OF DEPOSITION: February 28, ·4 PAGE LINE· CHANGE· · · · · · · · · ·REASON
·5 ________________________________________________________
·6 ________________________________________________________
·7 ________________________________________________________
·8 ________________________________________________________
·9 ________________________________________________________
10 ________________________________________________________
11 ________________________________________________________
12 ________________________________________________________
13 ________________________________________________________
14 ________________________________________________________
15 ________________________________________________________
16 ________________________________________________________
17 ________________________________________________________
18 ________________________________________________________
19 ________________________________________________________
20 ________________________________________________________
21 ________________________________________________________
22 ________________________________________________________
23 ________________________________________________________
24 ________________________________________________________
25 ________________________________________________________
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 246Page 249 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
·1· · ·I,
February 28,
have read the foregoing deposition
·2 and hereby affix my signature that same is true and
·3 correct, except as noted above.
··5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·___________________________
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
··7 THE STATE OF _______________)
·8 COUNTY OF __________________)
·9· · ·Before me, ____________________________, on this day
10 personally appeared
known to me or proved
11 to me on the oath of _________________ or through
12 __________________________ (description of identity card
13 or other document) to be the person whose name is
14 subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
15 to me that he/she executed the same for the purpose and
16 consideration therein expressed.
17· · ·Given under my hand and seal of office on this _____
18 day of __________________, _______.
20· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·__________________________
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
21· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·THE STATE OF _____________
22 My Commission Expires: _________
24 _____No Changes Made· _____ Amendment Sheet(s) Attached
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 247Page 250 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
· · · · · · ·ANTITRUST DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
··3· · ·PURSUANT TO CIVIL INVESTIGATION DEMAND NO. ··5· · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
·6· · · · · · ·ORAL DEPOSITION OF
·7· · · · · · · · · · ·February 28, ··9· · ·I, Melinda Barre, Certified Shorthand Reporter in
10 and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the
11 following:
12· · ·That the witness,
was duly sworn by
13 the officer and that the transcript of the oral
14 deposition is a true record of the testimony given by
15 the witness;
16· · · That the original deposition was delivered to
17 Brent Nakamura.
18· · · That a copy of this certificate was served on all
19 parties and/or the witness shown herein
20 on _____________________.
21· · · I further certify that pursuant to FRCP Rule
22 30(f)(1), that the signature of the deponent:
23· · · ____ was requested by the deponent or a party before
24 the completion of the deposition and that the signature is
25 to be before any notary public and returned within 30 days
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 248Page 251 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 from date of receipt of the transcript.· If returned,
·2 the attached Changes and Signature Page contains any
·3 changes and the reasons therefor:
·4· · · ____was not requested by the deponent or a
·5 party before the completion of the deposition.
·6· · · I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
·7 related to, nor employed by any of the parties or
·8 attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was
·9 taken, and further that I am not financially or
10 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
11· · · Certified to by me on this, the _______ day
12 of _______________, 2022.
15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
16· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Melinda Barre
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Texas CSR 17· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Expiration:· 12/31/
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 249Page 252 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28,
·1 COUNTY OF HARRIS· · ·)
·2 STATE OF TEXAS· · · ·)
·3· · ·I hereby certify that the witness was notified on
·4 ________________ that the witness has 30 days or (____
·5 days per agreement of counsel) after being notified by
·6 the officer that the transcript is available for review
·7 by the witness and if there are changes in the form or
·8 substance to be made, then the witness shall sign a
·9 statement reciting such changes and the reasons given by
10 the witness for making them;
11· · · That the witness' signature was/was not returned as
12 of _______________.
13· · · Subscribed and sworn to on this, the _____ day of
14 __________________, 2022.
19· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Melinda Barre
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Texas CSR 21· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Expiration:· 12/31/
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 250Page 253 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 253 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, 11:21 97:Exhibits
Exhibit 1 3:10 9:14 13:9,10 14:16:15,
191:4,21 192:21,25 194:1,2,10 200:201:17 202:10 216:3 217:12 226:
11:30 97:
20 45:24 67:7 119:19 144:6 151:1,
11:35 101:
156:19 230:
11:50 101:
Exhibit 2 3:11 15:5,6 16:
11:53 103:
Exhibit 3 3:12 48:1,2 50:5 53:11,
11:57 104:
54:17 55:9,16,
Exhibit 4 3:14 56:16,
2019 33:12 104:17,24 105:3,4,8,109:6 110:9 112:21 113:1 114:149:8 155:
11th 7:8,11 9:6 19:15 45:8,11,180:
Exhibit 5 3:16 59:20,21 65:
12 233:20,24,
Exhibit 6 3:18 65:4,
12:10 114:
Exhibit 7 3:20 67:11,12,15 74:
12:52 114:
94:15 95:3 96:23 99:21 100:8,102:17 103:14 104:5 105:18 106:107:6 109:1,17 110:23 119:15,120:15,22 121:21 132:16 144:145:14,23 153:1,7 156:11 157:160:3 181:10 189:4 190:20 191:4,192:21,25 193:19 200:17 201:205:1 217:12 226:22 227:24 232:10,
16,
Exhibit 10 4:3 180:13,14,Exhibit 12 4:5 233:24,Exhibit 13 4:7 236:22 238:Exhibit 14 4:9 241:23,24,Exhibit 15 4:11 243:14,
2020 33:15 79:22 80:17 82:15 85:87:2 90:25 91:3 150:10 157:3,188:23 189:11 193:12,24 194:210:24 211:9 229:10 231:17,22,234:15,18 235:14,21 236:2 242:
2021 6:8 7:11 14:10 19:15 33:2 45:8,
13 236:22 238:8 242:14 65:19 198:17 241:23,24,14th 30:8 59:24 68:6,
11,14 46:12 48:5 56:19 59:24 65:8,66:14,18 68:7,23 81:4 87:1 91:3,123:22 124:9,12,20 125:1 129:11,19,
23,25 130:9 161:14 172:2 176:180:16 229:13 231:19 232:4,8,
15 151:1,2 161:14 171:14 243:14,
2022 5:2 16:6 234:
15th 56:19 163:12 172:2 198:
225 119:
17th 66:14 234:
23 66:
18 50:4 53:11,19 55:9,16 161:
23rd 14:
18th 22:10 30:17,23,25 31:3,11,
24 65:
19 156:
25 8:5 45:24 62:7 71:20 189:18,190:
197 180:
25th 62:2,12 63:10 67:17 69:
1:32 141:
102:18 119:21 181:12 200:18 217:226:
1:39 141:1a 72:11 101:
27 180:
0152 243:
1b 121:
28th 5:2 48:
0159 198:23 243:
1c 159:
2:05 159:
0904 242:
1d 144:
2:11 159:
1door 6:
2:14 162:
1e 17:
2:34 162:
1f 200:
2:36 163:
1g 226:
2:40 164:
1h 17:
2:43 167:
1i 17:
2:54 167:
1 9:14 13:7,9,10 14:7 16:10,13,15,66:12 161:
10 180:13,14,10:01 50:10:04 50:10:22 64:
10:29 64:11 200:2,11:09 92:11:13 92:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
2 15:3,5,6 16:10,13,22 17:1 72:94:14 95:3 96:20,23 97:20 100:8,101:21 103:14 104:5 105:18 106:107:6 109:1,17 110:23 121:2,132:16 144:5 145:11,23 153:1,156:11 157:10 159:23 189:3 190:
Lexitas
3 48:1,2 50:4,5 53:11,12,19 54:16,55:9,15,16,20,21 160:3 181:193:17,18,25 202:10 232:
30 22:14 29:9 30:21 93:24 236:30(b)(6) 5:4 6:13 60:20 66:17 234:
888-267-1200· ·Index: 0152–30(b)(6)Page 254 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 254 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, 300 216:
5:24 230:
30471 49:24 52:
5:27 230:
30769 14:10 51:6 66:
5:35 236:
31 241:
5:45 236:
32 243:
5:47 238:
3:02 172:
5:49 238:
3:13 172:12,
5:59 245:6,
A
a.m. 5:3 13:25 14:3 45:2,5 50:12,64:6,9 92:8,11 97:11,14 101:8,103:23 104:
3:14 172:
3:45 192:
abide 12:ability 181:
3:49 192:
6 59:16 65:4,5 227:24 232:10,
3:56 198:
60 30:21 41:17 178:22 211:14,15,215:
4 56:16,17 74:19 119:15,24 120:
650 387-6070 32:7 29:5 63:24 64:25 65:19 67:11,12,
45 31:16 152:
74:19 94:15 95:3 96:23 99:21 100:8,
22 102:17 103:14 104:5 105:106:22 107:6 109:1,17 110:119:15,21 120:15,22 121:21 132:144:5 145:14,23 153:1,7 156:157:10 160:3 181:10 189:4 190:191:4,21 192:21,25 193:19 200:201:18 205:1 217:12 226:22 227:232:10,16,
45-hour 152:4:03 198:4:05 199:4:16 199:4:29 207:4:33 207:
7th 29:12,20 65:
4:40 212:
ACCC 38:10 104:17 153:10 154:191:
60-516110-0009 5:
145:22 148:14 181:23 193:17,200:19 201:18,22 202:9,11,15 205:237:4 243:
Absolutely 173:2 186:
accept 142:acceptable 65:access 174:23 175:6,9,12,24 177:178:9,
accordance 6:account 43:accounted 20:accurate 74:11,accurately 120:ack 202:25 203:5,6,20 204:3,acknowledge 203:acknowledgment 203:acknowledgments 202:22 240:
4:44 213:
4:56 219:8 6:8 47:22 54:16 55:21 161:6,7 162:
4th 68:7,
172:
201:18 202:9 226:23 227:23 232:15,
actions 73:11,21 144:20 145:160:
active 75:15 95:6 96:4 99:23,
8:47 67:
102:20 154:22 168:
8:53 14:
actively 102:
50 37:14,16 189:24 211:14,15,215:
5842 236:5843 171:23 236:
acting 88:25 89:action 72:19 89:12 122:
8:36 5:8:46 13:
5 59:20,21 65:18 120:21 121:
acquisitions 140:
activities 34:acts 171:5,
9 6:8 32:21,24 33:13 56:11 171:16,172:
actual 133:1,14,24 154:10,17 155:
5:00 219:
9:39 45:
191:5,20 192:3,5,20 217:25 218:228:2,
5:06 223:
9:54 45:
ad 21:12 33:21 180:1 222:12 233:242:
5:14 223:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: 300–adPage 255 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 255 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, add 45:10,17 46:14 154:1 240:244:
adding 174:10,22 175:11 177:9,
Alphabet's 11:15,16 42:19 51:7,
agency 39:agree 7:24 8:25 10:1,5 68:25 106:171:3 203:
addition 18:8 142:20 232:10 239:
agreement 120:16 213:
additional 5:21 9:4 71:21 112:
ahead 63:4 118:6 120:5 178:
180:20 217:17 236:19 242:3 243:18,
240:9 242:
aids 8:
address 46:16,21,23 47:1,4,7,98:18 101:
addresses 46:19 47:13,
alternative 215:
Admanager 21:12 33:21 147:149:2 160:20 162:18 163:19 164:9,
18,24 165:5,11,20 166:2,6,12,167:9,23 168:8,15 169:4,15 170:6,171:24 173:8 183:12 184:8 185:186:20 187:13 205:22 210:8 215:242:11,
ambiguous 34:7 175:37:5 228:8 232:
allocates 34:allowed 168:20 178:3 179:
Admob 33:
allowing 178:
adopted 101:ads 22:3 33:23 34:1,10,25 35:2,36:18,19 81:24 82:1,4 84:5 171:6,178:20,24 209:
Adsense 33:Adtech 112:22 113:2,16 114:115:11 116:2 120:21 140:12 141:144:23 195:13,
ADVA 33:6 36:19 146:advertisers 168:17 170:advertising 17:12 33:7,19 34:22,169:5,16,22 170:2,
advice 41:12 55:1 92:17 112:4,124:18 128:17 142:6 153:14 166:227:7,10 228:4,
advise 72:25 88:Adx 170:21 174:11 176:6,13,177:9,10 179:7 237:5 239:
affairs 204:16,affecting 153:affirmative 12:AG 38:8 40:6,15,18,24 41:1,5 94:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
amount 39:10 92:3,25 93:8,128:17 131:19,21 132:2 190:5,
analyses 42:19 43:4,21 44:5 98:
admonish 228:173:18 174:13,25 175:14 176:184:4,12,22 186:12,23 187:16 188:196:
amend 116:Amendment 111:
allocate 90:
administrative 16:19 37:10,
admonishment 168:11 169:7 170:
52:7,8 57:7,23 58:12,16,22 61:62:16 63:6 69:17 70:2,14 71:1,9,72:23 73:7,16,19,20 89:15 92:1 94:8,
18 98:4,10,25 99:7,19 103:10 106:107:2 108:22 109:15 126:17 131:6,150:9 151:20 152:18 154:2 155:166:13,19 167:7 168:7 169:3 170:5,
10,20,25 179:20 189:13,20 198:201:8 211:11,24 212:9,18 217:236:19 237:5 239:3,17 242:1 243:244:
Alphabet 5:4 9:8,14,17,19,20,22,10:4,11,13,14,19,23 11:18 13:4,14:7 15:5,22 16:1,10 21:8 22:1,26:4,14 32:6,18 33:4,17 34:3 35:8,36:12,15,24 39:5 40:13 41:12,15,43:3 45:9,15 46:16 47:19 48:1,49:12 50:5 56:16 57:24 59:20 60:61:10,16,21 65:4 66:6,22 67:11,73:13 78:6 83:4 84:3 91:10,16 92:3,
20,23,25 93:3,8,14 95:24 98:6,12,99:8,21 100:8,22 102:2 103:14 104:105:16 106:19 107:5,16 108:110:22 111:15 112:13,22 113:1,114:12 115:10 116:1,9,13 117:118:16 119:3 120:13,20 124:4 129:130:2,16,18,24 131:14 132:2,11,134:15 135:1 136:11,16 137:139:18,19 140:2,11,17 141:1,142:12 143:2,10 145:20 146:150:25 151:20,22 152:3,24 153:154:4 155:9 156:23 157:18,23 158:7,
15,21 159:4 161:6,12 164:17,165:4,19 166:1,5 171:22 176:4,179:6,24 180:13,15,25 188:189:17,22,25 190:23 191:4,15,192:21 193:1 194:15,24 195:12,196:4,13,18 197:6 198:21 211:22,212:7,9,15,17 214:19 215:1,7,216:5,17 217:23 218:1,13 221:222:4,11,19 223:2,14 224:24 225:229:5,17,19,23 231:12 232:233:13,24 236:17 241:23 242:243:3,
Lexitas
116:9,13 117:15 118:15,20 119:141:9 142:13 143:3,11 158:15,196:4,12,17 197:7 198:8 222:223:1,13,17,18,21,25 224:4,5,8,11,
13,15,25 232:
analysis 72:18 76:25 77:9,10 78:79:1,17 81:8,9 84:8,9 85:2 91:100:5 109:23 117:11,19 118:2 121:130:6,10 144:19 149:24 150:160:14 185:23,24 186:24,25 189:190:12 197:2 210:18,23 211:1,218:
and/or 9:22 49:23 52:11 125:232:
answering 11:4 52:3 78:1 122:144:16 149:19 183:16 224:
answers 10:12 95:21,22 126:
anticipate 100:9,23 103:15 104:105:17 109:5 110:22 191:
anticipated 99:25 100:1 105:106:14,20 107:5,16 108:24 109:110:10 111:15 121:12 132:25 133:4,
14,16,24 134:4,10 144:20 154:8,9,17,
23 155:3,8 160:13 191:4,14,192:24 218:11 230:12,14,
anticipating 104:
888-267-1200· ·Index: add–anticipatingPage 256 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 256 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, anticipation 99:24 144:
aspects 76:1 91:22 150:13 217:
antitrust 5:17 7:7 17:12 89:12 95:
assess 39:
183:24 201:4,5 234:2 243:25 244:
apologies 147:13 186:9 188:apologize 29:6 51:18,21 64:23 84:87:24 89:18 94:13 103:19,20 125:186:15 206:23 209:13 218:19 221:
appeared 164:8 165:appendix 49:20 50:4 54:6,16 57:58:10,14,
applied 236:19 242:3 243:18,applies 68:Applovin 170:
128:1,6 182:3 185:8 188:11 202:16,
18,24 203:4 228:
August 7:8,11 9:6 14:10 19:15 33:1,
assessment 94:
2,12 45:8,11,14 46:12 66:18 180:
assist 49:12 66:6 69:25 70:7 74:assistant 37:
author 123:6,
assisted 48:17 69:17 70:14 132:
authored 123:3 124:20 125:4 155:
156:4,
authoring 135:
assume 10:11 11:11 57:assumes 54:18 58:17 86:2 150:assuming 37:25 55:5 71:12 117:118:10 142:21 158:25 159:7 197:198:
assumption 54:
approved 145:
attached 14:23 15:11 16:9 67:
approximately 15:25 21:19 24:
attempt 92:19,22,24 93:7,13 126:226:
areas 22:3,4 27:24 28:5 37:15 149:241:
argue 243:7 244:argument 106:23 181:argumentative 71:
Arshia 5:articles 17:15,20,22 18:5 20:51:
articulate 105:ascertain 190:
Axinn 5:
189:20 190:15 193:23 194:3 211:16,
20 220:9 221:10 229:15 231:232:7,
attending 5:attention 236:24 243:attorney 5:14,17,19 6:11 7:6 11:21,
23 12:7 21:22,23 39:21 44:1 99:100:11 104:9 111:18,22 113:5 142:151:
attorney/client 6:11,15 25:12 42:3,
24 44:2 49:22 52:10,14 54:10 84:98:21 100:12 104:8,11 105:21 107:111:10 115:14 119:7 135:4 136:137:15 140:6 141:25 143:22 147:152:12 160:23 162:21 164:13 167:180:4 183:18 186:3 187:4 195:197:12 198:11 201:13 206:2 208:209:24 225:10 226:7 231:6 239:242:14 244:
attorneys 18:13,16,18,23 21:22:17,19 28:12,19,22 29:2,7,12,30:5,15,22 31:4,6,8,12,17 49:8 89:108:8 112:1 132:4 151:14,19,189:20 220:15 221:
asks 101:14 102:
auction 214:
aspect 134:
audience 124:17 125:19 126:4,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
122:3 124:22 125:6 174:17 202:1,203:17 204:
attempts 237:
attended 87:3,4 125:3 151:3 157:
area 22:3 35:6 43:19 150:
AVAD 188:
awareness 80:
apps 33:6 36:
April/may 124:7,
authorized 33:
attempting 99:16 110:13 194:
attend 86:25 220:15 221:
125:1 129:19 211:3,
204:13 211:6 217:1,
aware 59:11 75:14,19 97:2 118:
approximation 210:
April 81:4 87:1 91:3,8 124:11,
authorities 39:19 97:25 102:authority 38:10,12 201:7 203:
183:4 219:9 229:
apply 9:
28:7 29:11,15 30:1 37:14 45:24 65:81:3 90:20 123:21 151:1 190:193:12 210:24 211:14 215:6,229:7,
Australian 38:10 132:22 190:
Lexitas
B
back 8:6 14:2 45:4 50:14 52:2 53:13,
15 54:22 59:4 62:23 63:20 64:8 72:92:10,13 97:13 101:3,10 103:113:25 114:6 141:20 156:9 159:162:5,8,9 164:2 167:4 172:11,15,20,
23 173:3 179:21 181:9 192:17 198:199:5,7,13,16,21 200:1,2,16 213:215:17 219:22 223:9 236:13 238:241:6 242:1 243:1,
background 46:bad 178:badgering 110:ballpark 93:16,bank 117:Banksy 54:4 161:13 162:18,163:5,16 164:6 189:7 200:7,9,201:6,9,20,24 202:17 204:21,205:12,21,24 206:12,15,24 207:9,208:2,11,15,21 209:2,15 210:5,16,18,
22 211:1,5,7,8,13,23 212:8,16,213:10 214:6 215:20 216:1,2,6,19,217:15,23 218:1,14,17,20 220:1,10,
16,25 221:11,17 222:6,11,18,223:1,3,13 225:1,8,13,18,25 235:
888-267-1200· ·Index: anticipation–BanksyPage 257 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 257 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, Banksy's 213:Bansky 163:7,11 209:22 219:221:21 223:19 224:1,
Barre 5:based 10:3 17:14,15 24:21 28:53:25 66:15 78:20 112:9 113:125:20 137:8 188:18 193:
basically 130:5 184:basis 25:14 35:15 52:10 60:13 79:81:14 82:25 85:4 94:7,18 96:9,12,98:2 107:15 112:3 113:7 132:138:4,17 139:3,9,22 140:21 142:7,154:7 155:2 158:2 207:17 217:237:
Bates 161:15 171:22,23 198:236:20,21,25 242:4,5 243:19,20,
bidder 168:23 174:2,6 175:22 177:3,
bullet 74:23 75:2,6,21 120:1 121:
5,7 178:8,10,19 214:
145:8,22 148:14 157:9 181:15,19,193:17 194:1,2,10 201:17,22 202:8,
10,15 204:2,25 227:23 232:10,15,17,
19,20 237:3,16 238:8 243:25 244:
bidders 169:20 174:20,23 175:5,6,
12,25 176:3,18 177:
bidding 33:22 171:8,9 175:22 176:177:9,18 178:3 179:7 201:2 214:2,9,
11,17,22 215:2,
bullets 193:business 41:22,25 42:10,16,18,43:1,4,21 44:5 46:5 47:19 73:101:22 106:2 109:12 116:8,13,117:19 118:2,15,20 122:18 144:146:5,6 169:1,20 188:13 238:15,
big 55:bill 178:billing 92:
businesses 83:
bit 19:3 176:
buy-side 82:
bite 197:
buyers 33:
Bitton 5:
buying 180:
black-and-white 179:
C
bear 106:11 221:began 89:9,15 100:15 102:116:10,14 129:12 135:22 155:156:18 188:23,24 211:2,
blog 213:calendar 20:13 24:15,19,22 25:9,
blurring 92:
94:2 132:
board 34:18,19,25 35:7 45:20 46:
calendaring 190:
begin 7:9 89:13,20 129:10 149:7,153:3,9 155:20 188:20 210:16,
beginning 5:13 49:16 106:8 118:8,
16 171:22 196:5,13,18 198:21 222:223:2,
begins 144:6 161:14 236:20 242:243:19,
begun 135:behalf 9:14,17 10:12,14,22,23 19:176:2 225:
behave 168:belief 134:believes 95:24 98:6,12 99:9,242:25 244:
calendars 26:1,4,borderline 226:
call 28:24 32:4 49:1 183:
bottom 119:
calling 67:
Boundy 5:
calls 25:11 66:24,25 132:5 167:
break 7:16,19 8:13 12:10,11 44:10,
12 62:20 63:25 64:1,4,14 101:1,113:24,25 141:13,14 154:24 159:161:24 166:22,24 167:7 172:5 192:197:16 199:5 207:16 212:11 219:222:21,24 223:12 237:
breakout 7:breaks 12:Brent 5:16 7:6 42:2 50:17 54:20 58:63:2,11 68:9 69:1 71:15 84:21 89:101:12 107:12 109:19 110:8 113:114:14 136:20 137:12 138:6,139:14 142:14 154:21 157:20 163:172:22 202:8 219:15 238:
briefly 50:8 92:5 159:13 192:202:25 240:
cameras 26:campaign 82:7,capacity 9:7 10:14,23 51:1 57:12,60:11 66:3,10 68:14 72:2 76:9 88:98:17,24 102:22 103:10,18 104:105:1,3,16 114:21 115:4 134:167:19,22 168:12,15 169:8 170:171:2,11 173:21 174:15 175:2,16,176:24 177:12,22 203:3 217:4 234:239:8,
Capital 46:caption 19:Career 36:carefully 55:
bring 108:7 184:broke 164:4 167:
case 5:5 160:18 169:18 240:
broker 46:
cases 16:20 40:10,20,24,
brought 39:24 111:13,
caused 132:15 135:1 153:3,5,9,
bucket 127:bid 174:1,4 177:6,7 178:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
build 244:
154:4 155:3,8,9 190:23 191:6,217:22 218:
caution 111:
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: Banksy's–cautionPage 258 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 258 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, cautious 73:
circle 8:
Commission 40:2 132:22 191:
caveat 93:18 94:24 216:
civil 9:12 13:3 14:9,11,15 15:11 16:8,
common 204:
ceased 150:19,cell 32:cellular 32:certification 180:cetera 170:CFO 83:6,
16,19,22 19:20 48:6 49:23 51:5 52:56:20 59:25 61:11 65:9 66:
communicate 7:22 8:14 54:communicating 48:23 214:
claim 102:3 107:15 181:
communication 62:
claimed 98:
communications 12:7 44:20 55:
claims 94:8,18 96:12 102:
104:
clarification 86:7 214:24 217:
community 207:
224:
companies 45:
chain 124:21 202:22,24 203:
clarifications 136:
changed 38:1 82:
clarify 23:22 26:20 163:4 202:
changing 42:13 195:22 222:
clarifying 191:
character 214:
classification 32:20,
company's 6:12 96:12 102:19 108:
charge 81:9 149:2 180:
classify 202:
Competition 38:9,10 132:22 191:
charged 179:
claw 62:23 162:9 173:3 200:
Chartboost 170:
clawback 180:22 236:
charting 42:
clawed 179:21 199:21 200:1 242:
Chat 13:7,15,16,17 47:22 53:59:16 63:17,24 64:25 67:7 161:171:14 180:11 198:17 233:20 236:241:18 243:
chats 35:20,
check 8:checked 126:
company 9:8 19:19 35:9 45:21,46:1,3 49:21 60:21 66:15 102:111:20 131:10,12 241:
201:7 217:1,
competitive 42:
243:1,
clawing 172:23 199:4,7,clear 7:12 18:10 22:17 37:20 41:54:1 55:8 56:4 58:7 64:12 71:8,74:8 75:12 81:13 86:5 95:22 98:99:2,15 103:6 109:13 111:12 119:124:8 129:2,18 132:14 141:24 152:167:25 190:25 192:2 193:16 204:207:15 232:
complete 11:16 12:25 38:22 39:52:9 71:8 74:24 75:2,6 78:14 94:121:22,25 127:13 133:23 153:2,181:16,19,23 201:19,23 202:4,227:
completed 129:completeness 199:completion 188:25 189:compliance 91:complicated 203:
clearer 59:
complies 190:
close 106:17 110:2,14,21 130:
comply 42:
215:
chief 204:15,
closer 24:
compound 154:24 191:
choice 12:1 138:
CMA 94:11 217:
computer 63:
choose 100:18 233:
coaching 36:
concept 163:7 165:4,20 166:
chose 72:13 121:3 144:10 159:
code 101:
concern 217:
cognizable 49:23 52:
concerned 97:23 179:
colleague 6:
concerns 203:
colleagues 5:18 20:19 26:7,
concluded 245:
collect 173:
concludes 245:
collection 117:
conclusions 101:
column 54:4 55:
conducted 11:2 18:
combination 76:8 106:12 109:
conduit 168:25 174:
200:9 226:
CID 6:5,10,14 14:24 19:1 20:7 27:49:25 50:7,17,18 51:7 52:19,25 56:57:12 60:16,20,23 61:1,5 62:18 63:66:1,18 68:11 69:4,6,7,8 71:4 98:101:14 102:15 106:18 107:4,11,108:6,12,23 114:15,20 115:3 117:134:18 138:9 143:21 163:17 164:167:17 169:9 170:11 171:1 173:9,174:16 175:3 176:25 177:13,23 189:217:3 226:3,5,10 234:9,22 239:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
146:
confer 50:8 92:5 206:
commercialization 184:23 207:
conference 5:8 7:
commercialized 213:18,
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: cautious–conferencePage 259 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 259 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, conferred 106:1,2 153:confidential 6:confirm 68:19 110:1 221:confirmed 142:confirming 214:conflated 190:conflating 56:confuse 71:confused 55:22 105:confusing 14:25 175:conjunction 43:7 74:17 88:123:3,6 203:7 213:
connection 13:consent 179:consideration 162:18 163:19 164:237:5 239:3,10,
considerations 134:considered 112:22 113:1 134:183:
consistent 70:24 71:19 83:19 89:96:19 102:18 104:15 176:
constitute 6:construct 213:
controls 176:21 177:1,18,24 178:179:7,10,11 214:
conversation 58:3 109:22 149:conversations 109:10,convey 26:3 55:5 75:conveyed 25:8,15,16,18,coordinator 90:15,copy 14:24 72:7 162:10,12 199:corporate 9:9,21 10:18 22:2 51:52:7 58:12,16,22 61:10,13,16,62:17 63:6 68:14,24 70:1,2 71:75:25 76:9,22 77:2,6 78:8 92:2 98:4,
10 99:7,14,20 101:15 103:10 104:106:18 107:3,21 108:22 109:2,111:17 114:24 120:9 126:18 131:6,152:18 154:2 167:17 173:21 203:
203:8 205:8,14,15 209:17 210:8,211:16,20 212:18,22 213:7 215:216:6 220:23 227:11,12,13,14,15,18,
20,25 229:15,19 232:11,14,20 234:236:19 242:1 243:17 245:
counsel's 61:3 68:1,6,22 99:100:19 112:3,10,19 115:16,23 116:119:13 121:19 135:8 137:19,24 141:142:25 150:7 166:4 188:1 195:4,198:14 222:9,
count 19:countries 95:couple 53:9 62:2 161:court 5:10 10:20 11:1 13:8 15:47:25 49:6 54:21 56:15 59:19 65:67:10 92:12 161:5 171:15 180:199:25 233:23 236:15 241:22 243:
corporation 19:9 46:6 100:
cover 14:24 105:
correct 14:19 16:6 22:23 23:20,
covered 107:
24:1,16 25:10,23 26:11,23 27:2,5,8,
11,15 30:8 31:9,19,20 37:22 48:49:9 53:12 57:25 62:2 70:25 72:74:16 81:14 82:8,16 85:5 86:8,9 91:94:19 95:5,25 96:1 98:11 99:8 123:127:4,5 129:19 132:17,23 136:8,139:24 140:22 146:21,22 152:154:5 183:7 191:1 192:3,6 204:7,206:6,8 216:14 218:5,8,9 232:233:
covers 22:3 82:2 100:
create 87:20,23 88:6 136:11,137:5 139:19 157:18 194:15 221:
created 20:11 23:15 116:23 135:157:23 158:15 196:4,12,18 220:222:19 223:2,14 232:
consult 7:17,
corrected 68:6,22 86:
consultation 164:
correctly 50:
creating 193:
Consumer 132:22 191:
corrects 68:
creation 128:25 129:13,
contact 120:
correspondence 6:7 50:19,
criminal 16:
contained 16:13 71:20 172:content 23:contents 24:3 115:18 124:23 142:
244:
cross-functional 43:8 202:
cost 91:10,12 130:23,24 152:3 158:194:25 215:25 222:
157:21 221:
context 163:9 173:continue 42:13 186:
counsel 5:12,25 7:20 17:9 21:
contributed 119:1 135:contributing 122:contributions 136:1 147:1,187:
contributor 146:25 147:14 184:187:
control 177:9,15 179:2,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
crossing 175:current 32:18,21 33:16 34:2 37:
costs 91:
continuing 81:18 106:
240:17,19 241:
45:
22:21 24:23 25:1,9 27:20,24 28:1,31:2 39:11 43:14 44:21 48:5 50:55:1 56:19 57:15 58:1 59:24 60:62:3 65:8,24 67:17 68:12 69:3,70:14,21 74:4,6,24,25 75:3 91:13,17,
19 92:4,5,19 93:1 97:6 103:20 104:106:1,2 109:11 111:2,20 121:122:1 123:3,5,18 128:10,11,15,129:6 130:18 131:14 132:3 136:137:8 138:10 142:3,6 145:6,17 151:3,
23 152:1 157:8 168:14 181:16,20,190:1,15 193:15 200:18 201:19,
Lexitas
customers 213:16,18,22,24 214:5,
20 215:1,6,10,
D
dance 137:Daniel 5:Daphne 6:data 38:11 119:3 142:11 143:2,158:21 159:4 164:23 175:5 190:197:6 198:7 224:24 232:24 233:
888-267-1200· ·Index: conferred–dataPage 260 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 260 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, date 5:2 8:4 22:9,11 81:3 100:8,103:14 104:5 105:15 106:20 109:111:20 193:11 211:
dated 62:dates 18:24 24:24 104:15,19 105:107:4,16 108:24 109:16,18 110:111:
demand 9:13 13:3 14:9,11,16 15:16:9,16,23 48:6 49:24 51:6 52:56:20 59:25 61:11 65:9 66:
department 5:16 7:7 16:18 17:10,33:4 38:9 76:20 77:1,5 78:5 81:94:11 217:
deals 169:4,11,16,December 105:7 109:6 110:9 149:155:25 156:1,18,19 231:17,22,
decide 16:1 174:23 175:9,12,177:2,6,18,25 188:
9:5,6,8,10 11:2 15:24 16:3,18 18:9,19:5,16,24 20:4,5 21:2 22:18 23:1,11,
25 24:4,11,15,19,22 26:1,5,14 27:17,
20,21 28:2,11,19 29:3,8,19 30:5,15,
24 31:13,18,22 33:1 45:8,14 46:53:1,21 55:10,17 58:11,15,22 61:64:16 66:17 70:5,9 126:17 132:153:22 162:10,15 173:14 180:181:6 199:17 208:19 226:12 240:242:2 243:8,17 244:19 245:
depositions 7:10 27:19 28:describe 36:2 41:18 77:18,21 90:
decided 130:6 189:
design 213:16,
decides 111:
designate 6:3 75:24 78:
decision 130:2 183:4,
designated 9:9 19:18 58:22 90:
decision-maker 85:25 86:7,
92:
decision-makers 183:
designating 15:
decisioning 177:
designation 6:
decisions 78:19,22 86:2 125:20,
designee 52:7 68:14,24 70:1 98:5,
126:8 166:
Decline 140:declined 139:
directed 76:
directly 35:3 36:25 37:1 169:1,
deposition 5:4,7,21 7:11,18 8:17,
dealing 191:
236:
depends 36:4 211:
day-to-day 182:
deal 101:
direct 8:23 68:10 75:25 170:
direction 41:21,24 168:
deposed 19:16,
DCM 82:
diligence 188:
depending 43:
day 172:
DB360 82:
digital 169:4,16 180:
99:7,15,20 101:15 102:9 106:107:3,21 108:2,22 109:2 111:114:24 131:7,14 152:18 167:173:21 211:
174:7 178:8 213:
director 22:2 32:19 37:8,9 43:84:
directors 35:1,disagree 107:disagreement 137:discernible 132:Dischler 27:4 36:21,22 86:14,20,88:23 89:5 125:5 126:
Dischler's 126:disclose 12:disclosing 206:discovery 50:discrepancies 20:21 61:discretion 179:discuss 7:24 8:16 61:17 62:101:1,2 130:17 141:14 151:20 161:163:21 166:23 172:5 199:6 211:212:7,15 213:5 214:5,19 222:229:17,23 237:
discussed 18:11,15 20:7 34:9 91:97:19 100:3 163:8 184:17 213:241:
declining 55:
detail 14:18 194:6 206:5,7,19 207:
discussing 8:6 11:24 204:
decrypt 174:
details 136:22 197:3 214:
discussion 12:9 15:19 16:4 24:
detangling 91:determination 106:defendant 19:6,
determine 92:19,23,25 126:129:24 132:2 133:23 153:22 174:4,
39:7 89:14,21,23,24,25 107:132:12 146:15,17 175:22,23 176:179:3 237:15 238:7,9 240:
discussions 17:16 25:10 41:130:20 212:4 238:15,21,24 239:5,
defer 14:18 52:
determined 131:
disentangled 131:
deferrals 6:
development 22:2 76:1,22 77:2,
display 33:7 36:19 234:14,18,
deferred 17:2,defining 41:21,
78:8 120:
235:2,8,14,20 236:
device 64:
dispute 181:3 219:13 240:7 243:244:
definitive 130:deliverables 90:
dictating 170:
disputes 69:
delivered 80:
difficult 91:18,23 190:3 216:7 240:
distinct 218:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: date–distinctPage 261 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 261 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, distinction 9:24 10:3 24:6 55:75:13 122:
duly 7:
distinguish 122:divesting 112:22 113:2 140:divestiture 143:divestitures 112:14 113:16 114:115:11 140:
division 5:17,18,19,20 7:7 33:4 48:56:19 59:24 65:8 67:16 81:24 82:1,146:7 234:3 242:25 244:
Division's 66:16 99:3 180:9 240:divisions 82:divulge 206:doc 135:
downloading 198:20 241:DPA 38:11 94:DPC 230:
52:16 54:9 73:1,24 77:13 78:2 79:13,
15 80:22 81:16 84:11 100:11 102:104:9 105:22 107:10 111:11 115:119:7 122:24 135:5 137:15 139:140:7 143:22 144:17 145:3 147:5,149:20 150:5 152:13 160:24 162:164:13 165:22 167:14 180:4 183:186:3 187:4,21 195:17 196:23,197:12 198:11 201:12 206:2 208:224:19 225:11 226:8 237:10 239:242:
drafted 69:drafting 156:4,17,drive 53:
10,13,19 67:16 89:14,21,24 171:172:1 203:39:23 44:21 56:25 92:16 102:104:12 114:10 149:11 150:20 176:193:14 202:8 212:
early 28:20 60:5 65:13,14 123:129:11 156:2 193:12,24 201:
dropped 13:
easier 68:easiest 61:
due 115:7 121:12 139:32:2,4 39:19,22 52:19 54:57:18 60:11 63:3 66:3,10 69:21 70:72:1,25 77:25 79:14 85:1 94:103:17 104:14 114:21 115:1 118:122:22 134:3,20 144:18 160:11 169:175:20 176:23 182:8 192:7 220:221:13 227:5 228:8 240:11 242:243:
easily 131:2 132:Eastern 67:eat 197:EC 94:12 217:ecosystem 17:Ed 228:8 232:educational 46:effect 95:
document 15:12 23:13,15,18,
effectively 90:20 174:5 244:
47:24 51:18,22,25 52:19 53:13 54:62:24 64:2 65:6 80:4 120:24 122:123:24 124:1,2 126:7,22,24,128:25 129:13,14,15,16,18,21 135:161:6,11,16,19 163:12 167:22 168:171:21,25 172:25 173:5 179:198:21,23 199:3 234:7 236:17,20,240:4,15 242:1,3,17 243:1,5,16,244:13,
efficiently 142:effort 201:3 223:19 224:1,electronically 8:
Elmer 5:22 13:21 14:22 15:10 24:25:11,17 39:14,18,22 40:15,20 41:42:1,22 43:24 44:8,14 48:6,16 49:50:16 51:16 52:13 54:7,18 55:56:20 57:6,9 58:2,6,17,24 59:25 60:8,
13,18 62:19,25 63:9,25 65:8,22 66:4,
7,13,23 67:17,19,20 68:8,18,20 69:1,
19 70:16 71:3,25 72:25 73:9,77:11,19,25 78:10 79:11 80:18,81:16,20 84:10,20 85:1,20 86:6 89:94:20 95:4 96:2 98:8,14 99:100:10,24 101:12 102:7 103:3,104:7 105:11,19 107:7,14,19 108:5,
19 109:19 110:7,24 111:7,14,112:15,24 113:3,7,11,17,19,114:14,19 115:1,12,19 116:4 117:118:5,9,18 119:6,11 121:8,16 122:133:19 134:1,17 135:3 136:
documents 7:23 8:20,22 20:9,23:4,7,10,12,14,24 24:3,13 49:50:3,6 51:19,23 52:9 53:20,23,54:3,15 58:11 59:6,7,11 98:135:15,17 142:16 155:22 157:194:19 199:21 208:18 218:25 219:1,221:
documents' 24:DOJ 13:4 17:24 50:19 57:16 60:18,65:25 71:
DOJ's 6:7 50:23 71:dollars 91:11 130:25 131:1,20 152:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
e-mail 8:15 46:16,19,21,23 47:1,4,7,
earlier 7:5 20:19 31:2 34:8 37:19,
draft 135:10 157:15 194:12,
docs 24:7,8 124:doctrine 6:12,16 42:2,24 44:1 50:
E
Doubleclick 82:
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: distinction–ElmerPage 262 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 262 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, 137:12,20 138:1,6,12,14 139:13,140:4,13,19,24 141:3,13 142:143:5,13,20 144:15 145:1,13 147:3,
16 148:3 149:18 150:3,15 152:154:12,20 157:20,25 158:10,17,159:6 160:8,17,22 161:23 162:8,13,
20,25 163:4,20 164:11,19,25 165:6,
10,21 166:3,7,14,22 167:10,168:10 169:6 170:8,23 172:4,13,173:10,18 174:13,25 175:14 176:7,
14,23 177:11,20 178:15 179:8 180:2,
8 181:3 183:15 184:4,12,22 185:3,7,
12,17,22 186:1,12,23 187:2,16,188:10 191:7 192:2,7,11 194:195:2,15,24 196:6,15,21 197:9,16,20,
23 198:9 199:4,15,20,23 200:201:10 202:7 205:25 206:16 207:13,
20 208:3 209:3,16,23 210:6,13,212:1,4,10,19 217:2 218:2,5,7 219:9,
15 221:3,22 222:7,14,21 223:4 224:9,
17 225:2,9,14,19,23 226:2 227:228:11,21 229:20 231:5 233:1,234:2,6,19 235:3,9,15,22 236:237:7,20,22 238:13 239:6,13,240:7,11 242:12,19,21,23 243:244:12,14,22,
Elmer's 44:16 53:5 67:2,24 69:12,74:1 98:19 152:14 158:4,11,18 159:1,
8 161:14 163:2 164:15 166:9,172:2 186:4 187:5 196:1 198:207:17 210:1 224:21 226:14 228:229:1 231:9 233:10 235:11,17,236:5 237:12 239:
else's 25:
encrypt 173:encrypted 173:17,23 174:10 176:5,
evidence 142:21 158:25 159:
end 16:5 28:21 90:19 129:22 130:172:25 189:10,
ended 90:20,22 129:25 150:ending 171:23 198:22 236:21,243:19,
ends 161:15 242:engagement 97:engineer 21:9 147:9 187:13 200:engineering 148:21,22,23 186:203:13 206:13,17 207:10,
211:24 212:9,16 229:
employee 41:14 93:3,8,14 117:118:22 120:20 131:8 136:11,16 137:139:18,19 152:17 157:18,23 189:194:15 216:1 221:20 229:
employees 26:15 75:7 79:24,116:9,13 118:16 119:4 141:10 142:143:2,10 145:20 146:16,20 152:157:7 158:15,21 159:4 181:24 182:188:15 193:15 196:4,13,18 197:198:7 202:16 205:4,5 215:1,7 222:223:2,14 224:24 227:25 231:232:16,21,
employees' 26:empty 13:enable 239:enabling 239:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
197:10 198:
evolve 149:13,16 189:evolved 155:evolving 157:exact 50:examination 7:3 201:examine 243:3 244:exceeding 239:exceeds 134:
engineers 184:
excepting 212:
enhancement 214:
exception 15:17 67:25 104:17 154:
ensure 42:
excerpt 180:16,17,
entangled 152:7,10 216:
exchange 33:
enter 39:
excludes 190:
entire 6:3 27:20 69:2 76:2 241:
executive 37:11 203:2 204:
entirety 57:2 70:5,
executives 188:
entitled 102:3 136:
exercise 226:
entity 130:17 151:21 170:18 211:
exhibit 9:14 13:9,10,13,20 14:7 15:5,
212:8,
entries 132:environment 203:
empathize 204:employed 32:6 130:18 151:
events 89:
errors 68:5,ESP 174:22 175:5,8,11,21,23 239:11,
16,
establish 173:6 228:established 51:7 228:establishing 228:estate 46:estimate 92:3 93:8,12,14,16,131:7,21 152:8,18,23 162:14 190:199:20 211:11 216:9 230:
6 16:15,22,24 48:1,2 50:5 53:54:17 55:9,16,21 56:16,17 59:20,65:4,5,18 67:11,12,15 72:5 74:94:15 95:3 96:23 99:21 100:8,102:17 103:14 104:5 105:18 106:107:6 109:1,17 110:23 119:15,120:15,22 121:21 132:16 144:145:14,23 153:1,7 156:11 157:160:3 161:6,7 162:9 167:25 171:16,
17 172:23,24 180:13,14,15 181:189:4 190:20 191:4,21 192:21,193:19 199:16 200:1,2,3,17 201:205:1 217:12 226:22 227:24 232:10,
16,18 233:24,25 236:17,22 238:241:23,24,25 243:14,
Exhibits 16:10,existence 225:exists 139:10,
European 40:
expediency 127:
evaluate 165:
experience 19:
evaluated 145:
expertise 244:
evaluating 164:
experts 90:
event 89:9 129:12 165:17 188:
explain 81:
189:12 211:5 244:
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: Elmer's–explainPage 263 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 263 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, explanation 93:22 203:explicitly 9:25 10:5,15 131:extends 10:extensive 193:extent 6:10 11:14 14:22 42:1,5,43:25 51:2,12 57:17,20 66:24 70:17,
18 72:1 73:2 77:12 78:1 79:12 80:85:21 91:24 94:21 98:14 99:12 102:2,
22 103:4,7,17 104:13 105:12,107:8 111:10 113:4 114:22 116:121:9 122:23 134:1,7,17 137:138:20,23 140:5 144:16 145:2 147:149:18 150:16 160:8 167:10,173:11 183:15 186:13 194:17,196:6 197:1,11 201:10 205:25 206:208:3 209:4 210:6 221:22 227:233:
external 39:
February 5:2 22:10 28:20 29:30:8,23 31:18 60:5 62:2,12 63:65:13,14,16,19 67:17 69:18 102:119:21 150:10,19,23 157:3,4 181:188:23 200:18 217:13 226:23 229:231:19 232:4,8,13,22 234:
Federal 19:feel 40:1 54:24 112:
form 8:9 43:24 70:22 93:7,13 94:96:17 98:8 105:11 117:22 118:5,124:1 150:15 158:25 159:7 161:177:20 191:7 197:9 198:12,24 219:225:3 229:
feeling 241:fees 91:13,17 216:fields 214:
formal 32:20 46:10 126:
figure 241:
format 80:
file 49:18 144:
forward 14:5 137:3 138:18 203:
final 90:21,22,23 94:4 157:3,
found 194:
194:14 219:5,7 232:
fourth 27:7 30:4 75:6,21 204:
194:
fraction 131:
finance 43:6,11,13 84:5 85:9 90:F
frame 28:21 79:22 124:7 156:
203:
176:
financial 42:18 43:4,6,20 44:4 83:facilitate 168:24 169:facilitation 215:
find 61:18 62:6 93:17 96:
fact 10:1 57:
finding 42:
factoring 130:
findings 101:
facts 54:19 58:17 71:13 74:16 102:4,
finds 150:
failed 94:fair 109:25 216:15 219:14 243:fairly 18:10 69:14 75:13 105:208:22,
frames 20:15 90:
119:4 136:12,17 137:5 139:20 141:142:13 157:18,23 158:15,22 194:197:7 221:20 224:
facing 33:
5 108:11 116:18 117:8,23 118:142:21 150:16 158:25 159:7 197:198:12 219:10 229:
frameworks 179:France 213:free 40:
French 201:7 211:6 216:25 217:Freshfields 5:23 6:1 50:23 52:5,16,
fine 39:19 41:9 81:19 86:10 96:
20 69:
98:25 108:3,15 110:15 115:138:17,25 139:9 197:19,
Freshfields' 57:Friday 22:10 67:
finish 11:4 114:
friend 46:
finished 11:23 161:
front 8:2,8 13:12,13 14:7 15:8,
fireside 35:20,
fall 44:20 173:
firm 6:
falls 127:23 146:4 174:
fit 33:24 99:
39:24 47:24 52:1 59:18 65:2 67:9,70:4 72:8 74:21 144:7 160:4 161:171:19 181:11 198:19 200:19 226:233:22 234:4,5 241:
family 8:
full 11:14 12:25 31:22 57:20 62:
fault 89:19 156:16 182:15 187:
floor 177:3 178:
feature 163:7 173:24 174:11,
flow 34:
175:11 176:5,12 177:9 201:2 214:239:11,
features 166:21 167:9 168:9,170:7 173:7,11,13 177:16 214:8,10,
Feb 8:5 29:5 62:7 71:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
forecast 136:12,17 137:5 139:157:19,24 194:16 221:
finalized 135:11,16,18 157:
externally 35:11,
160:25 163:2 164:14,20 165:1 166:4,
8,15 180:5 186:4 187:5 195:18,198:14 201:14 210:1 222:8,15 224:225:15,20 226:14 231:8 234:235:4,10,16,23 236:4 237:12 239:
66:13 69:10 74:24 75:2,6 93:201:18,22,23 202:4,14,15 227:234:14 237:
flows 34:
functions 241:
folks 88:18,21 89:
fund 34:20 35:1,8,10,
follow 44:16 53:5 54:11 67:1,
funded 35:
69:12,22 74:1 77:14 100:18 112:115:15,23 116:5 119:12 121:18 135:138:21 141:5 142:25 143:8,16,150:6 152:14 158:4,11,18 159:1,
Lexitas
funding 35:9,future 100:6 234:14,18,20 235:2,8,
888-267-1200· ·Index: explanation–futurePage 264 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 264 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, 14,20 236:2 237:15 238:7,14,239:5,
G
Garamond 6:garble 99:garbled 84:21 98:gave 78:3 79:17 90:24 110:6 221:224:
GDPR 38:8 42:11 227:8 231:general 17:12 35:2,21 36:18 39:42:14 82:21 94:4 109:23 116:117:3 120:16,20 146:4 188:6 203:207:10,12 209:17 214:1 233:
generally 83:3 170:12,15 193:203:21 224:
Google 5:5,23,25 9:20,24 17:18:12,16 20:1 33:23 34:9,21 35:45:12,16 47:19 75:3,7 76:21 79:24,81:22 82:4 85:8 89:1,7 101:24 105:114:16,18 118:22 121:25 128:14,18,
21 129:6 146:20 147:23 151:3,153:3,9 157:7,8 166:20 167:8 168:8,
23 170:2,6 171:7 173:7 177:15 180:181:20,24 182:5 201:23 202:16 205:213:5,7 227:25 232:14,
80:6 82:20 91:12 93:16 110:3 147:152:8 161:20 168:10 169:6 170:213:25 238:
giving 12:glad 221:
global 34:17,19,20 35:15 89:globally 134:goal 72:20 144:25 160:
happy 44:13 58:4 74:8,17 168:harass 111:harassing 110:12 138:hard 72:7 91:12 131:16 152:5,163:11 165:9,15 216:
Google's 70:24 71:17,18,19 120:123:18 144:23 151:8 174:8 190:211:16,20 229:
Gotcha 34:
header 201:1 214:2,9,11,15,16,
government 39:2 94:17 96:4,7,16,
22 100:7,14,21 101:16 102:13,103:13 104:4 111:21 132:10,153:2,8,22 154:3,16,22 155:2,190:22 192:4 217:14,21 218:8,
215:2,
headers 171:heading 74:20 193:hear 172:
governmental 94:
held 32:25 33:8,13 45:9,12,15,
grants 35:
helped 17:21 27:24 208:19 220:
great 8:12 9:3 10:18 11:1,21 12:
helpful 36:9 55:7 56:9 96:14 182:
14:9 16:8 36:5 39:1 45:20 46:48:25 81:20 93:18 200:22 213:
give 8:22 10:22 35:14 43:10 79:
happening 88:20 168:20 171:
203:25 212:13 217:
helps 74:hesitation 14:
ground 8:25 9:5 12:group 22:16 29:14,21 30:11,19 37:75:18 90:3 127:25 193:14,19,21,208:17 231:
Hey 203:16 219:15 241:high-level 148:6,8,higher 178:
groups 240:16 241:
highly 6:
growing 106:
Hold 60:12 172:
guess 48:19 53:9 81:4 86:3 91:
honest 12:
105:23 134:22 135:15 165:9 216:233:
guidance 83:7 148:6,8,10 184:13,185:4,9,13 209:8,11,19,
goals 228:
guys 71:7 136:
good 5:1,15 7:5 20:24 74:13 93:
GVC 80:
hope 241:host 89:hour 21:19 24:20 44:hours 28:10 29:17 30:3,13 91:93:3,9,15,24 130:25 131:4,8 152:4,
17,22 189:22 216:1,4 229:
163:10 172:6 199:8 214:
H
housekeeping 7:
GOOG-DOJ-AT-00030150 198:GOOG-DOJ-AT-00205841 171:236:
H-S-I-A-O 27:half 21:19 211:18 215:
GOOG-DOJ-AT-0030150 243:
hand 8:
GOOG-DOJ-AT-00660900 161:
handling 91:
242:
GOOG-DOJ-AT-00660904 161:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
happen 193:3 204:11,
hundreds 208:
happened 42:10 124:
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index:
hundredsPage 265 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 265 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, incorporated 9:14,17 116:I
117:12,20 118:3,17 196:19 223:224:11,
ICO 38:7 94:10 230:
incorrect 86:
ID 168:
increase 106:
identical 78:
indications 141:
identified 22:16 27:23 49:25 50:
individual 51:1 57:12,18 60:10 66:3,
161:12 172:2 193:20 198:
identify 5:12 27:24 101:15 127:identifying 50:
9 72:1 91:14 98:17 102:22 103:130:17 151:21 167:19,22 168:11,169:8 211:23 212:8,16 217:4 239:8,
identities 102:13 215:
individual's 75:
imagine 204:4 216:
individually 99:
immediately 8:
individuals 18:25 20:8,25 21:
impact 83:7 132:19 227:implement 166:6 176:implemented 176:5 179:
22:25 26:15 37:7 88:22,24 89:3 93:193:17,20 194:2 232:
industry 34:21 116:15,24 117:3,120:21 170:
implications 73:10,20 241:
inform 9:25 10:5 72:
important 202:19 204:
information 16:17 23:14,17,19 25:8,
importantly 52:impossible 93:5,19 183:impressions 178:improper 6:10 52:14,24 69:2 107:9,
13 237:
in-counsel 220:in-house 5:24 21:24 22:21 43:75:3 104:10 122:1 123:18 128:14,18,
21 129:6 151:8,14 157:8 181:20,201:23 205:8,14,15 211:16 227:11,229:15 232:14,
inappropriate 244:7,inappropriately 243:inaudible 223:Incidentally 28:include 38:21 60:23 68:11 94:153:11 157:8 183:1 193:
16,18,20 26:3 42:6 43:11 49:17,55:15 62:3,11 66:16 67:21 69:70:13,21 72:21 75:19 77:17,21 78:112:9 127:2 137:14,18,23 138:139:2,8,10,11,13,14 140:6 142:174:3,7,17,18 176:1 177:6 183:190:7 206:8,20 209:10 210:214:14,17 221:9 223:24 228:15 229:
informative 93:informed 153:13 203:initial 8:25 128:25 146:1 154:157:22 223:19 224:1,
initiate 88:16 98:7,13 99:9,22 101:102:10 122:12,14 132:15 135:153:23 154:4 155:4,9 190:23 191:6,
17 217:23 218:
initiated 88:14 95:10 96:24 97:3,122:10 134:15 146:11,14 154:10,191:22 192:21 193:
inquiring 17:inquiry 180:inside 35:2 151:3 215:insist 61:insisted 60:20 71:insistence 71:instance 244:instruct 25:12 42:3,22 52:22 57:66:23 67:21 73:24 77:11 78:2 79:84:10 89:25 100:12 105:20 108:110:18 111:9 112:15 113:3 115:12,121:8 122:22 135:5 137:2,13 138:140:4 142:15 143:23 144:15 147:149:20 150:3 152:11 158:2 160:10,162:20 164:11 165:17,21 167:12,180:2 186:1 187:2,22 195:15 196:8,
25 197:10 198:9 201:11 206:3 208:209:3,25 221:24 224:18 225:9 227:231:6 233:3 234:19 237:7,10 239:242:
instructed 44:14 90:instructing 115:4 119:10 142:237:
instruction 25:15 28:1 44:8,17 53:54:8,12 67:2,24 69:13,20,23 73:74:2 77:15,25 78:10 80:18,19 85:1,100:19,24 103:17 107:18 112:19,113:7,17,19 115:16,23 116:4,119:13 121:16,19 135:8 137:19,140:13,19 141:4,6 142:25 143:5,8,13,
16 144:1 145:1 147:4,16 148:3 150:152:15 158:5,10,12,17,19,24 159:2,6,
9 160:17 161:1 163:2,5,20 164:15,19,
21,25 165:2,6,25 166:3,7,9,14,170:24 180:6 185:3,7,12,17,22 186:187:6 188:1 195:2,19,24 196:1,198:14 201:15 206:16 207:13,209:16,23 210:2,13 222:7,9,14,224:22 225:2,14,16,19,21 226:228:16,21 231:9 233:11,16 234:235:3,5,9,11,15,17,22,24 236:3,237:13 239:
initiating 132:11 218:
instructions 99:6 195:4,9 229:
initiation 95:24 217:
instructs 11:25 39:12 137:
initiative 34:18,19,
integral 24:
includes 95:5 188:
initiatives 35:
integration 215:
including 45:16 51:19 57:3 61:
input 43:
intend 70:
inquire 18:
intended 203:
inquiries 244:
intending 62:
included 15:1 62:11 79:24 96:117:15 123:18 126:21 146:21 203:204:2 214:9,11 217:8 232:15,
82:4 95:15 106:9 160:2 184:8 214:
incorporate 116:8,12 141:8 158:196:3,12 222:19 223:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: ICO–intendingPage 266 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 266 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, interact 120:interacts 120:interest 45:interested 214:interfaced 120:interject 51:17 94:intermediary 169:internal 35:1,8 39:3 101:24 109:119:
internally 35:11 93:6 152:interrupt 115:
111:21 149:23 153:11 154:4 191:17,
23 201:4,5 211:
investigations 20:16 40:3 94:95:7,8,23 96:5,8,17,22,25 97:19,100:7,15,21 101:16 102:20 103:104:4,18,20,25 105:17 106:6,107:6 108:25 109:17 130:12 132:10,
15 150:22 153:2,8,22,25 154:3,7,16,
22 155:2,6 189:3 190:22 191:3,16,192:4,20,25 217:14,22 218:8,230:4,6,
34:2,9,13 35:18 36:11 37:21,25 79:2,
6 82:18,25 83:4,6,14 84:2,15,24 85:88:9 122:16 125:13,17 126:2,127:6,16 146:2,23 147:11 148:1,183:9,23 184:2,20 185:5,15 186:7,187:11 188:4 206:11,22 207:8,209:1,14 210:4,11 228:
jobs 45:16 91:
investigative 9:13 13:3 14:9,11,15:12 16:9,16,23 39:11 41:19 44:48:6 49:24 51:6 52:12 56:20 59:61:11 65:9 66:
interrupting 83:
investment 117:
join 5:
intertwined 216:
investor 45:
joined 5:
intervals 12:
involve 147:15 193:16 215:21 237:
joining 45:
interviews 18:22 31:
involved 19:25 20:12,14 31:2 43:
introduce 9:introduced 16:introducing 173:
57:19,21 74:4 95:23,24 128:24 145:146:16 151:15 181:17,20,25 188:204:9 209:18 217:7 221:19 227:232:21 241:
introduction 20:
involvement 18:25 120:2 128:
invade 6:10 43:25 78:1 79:4,12,
involves 219:
82:22 111:10 114:22 121:9 122:144:16 145:3 149:19 165:22 167:13,
20 196:24 197:12 209:5 224:19 226:228:12 233:2 237:
invades 42:2,23 50:20 52:14,15 54:70:18 77:12 84:11 104:9 105:107:9 111:18 112:16 113:4 115:135:4 140:6 147:4 152:12 160:9,162:21 164:12 180:3 183:17 186:187:3 195:16 198:10 201:12 209:225:10 239:20 242:
invading 70:19 72:21 73:1,24 80:85:21 100:11 104:8,14 119:6 122:143:21 144:18 147:7,17 148:4 149:150:4 160:12 183:20 184:5 186:187:21 194:21 196:7,22 197:3 206:208:4 209:6 210:7 227:4 231:6 233:237:
inventory 174:24 175:7,9,13,177:19 178:
journalism 34:21 35:journalists 35:
IP 20:1 40:11,Irish 38:11 94:10 230:
judgments 142:242:
issue 62:20 64:20 101:2 102:108:12 141:14 142:3,8 161:24 163:166:23 172:5 199:6 222:22 237:
Julie 5:22 13:19 40:17 48:16,23 52:57:6 66:4 84:22 197:19 202:
issued 13:3 14:10 66:
Julie's 58:
issues 7:11,14 88:19 91:19 204:
June 189:11 193:12,24 194:
216:
justice 5:16 7:7 16:18 17:9,11 38:94:11 217:
item 214:items 68:15 95:
K
J
January 16:6 28:21 156:2,18,231:19 232:4,7,13,
keeping 72:
January/february 231:
investigate 179:10 189:investigating 17:10,12 38:24,
Kent 204:
39:3,19 102:
key 85:24 86:7,12 183:
investigation 13:4 17:21 18:7,12,38:4,8,14,20,24 39:3,4,16 41:43:22 66:15,21 94:7 106:10 110:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
kind 81:job 21:7,25 22:1 32:18,21,25 33:
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: interact–kindPage 267 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 267 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, kinds 84:
Lazard 117:2 118:3,21 120:10,12,14,
19 130:
likelihood 106:
Lazard's 117:18 120:Lazarus 88:15 89:18,20 123:124:13 128:13 135:25 146:13,149:10 209:
knew 153:knowing 165:
Lazarus' 124:15 151:5 209:
knowledge 9:22 11:15,18 22:5 29:
lead 75:25 90:1,4,10,13 111:
43:19 49:14 62:4 130:11 150:174:8 188:18 204:20 213:5 242:
knowledgeable 215:
183:11,23 200:11 220:
leader 186:leaders 106:3 109:leadership 72:22 148:11,16 182:13,
20,23 183:22 184:15,16,17,18 185:9,
14 202:23 203:2 204:2 205:11,209:8,11,18 240:
leads 207:
led 155:legal 22:16 31:22 41:12 43:7 48:
Lafond 5:laid 12:17 200:large 75:13 189:larger 75:18 216:11,13 231:
lastly 88:3 188:3 210:4 236:late 33:12 81:4 87:1 91:3,8 245:latest 219:launches 208:launching 219:law 5:25 102:
limited 111:Lin 6:lines 243:
list 38:22 39:25 51:19 52:9 54:1,55:18,24 56:8 59:8,10 74:23,24 75:3,
7,15 79:24 94:15,16,21 95:17,20,96:3,7,19,23 100:2,3 121:22,125:12 127:21 132:14 133:9,23 134:153:2,4,8,25 154:2 181:16,19,188:3,12 190:22 191:4,16,24,192:1,3 193:15 201:19,23 202:4,227:24 228:3,
listed 17:5 38:17,19 50:3 53:20,
learned 17:
L
light 188:13 241:
76:14 109:23 123:3,5,20,23 124:4,18,
19,25 125:4 135:19,22 138:15 142:1,
8 151:7,9 153:14,19,24 203:204:15,18 209:8,10 213:7 215:216:16 227:7,10 228:4,17 232:241:5,
legalese 51:length 190:letter 8:3,4 39:23 48:4,8,9,12,14,15,
18 49:13,15,17 50:4 51:5,9 52:16,56:18,22,24 57:2,5,6,8,25 58:10,15,
21 59:6,23 60:2,4,7,14 61:9,14,15,62:1,6,10,12,16 63:6,10,13 65:7,10,
12,15,17,21 66:2,4,6,12,14,22 67:14,
19 68:1 69:5,18,25 70:4,7,15,23 71:1,
8,17,18,20,24 72:7 74:7,9,10,15 86:6,
13 96:3,8 102:18 104:16 119:133:21 161:14 163:12 172:3 181:198:25 200:18 217:13 226:23 234:
letters 17:16 20:15 57:13,15 60:19,
25 65:24 68:2,6,12,16,22 69:10 71:
level 32:21,24 33:9,11,13 240:
lawsuit 19:7,12 40:6,16,19,25 41:1,lawsuits 41:5 218:
55:19 59:6,7 69:4 80:1 95:3 97:99:21 100:8,22 103:13 104:4 105:106:21 107:6 108:25 109:17 110:114:15 117:11 118:15 123:17 128:14,
22 129:3,7 132:16,18,21 133:5,6,145:8,18,22 146:20 151:11 155:2,157:7,9 163:12,16 164:7 188:189:7 191:21 192:20,25 193:194:10 217:14,22 218:13 220:232:
listened 55:6 78:18 83:16 85:86:16 87:8,19 88:
listener 82:listening 87:listing 58:literally 60:litigation 38:4,14,16,20,21 39:40:5,11,12,14 41:3,16,19 43:23 44:91:22 94:7,22,23 95:4,9,23 96:5,9,97:23 99:24,25 100:9,23 101:102:9 103:15 104:6,23 105:8,106:13,20 107:5,17 108:25 109:5,110:10,22 111:15,22 121:13 132:133:3,4,6,13,16,17 134:5,10 144:154:8,9,10,17,18,23 155:3 160:183:24,25 191:5,15,19,20,24 192:1,3,
5,20,24 217:25 218:12 230:12,14,
litigations 94:17 97:3,16,18 98:2,6,
11 99:8,17,20,23 100:3 133:24 155:
lawyer 7:18 11:25 19:22 41:10 54:89:1 106:11 109:
lawyers 14:19 88:24 106:2 109:145:20 182:14,16 211:24 212:
live 71:
Lexitas 5:
load 47:22 241:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: kinds–loadPage 268 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 268 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, located 32:log 49:20 50:20 52:21 53:24 136:logic 168:19 177:
149:3 183:12 185:18 188:6 205:214:9,11,22 220:
managers 35:21,25 36:mapping 98:
logs 98:long 18:5 21:18 22:13 24:18 28:29:6,15 30:1,12,20 31:15 33:8,61:22 162:11 238:
longer 8:22 95:looked 20:9,10 130:5 131:18 132:
Mara 5:24 48:22,24 57:March 123:22 125:9 129:mark 13:8 15:4 48:1 56:16 59:65:4 67:11 161:5 171:15 180:233:24 236:16 241:23 243:
marked 13:10 14:7 15:6 48:2 56:
149:25 150:
59:21 65:5,18 67:12,15 161:7 171:180:14 189:12 200:1,3 233:25 236:241:24 243:
loop 215:lost 178:lot 14:18 51:21 61:18 69:8 91:113:11 131:16 134:5 161:20 211:216:12,16 223:18 224:5 241:
market 184:marketplace 33:25 42:Markets 38:
loudly 11:
meetings 30:22,25 31:12,17 130:150:25 151:2 189:16,19 190:11,211:7,12,15,19 215:19,21 229:5,
Melinda 5:member 45:20 46:2 75:members 8:16 43:8 91:14 127:128:
mention 40:mentioned 31:2 39:23 40:7 47:80:13 92:15 106:23 130:13 136:237:16 238:
mere 142:merged 150:mess 49:met 22:8 28:19 31:3,metadata 20:10 23:20 24:10 53:
lunch 113:24,
Metta 6:materializing 134:
luncheon 114:
materially 24:7 87:5 95:1,2,20 133:M
153:
materials 94:
Mexico 39:mid/late 156:middle 49:
matter 5:5 14:20 19:1 20:1 33:1 36:Macneil 5:made 59:11 68:5,21 71:7 75:14,78:22 86:3 101:23 102:11 103:104:12 106:13 122:3 125:22 202:1,213:19 219:5,7,25 220:3 231:16,240:4 244:
maintain 173:
37:15 43:17 64:12 90:11 111:121:6 142:1 144:13 160:6 200:202:21 227:1 244:
matter's 18:matters 7:10 16:25 17:4 38:4,14,39:11,17 40:6,12 41:16,20 43:23 44:95:9,12,14 203:
38:22 39:25 46:8 58:7 59:4 62:64:14 71:15 74:16 75:11 78:19 93:94:16 99:2 103:1,7 119:25 120:124:3,6 125:20 126:8 130:2 141:142:4 147:1 156:9 173:4 174:176:17 177:10 187:19 203:
makes 36:
means 23:23 126:25 170:
misconstrues 58:
meant 202:10,
misconstruing 54:
measure 152:
misleading 71:13 118:11 142:
medication 12:
meet 7:20 18:18 21:13 22:7,9,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
197:
mischaracterizing 117:23 118:
manage 36:5 50:18,
85:9 109:23 146:4 147:20,22,
minutes 22:14 29:9 30:21 31:
meaning 19:12 126:6 218:
medium-sized 208:
manager 36:5,18 37:10 76:8 82:7,
212:
mischaracterized 105:
making 54:25 233:
88:18,21 89:7 124:24 125:4 203:206:
minute 97:6 103:20 161:21 186:
MDL 40:20,24,25 41:2 94:22 95:
medium 190:5,
management 32:19 37:8,9,10,
mindful 228:
mischaracterization 118:19,
majority 34:22 157:14 189:make 7:12 12:1 14:19 20:20 34:
mind 153:
28:12,22 31:
150:16 175:
missing 105:14 157:mistake 62:13 64:21,mistaken 17:23 64:model 158:7 194:25 222:
meeting 21:18,20 22:13,15,22 23:28:23 29:1,7,9,11,13,16,18,24 30:2,4,
10,12,14,18,20 93:21 229:8,234:
Lexitas
moment 199:
888-267-1200· ·Index: located–momentPage 269 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 269 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, Momentarily 199:Monday 121:1,3,7,23 122:1,10,12,
14,17,21 125:14,18,21,23,25 126:3,9,
12,14,20 127:3,7,11,17 128:12,15,129:8,10,12,22,25 130:3,9,17,20,131:8,15 132:3,11 133:7,14 134:135:2,11 136:12,17 137:5 139:140:2,11,17,25 141:8 142:13 143:4,
12,19 147:12 235:
money 46:8 92:25 216:month 15:25 16:5 57:1 211:months 51:10 71:11 180:morning 5:1,15 7:5 31:14,morphed 201:
motion 180:Mountain 32:move 14:5 58:8 61:4 64:1,12 72:4,108:4,20 110:2 111:6 112:1 137:3,138:8,18 142:2,11 166:18 173:181:9 200:5 203:18 221:3 237:239:
moved 80:moving 176:muddled 96:Multi-district 41:
114:1,8,17 115:9,15,21,22 116:118:1,7,14 119:2,9,12 121:14,123:5 133:22 134:14,25 135:7 137:1,
4,17,22 138:3,10,14 139:1,17,140:8,14,21,25 141:5,16,22 142:23,
24 143:7,15,25 144:21 145:6,147:10,21 148:7 150:1,6,24 152:154:15 155:1 157:22 158:4,11,159:1,8,12,19 160:15,19,25 161:3,8,
25 162:7,11,16,17,24 163:1,10,15,164:4,14,20 165:1,9,19,25 166:5,8,
15,24 167:6 168:6,13 169:2,170:19 171:12,13,18 172:6,15 173:2,
15,16,22 174:22 175:10 176:4,11,177:8,17 178:12 179:6,17,18,180:5,8,15 181:7,9 184:1,10,185:1,5,10,15,20,24 186:4,16,187:5,18,24 188:15 191:9 192:6,13,
19 194:24 195:3,18,25 196:11,197:5,15,18,22,24 198:5,13,16,18,199:2,8,19,24 200:4 201:14 202:12,
14 206:6,18 207:8,15,22 208:9 209:9,
20 210:1,10,15,20,22 212:3,6,14,213:4 217:10 218:4,6,9,11 219:14,17,
24 221:5,8 222:3,8,15,23,25 223:5,224:15,20,21 225:4,12,15,20,226:13 227:9 228:14,24 229:230:18,24 231:8 233:9,18,19,21,234:1,12,23 235:4,10,16,23 236:4,8,
15,23 237:12,20,24 238:6,18,239:10,16,22,23 240:1,9,13 241:17,
19,21,25 242:6,15,21,24 243:9,244:20,
N
Najafi 5:Nakamura 5:15,16 7:4,6 13:6,11,19,
22 14:4 15:2,7 25:5,14,19,21 40:5,17,
18,22,23 41:4 42:17 43:3 44:3,11,16,
25 45:6 47:21,23,25 48:4 50:10 51:52:6 53:2,4,14,18 54:11,21 55:6,56:10,12,15,18 57:22 58:5,9,19 59:2,
15,17,19,23 60:12 61:6,8 62:22 63:5,
12,16,19,23 64:3,10,11,24 65:1,3,66:5,12 67:1,6,8,10,14,23 68:17,69:11,22 70:22 71:16 72:4 73:6,74:1 77:14,20 78:5,12 79:19 81:2,17,
21 84:14,22,23 85:3,24 89:5 92:12,95:2 96:15,16 97:8,15 98:10,18 99:5,
19 100:16,17 101:4,18 102:25 103:6,
12,21 104:2,3 105:2,15 106:107:14,25 108:14,21 110:1,13,20,111:2,12 112:2,18,25 113:6,14,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
non-counsel 213:non-features 176:non-finalized 135:non-google 47:non-programmatic 179:25 180:nonanswers 103:nonlawyer 205:5 216:18,nonlawyers 49:12 182:nonprivileged 108:nonwork 108:normal 116:note 6:4 52:18 96:2 105:1 130:131:2 173:4 179:18 182:1 202:203:1 205:6 241:22 242:25 243:
noted 24:7,24 51:23 59:12 95:131:5 183:21 189:
notes 7:23 8:1,9 24:21 25:notice 64:12 102:4 108:1 173:9,14,
Nakamura's 168:
muted 188:
nod 11:
named 19:
notify 15:
names 20:25 21:4 26:15 31:25 32:
noting 15:
33:20 37:3 39:15,18 40:9 48:24,49:1,5,25 50:6 55:19,23 56:1,2,3,82:5 113:20 115:10 117:14 134:203:2 204:1 221:6 223:21 224:
notion 113:
narrowly 234:nature 104:necessarily 202:23 203:
November 6:8 56:19 161:14 163:172:2 198:
number 17:15 20:6,9,18 32:10,38:7 40:10 53:24 92:17 93:14 97:104:24 119:20 131:8 152:7 170:211:12 216:1 219:
needed 7:18 68:5,21 98:3 175:
numbers 49:
network 170:12,16 171:5,6,
numerically 218:
network-like 169:5,17 170:7,
numerous 20:
171:4 173:
O
news 34:17,19,next-step 178:
nicknames 32:
Lexitas
oath 10:
object 6:9 11:21 14:22 43:24,
888-267-1200· ·Index: Momentarily–objectPage 270 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 270 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, 50:16,25 52:13 57:11 67:20 69:70:17 71:12,25 73:23 77:11 98:8,100:10 104:7 105:11 114:19 117:118:5,9,18,20 119:6 134:1,17 135:136:15 142:14 143:20 150:15 158:159:6 175:17 177:20 183:15 191:194:17 197:9 198:12 209:3 212:219:9 225:2 229:20 231:5 234:239:
objecting 142:objection 11:22,24 25:11 39:15 51:54:7,18 55:11 58:17,20,24 60:8,62:19 65:22 66:7,8 69:19 71:3 77:81:18 99:1,11 101:13 102:11,103:16 104:12 105:19 107:8 108:110:24 111:8 141:3 143:6,14 154:165:13,15 170:23 173:11 175:1,176:8,14,23 177:11,21 178:15 179:212:19 239:
objections 111:3 142:objectives 72:23 73:4,7,13,16,17,160:20 162:18 163:15,18 164:6,201:
operating 174:opinion 104:9 109:9 111:19,22,153:
opposed 170:1 177:optimizations 179:optimize 177:option 53:options 72:oral 70:Orally 70:order 37:8 94:14 163:11 182:189:18 190:18 215:9 216:
participants 5:8 169:
organization 36:25 37:12,17 44:
participated 127:
240:
original 160:1 224:out-of-scope 108:outcome 78:15,outreach 208:8,9 212:
obnoxious 139:
outside-the-scope 60:
occasionally 120:
overlaps 61:
occur 29:19 30:5 130:20 229:8,
oversight 151:7,9,
occurred 130:9 145:5 150:25 189:
overview 120:
occurrence 189:
42:17,19 43:5,21 44:5 51:20 56:60:5 62:23 71:24 72:11,23 73:7,13,79:2 81:10 83:18,23 84:6 93:20 98:6,
12 99:9,21 112:13 113:14 114:115:22 116:1 117:4 121:1 126:127:1 128:11,15,22 129:7 136:12,137:5 139:20 140:2,11,17,25 144:148:16 157:19,24 158:8 159:171:6,7,25 174:1 175:23 179:7 180:183:22 184:11 187:1,14 188:194:16,25 195:12,21 200:7 201:204:21 205:8 208:11,15,20 214:215:7 216:20 221:21 222:5,11 223:226:5,18 228:5,6 232:5 234:17 235:1,
7,13 238:11,15,22 239:4,11,242:11,
ordinary 208:
objects 39:
190:14 215:20 229:5 234:15,238:22 244:
part 9:6 16:23 23:16 34:12 39:
parties 8:14,17 213:9 216:18,partly 36:partner 148:21,partners 171:9 240:parts 8:23 17:4 71:17 90:3 150:200:25 216:21,
party 169:22 212:12 213:6,229:18,37:5 232:228:
owner 23:ownership 45:
pass 168:23 173:25 174:1 203:214:
October 33:15 48:5 65:8 68:7,
P
79:21 80:17 85:16 87:2,4 90:25 91:176:15 229:
passed 175:5 180:past 239:
offer 58:6 106:19 107:4 108:109:2,
office 32:8,officer 204:16,official 70:24 71:17,
on-site 36:one-page 242:ongoing 8:17 91:22 92:16 117:150:13 190:
open 13:15 33:
p.m. 67:16 114:4,7 141:18,21 159:15,
18 162:3,6 163:25 164:3 167:2,172:9,12,18,21 192:15,18 198:1,199:11,14 207:4,7 212:25 213:219:20,23 223:7,10 230:20,236:11,14 238:2,5 245:6,
pattern 241:
pay 216:
PA 35:2,
payment 217:
Pacific 5:
payments 22:
pages 50:4 53:11 54:16 55:9,15,
Paypal 45:
57:
PDF 226:23 237:4 243:
paid 91:16 92:3 216:paragraph 49:17 66:13 234:paralegal 5:
operate 116:3 141:2 170:17 195:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
path 42:
pending 12:12 44:12 63:6 94:people 20:8 32:3 36:24 37:12,75:17 80:9,12 156:6 160:1 193:
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: objecting–peoplePage 271 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 271 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, 232:9 241:
percent 41:17 45:24 178:22 180:percentage 41:14 177:4 215:perfectly 110:perform 185:25 187:1,14 188:205:23 206:14 208:1 228:
performed 75:23 76:23 116:9,13,117:20 118:15 125:15 130:6 141:188:19 223:18,25 224:5,13 229:
performing 168:period 212:
players 170:
prepare 18:19 20:4 31:18 57:
pleasure 7:
68:12 220:
point 60:15 68:15 74:13,23 75:2,6,91:4 101:14 102:8 106:14 120:121:22 145:8,22 157:9 181:16,19,189:1 201:17,22 202:8,10,15 204:2,
25 221:19 224:9 227:23 232:15,17,237:3,16 238:8 241:7 243:21,244:
points 193:
104:21 105:1,2,16 106:5,15,114:21 115:4 134:19 170:10 171:173:20 174:14 175:2,16,19 176:177:12,21 234:
personally 19:6 26:2 124:22 131:169:14 238:
personnel 5:pertains 34:
portfolio 33:portion 14:24 70:3 116:20 213:
phrased 109:picked 64:picking 64:piece 51:25 74:pieces 23:17 62:3,5,10 116:117:10,15 152:6,9 170:
pinpoint 91:place 5:7 20:14 30:16 106:7 179:10,
12,15 211:8,9,13 214:16 238:
plainly 108:1 111:plaintiff 19:6,11 41:plan 100:5 203:7,17 242:planned 173:5 244:
portions 27:20,22,23,25 28:2 35:
prerogative 70:12 100:49:9 79:23,25 80:12 124:19 132:
presentation 78:18 79:18,20 80:3,6,
78:14 80:8,
position 9:21 33:8,14 37:24,45:10 51:11 53:3 57:7,23 61:7,9,10,
14,16,21 62:17 63:7 70:24 71:17,18,
19 99:3 102:19 109:15 111:14,136:20 150:9 180:9 181:8 225:226:2 240:2,7 243:6 244:
possibly 22:6 28:3,21 122:6 123:124:14 134:12 176:16 202:25 204:3,
post 213:posted 213:potential 72:19 73:10,20 122:123:4 144:19 160:14 183:24 204:
10,16,23,25 81:3 82:13,14,15 83:85:14,15 86:16 87:1,5,8,19,25 88:90:21,22,23,24 91:4 120:19 124:6,11,
16,20,25 125:3,21 126:23 155:16,17,
20,25 156:5,17,22,25 157:2,4,193:11,13,23 194:3 203:15 219:5,7,
25 220:3,5,10,16,24 221:10,231:23 232:1,5,6,7,13,
presentations 90:18 124:3 135:155:11,14 157:15 159:5 193:6 194:218:16,19 231:11,16,
presented 124:23 125:10,11 126:6,129:19,20 234:17 235:1,7,13,236:
preserve 111:
potentialities 188:
pretty 205:7 214:
potentially 42:19 67:4 133:
prevent 12:21,
26:19 27:13 36:23 85:88:23 125:6 126:15 127:9,15 204:
precipitated 89:11,15 189:
previous 19:5 86:previously 19:25 65:18 116:117:19 141:9 144:6 196:4,12,
precise 97:5 105:15 106:10 134:
PRG 242:
precisely 96:
price 177:3 214:
precision 189:
pricing 143:11 166:13 179:24 195:198:8 222:12 233:
prefer 179:preliminaries 31:preparation 18:9 19:2 20:3,23 21:1,
15 22:8 23:1,11,24 24:1,4,7,11,15,26:1,4,13 28:11,18 29:2,7,19 30:5,14,
23 31:12 48:17 49:13 51:20 53:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
159:5 232:
present 21:20,21 22:15,22 29:
216:22 224:
positions 45:9,12,phone 25:21 32:15,16 64:13,15,
50:22 51:13 57:5,6,8,14,25 60:65:21 66:2,4 68:13,23 100:15 107:108:3,22 110:15 116:16 119:4 135:142:13 143:3,11 145:4 155:11,14,157:15 158:22 160:18 193:6 194:197:7 198:8 218:16,19 224:231:11,
preparing 66:22 126:17 155:
persists 130:11 150:
personal 9:6 10:14,23 103:
prepared 16:24 17:6 43:6 48:15,
prepares 43:3 65:
permitted 7:17,22 64:
person 26:22 27:1,4,7,10,
55:10,16 56:25 57:13 58:11 59:60:5,25 65:13 66:6 69:17 70:15 127:132:1 153:21 208:
Lexitas
primarily 28:4 35:10 97:18 104:124:17 125:19 128:13 155:18 185:188:11,25 193:4 217:
primary 120:11 132:20 133:8,151:7 153:15 182:18 230:
888-267-1200· ·Index: percent–primaryPage 272 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 272 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, principal 21:prior 19:24 45:12,15 48:11 86:112:21 118:7,16,25 158:15 163:188:25 189:2 196:4,13,18 222:223:2,14,19 224:6 244:
privacy 89:12 95:16 183:25 227:11,
private 41:4 94:privately 7:privilege 6:11,15 25:12 42:3,24 44:49:20,22,23 50:20 52:10,11,14,53:24 54:10 58:20 62:21 67:4 68:70:18,19 73:2,16 76:7,15 79:4,7,80:22 81:12,14 82:22,25 84:12 85:4,
22 86:24 87:16 88:13 94:8,18 96:98:20,21,22 100:12 101:2 102:3,104:8,14 105:21 107:10,15 111:4,112:16 113:5,7,18 114:23 115:8,119:7 121:9 122:24,25 129:17 135:136:24 137:16,19,25 138:5,17 139:3,
5,9,12 140:6,22 141:15 142:7 143:144:17,18 145:2 147:2,5,18 148:149:19,21 150:4 152:13 160:9,12,161:24 162:22 163:22 164:5,166:23 167:14,20 172:5 180:4,181:1,5 183:18,20 184:6 186:3,187:4,21 194:21 195:17 196:7,22,197:4,13 198:11 199:6 201:13 206:207:17 208:5 209:5,6,24 210:7 222:2,
22 225:11 226:1,7 227:4 228:231:6 233:2,4,10,17 237:9,19,238:12 239:21 240:3 242:14 243:244:
privileged 12:6 42:6 44:20 55:69:24 72:21 77:17,21 106:4 107:17,
20 109:22 110:5 111:15 113:10,115:18 121:17 136:13,18,23 137:165:24 167:12 173:12 194:20 206:8,
20 209:12 221:23 223:23 226:234:
privileges 142:problem 14:5 186:10,16 197:221:8 228:22,
procedure 19:20 138:19,proceedings 16:20 245:process 50:19 52:4 57:14 60:6 62:69:8 108:8 142:2 208:22 214:219:
processor 174:produce 83:17,23,25 87:produced 161:12,17 162:12 171:198:21,23 199:22 242:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
product 6:12,16 21:12 32:19 33:18,
24 34:10 35:6,21,25 37:8,9,10,42:2,23 44:1 49:22 50:21 52:10,54:9 66:25 67:21 69:3 73:1,24 77:78:1 79:13,15 80:21 81:16 82:7 83:84:11 86:24 87:20,23 88:6 90:94:5,8 96:12 98:22 100:11 102:104:9 105:22 107:9 108:11 111:11,
19,23,25 112:17 113:5 114:23 115:119:7 122:24 130:13 135:5 136:137:15,20 138:1 139:23 140:7,141:25 142:17 143:22 144:17 145:147:5,18,20,22,23,24 149:2,19 150:152:13 158:1 160:9,24 162:22 163:164:12 165:22,24 166:20 167:8,11,
14,20 168:8 169:15 170:6,20 180:183:11,17 186:2 187:3,21 194:14,195:16 196:8,23,24 197:12 198:201:3,12 203:12 205:22 206:2,207:20 208:5,24 209:17 210:8,213:18 214:3,18 221:24 224:225:11 226:8,11 227:14,15,20 234:237:9 238:16,22 239:21 242:14 244:
production 244:products 33:19,20 34:1,12 37:18,43:16 82:1,3 112:23 113:2,16 114:115:11 116:2 140:12 141:2 148:184:8,24 188:7 195:13,23 217:219:2 222:13 227:8 233:
professionally 138:
145:7,18,21,24 146:1,3,9,11,14,147:12 148:2,13,17,20 149:1,4,7,9,
13,16,17 150:9,12,14,18,19,23,151:5,9,15,21 152:4,19 153:3,9,154:4,10,18 155:4,8,9,12,15,156:12,14 157:3,9,16,19,21,24 158:2,
7,8,14,16,22 159:5,21,24,25 160:6,
16,20 161:13 162:18,23 163:5,6,8,16,
18 164:6,9 165:12 169:3 172:173:12 180:1 181:15,17,21,182:17,21,24 183:3,7,13,23 184:3,11,
17,21 185:2,6,11,16,18,21 186:8,18,
22 187:1,12,15 188:4,9,17,20,24,189:2,6,7,10,13,17,23 190:1,12,14,191:6,17,22 192:21 193:1,7,18,194:3,13,16,19,24 195:1,12,21 196:3,
5,11,13,19 197:2,8 198:8,25 199:200:7,9,10,12,22 201:2,6,9,20,202:2,4,17,20 204:21,23 205:12,21,
24 206:12,15,23 207:9,23 208:2,11,
15,20 209:2,15,21 210:5,15,18,211:1,5,7,8,13,23 212:7,16,17 213:6,
10 214:6 215:20,25 216:2,6,13,18,217:6,15,23 218:1,14,17,20 219:8,220:1,10,16,25 221:11,17,21 222:4,6,
11,18,20 223:1,3,13,15 224:12,13,225:1,7,10,13,18,25 226:17,19 227:1,
21 228:1,7,10,13,20 229:3,6,9,11,18,
23 230:1,3,6,9,13,25 231:4,12 232:5,
8,12,14,25 233:15 234:17,21 235:1,7,
13,19 236:1 237:4,17 238:9,16,239:18 240:20 242:
program 220:
project's 219:
progress 241:
projections 42:18 43:4,15,20 44:
project 35:13 54:4 55:19 56:2 72:10,
projects 6:5,14 15:18 20:14 21:
13,14,17,18,20,24 73:8,13,21 74:4,
20,25 75:4,7,16,23 76:1,5,8,11,13,15,
18,24 77:4,7,18,22,24 78:7,9,11,13,
15,17,20,24 79:3,6,9 80:16 81:6,10,
22 82:11,19,21,24 83:5,15,18,84:3,7,16,19,24 85:7,13,19,25 86:12,
15,18,21 87:7,10,13,18,22 88:1,4,7,
10,14,16 89:9,13,15,20 90:1,4,7,10,
13,14,19 91:2,7,11,14,17 92:4,93:1,4,9,15,20 94:9,19 95:9,25 96:17,
24 97:3,16 98:7,13,23 99:9,101:17,25 102:10 109:3,6 112:13,113:1,8,9,15,20 114:11 116:1,8,10,
12,14,17,19,21 117:6,12,15,21 118:2,
3,4,8,16,17 119:1,5 120:3,6,7,14,121:3,4,6,23 122:1,10,12,14,17,125:14,18,21,22,25 126:3,9,12,14,16,
19,23 127:3,7,11,17 128:12,15,129:8,10,12,22,24 130:1,3,8,17,20,131:3,5,8,15 132:3,11,15 133:1,7,134:15 135:1,11 136:12,17 137:139:20 140:2,11,17,25 141:8 142:143:3,11,18 144:3,10,11,13,21,
Lexitas
35:9,17 36:10 49:25 50:6 54:3 56:92:16,17 101:24 102:15 108:11 109:113:12,14,20 114:11,15,16,17,115:10 117:11,14,17 136:23 143:152:7,9 165:23 167:12,16 190:225:7 226:10,11,20 240:
promise 162:proofing 237:15 238:7,14,20 239:5,
properly 107:17,20 142:17 145:225:
propose 215:proprietorship 46:prospective 42:protect 111:protected 73:16 137:14 226:protection 38:11 49:22 52:11 233:
888-267-1200· ·Index: principal–protectionPage 273 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 273 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, protracted 97:provide 9:23 10:12 11:17 16:35:12 41:12 42:17 43:5,21 44:5 57:69:16 70:13 78:25 79:1 83:7 84:85:2 104:19 108:10 112:8 136:137:18,23 138:2,4 139:3,18 142:146:1 148:6,7,9 168:16,24 169:185:8 187:25 195:3,8,10 206:7,207:11 208:4 209:6,10,21 210:216:9 223:24 228:15 229:
provided 8:3 14:18 17:16,17 20:23:5 45:11 51:23 55:15 69:14 70:76:25 78:21 79:17 80:5 84:8 94:99:14 102:12 104:15 106:24 110:117:4 118:21 120:24 122:7 124:128:16 151:9 184:13 185:4,13 190:206:4 209:
providing 9:12,16 10:13 81:7,120:3 170:2,15 172:24 174:14 175:2,
public 20:15 204:16,18 208:7,publications 17:published 17:22 18:publisher 33:19 168:22 169:23,170:14 173:25 174:6,20 177:2,5,16,
25 178:23 179:1,5 184:8,24 188:207:24 212:
publisher's 177:publishers 168:17 169:19 173:17,174:11,23 175:12 176:5,12,18 177:208:10,12,14,20 212:14 214:
Quantize 226:17,19 227:2,21 228:1,
quarter 105:6,12 211:queries 177:question 10:10 11:4,11,16,18,12:2,5,12,13 25:3 34:6 39:1 42:43:25 44:12,15 52:4,13,23 53:8 54:8,
22 55:3,4,22 57:11 58:20 59:3 62:63:2,5 68:9 69:13 70:17,19 71:12,73:23 76:16,17 79:5 81:14 84:86:1,4,11 89:2 92:13 93:12 95:6,96:14 98:9,15 99:4 100:10,17 101:103:5,8,12 104:3,7 105:14 107:108:15,19 109:7,20 110:8,11,111:18 112:3,5,7,9,16 113:4,114:10,20 115:3,13 129:5 133:12,134:23 135:4 137:2,7,22 138:8,139:1,7,15,16,17 140:5,8,14 142:6,8,
15,18,21 143:20,24 147:4 153:154:13,15,16,24 157:22 158:1 160:9,
23 162:21 163:10 164:5,12 165:166:11 167:11,15 168:2,4 170:11,173:19 174:15 175:3,4,6,8,10,176:25 177:13,22 179:14,20 180:3,183:16,20 186:2,15 187:3,20 191:8,
12 192:8,10 194:18,20 195:7,196:7 198:6,10 201:12 202:8 203:206:1 208:4 209:24 210:19 212:6,215:18 217:2,9 221:23 224:7,225:5 226:15 227:4 231:5 233:2,234:20,22 236:5 237:8,21 238:7,239:7,20 242:10,13,
pull 23:
question's 165:
purpose 24:8 35:
questioner 111:
purposes 9:
questioning 5:13 51:15 69:2 110:
pursuant 13:3 19:
put 52:20 53:13,15 56:11 95:107:22 130:6 179:10 180:11 198:214:16 236:16 240:1,5 243:
puts 177:putting 71:
22 12:14,22 15:15 16:12 17:18 19:26:6 45:19 50:17,23 52:24 53:9 61:62:15 68:16 69:9 71:21 82:24 99:101:21 102:1 107:13 138:25 165:173:6 179:22 191:11 203:10 234:7,238:11 241:3,6 243:5 244:12,21,22,
23,219:
quickly 138:19 230:Q4 104:23 105:3,16 106:
rate 178:6,13,14,19,rate's 178:re-ask 71:reach 208:12,reached 101:23 113:24 183:4,208:20 213:
read 18:5 48:10 50:1 54:22,23 67:92:13,14 126:13,16,19 171:
reading 62:10 204:ready 186:real 46:8 240:real-time 176:21 177:9,17 179:reason 14:14 24:2 69:15 98:7,99:9 101:16 102:10 103:8 138:154:20 233:
reasonable 12:8 92:2 93:8,12,131:7,21 152:17 162:13 211:229:139:4 141:12 244:
recall 17:25 64:18 194:
179:24 181:
quick 103:20 141:14 192:11 197:Q
raising 102:
reasons 92:15 99:22 101:22 119:
questions 7:4 8:24 9:21 11:7,9,14,
pushed 241:
R
7,10,20 229:3,6,9,12,18,23 230:1,3,6,
9,13 231:1,4,12 232:5,8,13,14,233:15 236:
quote 122:
receive 127:received 58:recent 220:9,15,recently 220:recess 14:1 45:3 50:13 64:7 92:97:12 101:9 103:24 114:5 141:159:16 162:4 164:1 167:3 172:10,192:16 198:2 199:12 207:5 213:219:21 223:8 230:21 236:12 238:
recipient 82:
qualifications 39:
recognize 51:22 52:
qualifies 19:
recollection 54:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: protracted–recollectionPage 274 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 274 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, recommendations 101:record 5:2 6:4 7:16,20,25 8:14 13:23,
24 14:2 23:22 26:21 44:25 45:1,50:10,11,14 54:23 58:7 62:23 63:64:5,8,16 76:10 92:7,8,10,14 96:97:8,10,13 99:16 101:7,10 103:2,7,
21,22,25 114:2,3,6 141:17,20,159:12,14,17 162:1,2,5 163:21,164:2 166:25 167:1,4,25 171:172:7,8,11,16,17,20 173:4 179:19,192:14,17 197:25 198:4 199:9,10,13,
24 207:1,3,6 212:23,24 213:2 219:18,
19,22 223:5,6,9 230:18,19,22 236:9,
10,13 237:25 238:1,4 243:21 245:
records 92:19 190:redacted 161:17 162:10,12 172:198:24 243:4 244:3,
redactions 236:19 240:4 242:
regulatory 16:19 38:3,13,20 39:41:15,19,22 42:8,9 43:22 44:6 72:73:11,21 89:12 95:9,12,14 109:122:18,19 144:20 145:4 160:188:13 202:21 203:8 204:13 223:224:
reiterate 74:15 102:10,21 104:
reporter 5:10 6:17 11:1 13:8 15:47:25 49:7 54:22 56:15 59:19 65:67:10 92:13 161:5 171:15 180:199:25 233:23 236:16 241:23 243:
reporter's 180:represent 5:10,13 61:10,representation 52:8 71:9 98:
107:
rejected 60:19 65:25 71:relate 40:13 173:related 7:10 17:2 20:17 39:7 54:3,56:8 101:20 161:13 163:13 165:172:3 173:12 190:1 198:
representative 9:9 10:11,18 11:15:23 16:2 19:19 51:8 58:12,16,70:2 71:1 76:9 92:2 98:25 104:126:18 154:2 179:20 243:4 244:
representing 19:8 213:represents 61:
relates 69:relating 6:5 31:1 38:7 40:10,101:24 114:
reproduce 162:reproduced 236:18 242:
relation 202:
reproducing 199:
relationship 166:12 170:14 174:
request 7:19 50:18 174:
relationships 169:
requested 19:1 54:23 92:
reference 16:15 52:
relevant 9:25 10:3 40:3 43:17 90:
require 176:1 178:5 206:7 216:
referenced 149:11 227:
rely 119:4 142:12 143:2,10 158:
required 11:13,17 42:10,
243:18,24 244:7,
refer 9:19 39:23 41:2 46:7 171:6,200:
referred 212:referring 63:20 69:6 89:4 145:167:22 210:
reflect 71:reflects 71:refresh 54:2 119:refusal 76:10 103:9 138:refusals 103:refuse 70:12 76:16 112:2,8 138:16,
20 142:
refused 101:refuses 98:24 138:refusing 76:17 79:5 81:13 82:85:4 138:4 139:2 207:
159:4 197:7 198:7 224:24 232:
remainder 70:remedies 138:25 144:19 160:163:6,8 183:24 189:2 210:18,211:1,8,13,23 212:7,17 213:10 214:215:20 216:2,18 217:15,23 218:1,14,
20 219:8 220:1,10,16,25 221:11,16,
21 222:6,11,18,25 223:3,12 224:12,
16,25 235:
remedy 121:12,15 123:4,20,124:4,19 125:1,4 129:16 213:216:
remember 48:13 194:5 221:19 239:remind 64:14 111:reminder 64:remote 36:
regions 95:
remotely 5:9 11:
register 240:
repeat 9:15 99:4 103:2,5 108:
regularly 239:regulation 44:23 96:4 233:7 244:regulations 42:14,21 95:17 134:15,
21 135:1 231:
regulator 213:regulators 212:5 216:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
116:11 117:25 169:13 186:15 196:218:
rephrase 34:6 98:9 139:16 163:165:7 210:
requirement 10:21 138:reservation 108:reservations 169:4,11,15,resolve 7:respect 41:19,22 43:22 44:6 51:52:3 54:2 61:11 62:17 63:7 78:13,20,
24 79:2,9 81:6 82:19,21,24 83:84:18,23 85:13,19,25 86:12,15,17,87:7,9,13,18 88:1,3,10 90:13 91:2,92:4,20 93:1,14 94:8,16,18 101:102:5 105:17 106:19,21 107:4,108:24,25 120:14,16,20 122:17,124:4 125:13,17,25 126:3,9,12 127:7,
10,17 130:8 131:15 132:3 146:8,147:12 148:2,12,16,19 149:1 173:180:20 183:3,7 184:3,21 185:2,6,11,
16 186:8,18,21 187:12 188:4,191:14 199:20 204:23 205:12,21,206:12,15,23 207:9,23 208:2 209:2,
10,15,21 210:5 214:6 219:25 220:10,
16,25 221:11 227:8 228:10,19 229:234:16 242:15 244:9,
respective 90:respond 50:22 72:18 79:14 101:3,
report 36:14,16,20,22,24 37:12,75:25 85:10 90:7 116:16,24 117:149:
responded 180:responding 50:19 79:12 233:
Lexitas 888-267-1200· ·Index: recommendations–respondingPage 275 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 275 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, responds 50:23 60:response 9:12 11:18 14:11,15 15:42:19,20 49:23 52:12,17 60:16 61:66:14,16 78:3 87:22 95:10 96:97:4,16 101:13 106:18 107:3 108:109:16 110:4,6,8 112:9 133:1,7,134:16 154:11,19 187:24 191:192:22 193:1 201:4,6 230:3,7,10,231:1,
reviewed 17:18 20:6,13,15,18 23:10,
13,18,24 24:14 26:14,16 27:22 28:51:10,17,25 53:10,11,19,22 55:59:5,6,7,8 153:24 199:3 242:8,
reviewing 24:18,24 25:22 27:19 28:48:13 58:13,15,21,25 59:9 161:
ridiculous 138:right-hand 54:4 55:
responses 65:25 73:11,
righty 72:4 159:
responsibilities 21:8 22:1 33:
rise 133:
34:3,9,13 35:19 36:11 37:22,78:13,23 79:2,6 81:6 82:19,20 83:1,4,
15 84:3,15,25 85:8,18 86:20 87:12,88:9 122:16 125:17 126:2,11 127:146:2 148:1 183:10 184:3,20 185:6,
16 186:8,18 187:11 188:4 205:206:12,22 207:9,23 209:2,14 210:5,
12 228:
responsibility 75:23,24 76:2,4,125:13 127:6 146:23 147:11 148:188:
responsive 60:19 71:4 138:
Scott 124:13 128:2,role 33:9,10,12 41:18 42:18 43:5,44:6 75:10 80:24 90:12 124:145:24 147:23 148:6,7,9,19 151:168:
search 18:2 50:sec 60:second-to-last 27:10 232:
room 7:
secondary 178:seek 6:seeking 60:24 86:7 142:16 221:
round 31:21 57:22 129:
227:7,10 228:
seeks 43:25 137:14 140:
RTB 177:24 237:15 238:7,14,239:5,
selected 27:
rest 51:18 157:6 232:9 244:restate 51:24 73:6 153:6 168:4,
run 43:
restating 54:
semantics 75:send 177:
running 146:7 232:
sending 89:14,
runs 201:18 202:9,11 227:
senior 88:18,21 89:6 106:1 124:
restricted 23:result 180:24 190:14 215:20 216:6,
125:3 186:19 188:
separate 46:6 95:11 116:17 117:
Ryan 5:
18 233:
128:2 175:23 176:1 179:
results 178:
separately 53:16 178:1 237:
S
238:
resume 51:
September 59:24 65:19 66:14 68:6,
retained 91:retainer 117:3,5 120:
22 79:21 80:17 85:15 87:2 90:105:
sake 11:
returning 45:6 114:9 125:12 141:
September/october 82:
198:
series 106:6 109:
rev 180:
satisfaction 189:15 203:
reveal 165:
savings 158:8 194:25 222:
revenue 178:23 179:
schedule 15:11,15 16:9,23,25 17:
review 8:20,22 20:20 23:4,7,12,24:2,5,8,11 25:25 27:19 28:2 53:78:15,16 132:4 208:18 234:14,18,235:2,8,14,21 236:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
scrutiny 134:
roll 176:
rules 7:13 9:1,5,7 12:15,17 19:
222:
4 52:25 57:11 58:3 60:9,17 65:66:7,8 68:11 71:25 96:13 98:15,99:4,12 101:13 102:1,4,11,21 103:104:12 107:7 108:1,2,5,6 110:17,111:8 114:20 115:3 134:18 143:165:7,11,15 167:16 169:8 170:171:1 173:8,10,13,19 174:15 175:1,3,
14 176:7,14,23,25 177:11,13,21,178:15 179:8 217:3 226:3,9 234:8,239:7,13 244:
scoping 106:23 146:
responsible 21:10,11,12 33:35:20 41:21 42:12,15 44:22 48:81:7 82:3,6 100:5 148:23,24 170:184:7,23 187:13 208:
scope 15:18 35:18 37:21 50:17 51:1,
serious-enough 97:
49:25 50:7 101:19 189:
Schindler 26:17 27:2 122:12 126:127:3 204:
served 132:10 217:serves 94:services 168:16,serving 21:
Schindler's 126:
Lexitas
sessions 23:
888-267-1200· ·Index: responds–sessionsPage 276 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 276 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, set 6:9,14 7:21 61:5 69:7 74:16 81:
198:25 216:14 235:
95:13 167:16 176:17 220:12 226:234:8 244:
17:24 18:2 20:3,10 26:9 44:21 48:53:24 62:1,6 76:13 82:24 84:18,97:17,21 126:22 134:13 137:8 151:
sets 49:
specification 17:1 60:24 69:7 72:
settlement 204:12 213:20 216:10,
11,21,24 217:
setups 214:Seumas 5:19 13:6 15:2 47:21 53:56:10 59:15 63:16,23 64:24 67:161:3 171:13 180:11 198:16 233:241:17 243:
sitting 51:8 52:8 60:16 61:12 92:106:17 107:3 108:22 131:6,13 154:168:
situation 109:
42:6 174:7 179:25 180:
skipping 29:
small 131:4,19,21 190:5,9 228:3,
sheds 241:
small- 208:
shelf 130:
smaller 131:3 240:
shopping 22:
sole 46:
shortly 16:4 90:1 111:5 199:
solicit 177:6,7 240:
shot 238:show 49:1 178:4,6,13,14,19,21,22,
side 56:sidebar 192:10 230:signals 173:17,23,25 174:3,176:5,
significant 142:similar 170:simple 101:18 110:19 202:25 203:204:3,
simpler 62:simply 25:15 86:11 110:3,13 139:157:23 168:25 203:
118:3,19 144:4,10,14,25 145:7,21,146:3,9,11,14,24 147:13 148:2,13,17,
20 149:1,4,7,9,13,16,24 150:2,10,12,
25 151:6,9,15,21 152:4,19,20,153:3,9,23 154:5,18 155:4,8,9,12,156:12 157:10,16,19,21,24 158:9,14,
16,23 159:5 160:2 190:5,10 197:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
speed 81:
Spencer 124:13 128:2,189:
spent 41:15 92:20,25 93:4,9,131:8,14 132:2 152:18 189:23 230:
solution 213:17,23 215:solutions 110:
spills 120:
solve 241:
spoke 7:8 20:8 21:1,3 213:14,16,18,
somebody's 172:
spoken 54:25 88:19 213:spring 210:
song 137:sort 31:21 46:5 90:21 117:4 175:
squarely 98:23 99:3 102:
186:25 241:
sorts 204:
stages 219:
Sounds 157:25 172:6 199:
stand 165:
source 233:
standard 208:
sourced 171:7,
start 33:10 35:1 49:18 95:15 98:
sources 119:3 142:12 143:2,
started 6:2 104:18 109:6 153:
158:21 159:4 164:23 197:6 198:224:24 232:
sourcing 170:speak 11:3,5 19:4 22:25 76:6 95:
Singleclick 109:3 110:9 117:16,
61:5 62:17 63:7 72:11 101:19 121:144:4 159:22 200:7 226:
spend 24:18 28:8 93:20 132:
solved 14:sic 236:
specifications 14:23,25 17:1 60:
spell 21:4 123:9,
slides 80:
shared 126:
220:
101:20,21 102:8 107:11 121:2 144:159:23 163:17 164:7 189:7 200:226:
speculative 86:
size 240:share 8:21 23:16 24:25 25:17 39:
specifically 7:24 11:15,25 16:2,
97:5 103:19 127:2 167:21 176:213:25 215:7 216:9,21 223:22 228:233:8,
156:3 162:8 202:
starting 74:13 89:14,21 104:241:
starts 201:17 202:10 240:state 5:13 70:16 71:16 94:22 95:stated 24:14 77:9 111:5 199:
speaking 153:14,15 156:
statement 171:
spec 101:
statements 228:23,
specific 9:5 23:13 27:22 28:5 43:
status 10:
68:9,15,16 93:20 109:8 120:6 150:177:3 191:12 194:6 205:15 224:
Lexitas
statutes 19:
888-267-1200· ·Index: set–statutesPage 277 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 277 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, staying 245:
sufficient 154:
steering 44:
suggest 61:
step 178:2 213:22 215:
suggested 58:1 168:
168:2 192:4,5 204:12 218:2 240:19,
Tapjoy 170:
suggesting 219:teacup 64:
steward 122:18 188:
suit 38:8 106:
Stonehenge 117:16,18 118:3,
summarize 120:
149:14,17,23 150:14 152:20 159:22,
24 160:7,16,20 161:13 165:12 172:180:1,20 181:15,17,21,25 182:17,21,
24 183:3,7,14 184:3,11,17,21 185:2,
6,11,16,21 186:8,18,22 187:1,12,188:5,9,17,20,23,24 189:6,10,13,17,
23 190:1,14,23 191:6,18,22 192:193:1,7,18,24 194:4,13,16,19 195:1,
12,21 196:3,5,12,14,19,20 197:198:8 199:1 235:7 237:4,17 238:10,
12 239:18 242:
stop 69:10 110:11 138:7 177:straightforward 69:15 105:strange 13:
Sunday 72:11,13,17,18,20,24 73:8,
13,22 74:5,20,25 75:4,8,23 76:5,11,
18,24 77:4,8,18,22,24 78:7,9,13,17,
20,24 79:3,6,10 80:16 81:6,10,82:11,19,24 83:5,15,18,24 84:4,7,16,
19,24 85:7,13,19,25 86:12,15,18,87:7,10,13,18,22 88:1,4,7,10,14,89:9,13,15,20 90:7,14,19 91:3,7,11,
17 92:4,20 93:1,4,9,15 94:9,19 95:9,
25 96:17,24 97:3,16 98:7,13,99:10,22 101:17,25 102:10 112:13,113:1,8,9,15,20 114:12 116:1,8,10,
12,14 117:13,15,21 118:4,8,17 119:1,
5 120:3,7,8 126:23 131:5 132:13,234:
team 33:6 36:6 43:8 48:19 90:120:9 127:22 128:8,11,15,23 129:1,135:19,22 148:11,12 151:9,16 153:155:18 160:2 182:2,6,17,20,183:22 184:15,17,18 185:4,9,186:20 187:17,19 203:7 204:205:8,12,16 208:7,12,14 209:19,228:2,6,22,25 244:
teams 241:tech 222:12 233:technical 7:14 14:5 214:technically 33:Ted 88:15 123:7 124:13 128:135:25 146:12,18 157:6 205:
strategy 171:
superiors 203:
telephone 32:10,
streams 175:
superseded 63:
ten 24:12,13 131:9 197:20 215:9,10,
strike 92:23 148:8 180:
supersedes 61:14 62:
strongly 48:
supply 203:
Struan 136:1,6,7 227:19 232:
supportive 204:
structures 203:
surety 93:
stuff 56:
surprised 51:
subfeatures 214:8,19,21,
suspect 124:21 190:4 200:11 216:
terrible 221:
subsequently 120:subset 27:21 75:17,18 228:3,subsidiary 10:substance 12:6 158:1 165:194:
substantive 136:successor 81:1 143:18 225:7,13,18,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
testified 7:2 55:12 58:25 102:133:20 154:
swear 6:
testify 6:13 8:9 16:25 17:6 56:
sworn 7:2 10:19 74:system 168:
60:10 61:13 63:8 66:9 68:13,24 102:107:12 110:15 111:25 171:
testifying 10:20 48:7 51:8 56:T
submits 66:
subsequent 30:23 31:
terminate 52:25 61:terms 169:25 170:3 178:4,10 202:
submit 220:
subproducts 173:
tend 165:term 163:9 178:
subject 14:20 18:10,25 36:2 37:43:17 51:5 90:11 107:17 121:137:18,24 144:13 160:6 165:171:23 187:25 195:4,8 200:15,227:1 228:15 229:1 244:11,
13 239:
tab 13:7 15:3 47:22 56:11 59:63:24 64:25 67:7 119:20 161:171:14 180:12 198:17 233:20 241:243:
tailor 178:taking 5:7 8:13 49:7 106:7 159:talk 52:20 57:14 65:23 95:14 108:226:10 240:
talked 240:
60:1 65:10 70:1 163:17 168:11 169:7,
14 170:9,24 173:20 176:
testimony 9:12,17,22,23 10:13,12:25 17:17 20:18 26:14,16 45:11,46:14 48:11 51:11 54:19 57:24 58:60:20,21,24 66:18 70:8 71:2,9,74:10 86:9 98:22 102:13,19 106:16,
19 107:4 108:23 117:23 118:10 142:167:11 174:14 175:2,15 177:12,21,200:24 234:
Texas 38:8 40:6,15,18,24 41:1,94:11 95:5 217:
Texas' 94:
talking 43:16 96:4,5 99:23 156:
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: staying–Texas'Page 278 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 278 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, text 8:15 233:
total 24:10 28:7 150:24 189:16 229:
unable 102:8 197:
thing 68:20 150:19 156:10 172:
totally 64:20 197:
unaware 117:
things 7:23 20:6 35:16 36:8 42:
tough 190:
unclear 11:
track 93:6 152:
undeferred 6:
train 35:
understand 8:18 9:11,16 10:16,
43:1 55:5 161:11 168:19 169:177:5 178:7 204:14 214:
thinking 130:third-party 174:6,20 214:thought 108:thread 171:25 172:tied 178:tight 202:
11:10,11,19 12:3 13:2 16:8,17 17:20:7,9,11 28:3 34:11 38:23 51:4 53:55:4 60:13 61:6 62:9 64:17 73:76:14,17 83:7 90:9 99:1 102:108:17,18 109:21 113:6 137:165:10 181:7 191:10 192:7,9 208:219:
training 36:trainings 35:15,transacting 169:transcript 6:3 180:transitioned 91:
understanding 9:22 12:21 14:
transitions 28:time 5:3 8:22 9:19 12:10 20:15 21:22:8 25:22 28:18,21 41:14 61:67:16 77:4 78:6 79:22 81:22 82:83:5,21 84:3,16 85:7 90:17 91:93:6,19 98:1 108:16 113:23,24 124:130:16 132:8 134:8 137:10 149:151:19 153:13 156:2 162:14 176:178:21 181:5 196:10 210:9 211:212:7,12 216:16 229:17,22 238:245:
timeline 213:11 215:timelines 20:15 131:times 11:21 18:24 20:8 21:13 22:28:12,13 31:3 112:6 137:6 178:21,
title 21:7,25 32:18 36:17 180:titles 37:3,today 5:10,24 6:2 7:15 8:10 9:12,17,
24 10:19 12:9,22,25 13:2 31:19 39:7,
24,25 48:7,11 49:9 51:14 52:8 56:57:23,24 58:8 60:1,17,22 61:9,63:8 65:10 70:1 71:2,6 92:1 106:107:3 108:7,9,23 110:15 111:14,113:12 131:6,13 138:22 142:9 154:162:10 163:18 164:8 173:1 226:
17:9,11,14 18:7 94:4 106:25 116:15,
22 217:
translated 131:tremendous 244:
undertake 100:
trends 117:
undertaken 102:16 109:5 110:118:7 121:12,15 133:1,7,15 144:230:3,7,10,13 231:1,
trial 5:17,19 7:trialing 176:
undertook 193:
truth 10:20,
underway 179:
truthfully 11:
unquote 122:
turn 31:21 94:14 97:23 119:
unusual 35:
120:25 144:5 156:11 190:19 226:17,
upload 13:7 15:3 59:16 63:16,
turned 194:turning 121:21 153:1,7 160:3 181:type 174:19 210:18 212:12 217:
V
224:
types 77:10 79:1 168:19 177:178:7,25 179:1,11 219:1 240:
valid 138:17 226:
typically 43:6 219:
validating 214:variable 214:
U
varied 36:variety 91:
told 25:1 45:9,14 46:12 68:20 109:14,
:18 230:
19 122:
U.S. 5:16 94:10 217:
verbal 136:24 146:15,version 172:25 201:24 204:21,212:17 222:18 223:1,3,13 235:
versus 19:13 91:
topic 60:25 61:1 69:4 106:16 107:12,
21,22 111:
video 5:3,8 7:15 33:7 36:
topical 36:
Uh-huh 10:6 27:18 59:
topics 6:5,9 15:15 17:2 20:7 68:11,
ultimately 166:un-compound 96:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
vague 175:18 212:
typical 40:
181:6 245:
24 108:11 138:9 167:18 226:6 234:
64:24 67:6 161:4 171:13 233:
uploaded 243:
201:17 217:
today's 5:2 8:16,20 9:7 58:11,15,
top 120:21 153:16 172:
updated 62:1 172:
Lexitas
videoconference 80:
view 23:23 32:9 39:8 73:16,19 89:
888-267-1200· ·Index: text–viewPage 279 Civil1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Investigation Demand - No. Case
Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 279 of 279 PageID#
30(b)(6),
Highly Confidential
February 28, 106:5,24 166:19 167:8 168:7 169:3,
14 170:5,10,20,25 179:19 189:
viewed 24:3 51:22 104:violate 76:7 139:12 147:2 238:violates 109:violating 67:4 76:15 102:virtual 7:10,
Voodoo 170:VP 240:W
wait 11:4,23 84:20 119:waive 145:2 181:waived 180:9,25 240:3 243:waiver 6:15 181:3 244:7,walk 61:23 63:walked 193:Walker 89:13,17 204:4,9,
wanted 64:20 94:14 168:22 221:ways 105:24 168:24 195:web 5:week 29:4,12,20 30:7,
wider 176:
38:3,13,19 39:10,17 40:7 42:2,44:1 46:1,3,10,16,21 49:22 50:52:10,15 54:9 61:3 66:25 67:20 69:73:1,24 74:9,17 75:23 76:5,6,11,18,
20,23 77:1,3,5,7,12,18,21,24 78:1,6,
9,11 79:9,13,15 80:15,21 81:16,82:10 83:17,23,25 84:6,11 85:86:14,17,24 87:6,9,20,23,24,25 88:90:10,17,22 91:2,7,9 92:22,24 93:94:4,8 96:12 98:21 100:11 102:104:9 105:21 107:9 111:11,18,19,22,
25 112:17 113:5 114:23 115:117:17,18 118:21,22,25 119:6 120:3,
6,7 122:8,9,20,24 125:15,24 127:128:1 130:1,13 135:5 136:22 137:15,
20 138:1 139:22 140:7,21 141:142:17 143:21 144:17 145:3 146:147:5,17 149:19 150:5,18,21,152:13 158:1 160:9,24 162:22 164:165:22,24 167:11,14,20 180:4,183:13,17 184:10 185:1,10,20 186:2,
21 187:3,14,21 188:8 194:19 195:196:8,22,24 197:12 198:10 201:203:22 205:23 206:1,14 207:208:1,5 221:24 224:19 225:11 226:8,
10 228:19 229:2 233:14 234:21 237:238:16,22 239:21 242:14 244:2,
X
Y
year 105:12 138:years 239:you-all 52:Youtube 36:Z
worked 74:25 75:3,7,12,13,18 76:77:4 78:6 83:6 121:23 122:1,145:17,21 165:4,19 166:2 179:193:13 201:19,24 202:1,3,16 216:227:25 228:2,7 243:
working 39:4 40:13,25 41:6 43:75:15 127:22 128:8,11,15,22 129:1,148:11,12 151:16 155:18 160:182:2,6,17 184:15 185:4,9,13 187:17,
19 193:19,21 200:11 203:7 204:205:8 241:
works 185:worried 97:wrapped 41:
window 13:wins 178:withheld 49:21 52:9 142:
write 71:24 123:
withholding 139:
writing 135:20,
witness' 71:10 234:10 243:
written 70:13 88:6 124:wrong 63:14 165:13 241:wrote 49:16 52:16 66:13 135:17,
work 6:11,15 8:15 32:4,13,16 33:5,6,
23 34:2,5,12 35:3,17 36:10 37:
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200· ·Index: viewed–
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 279 PageID# 3066
EXHIBIT B
Google 30(b)(6) Deposition
Submitted Under Seal
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 279 PageID# 3067
In the Matter Of:
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
February 28, 2022
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 279 PageID# 3068
1
·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
· · · · · · ·ANTITRUST DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
·2
·3· · ·PURSUANT TO CIVIL INVESTIGATION DEMAND NO. 30762
·4
·5· · · · · · · · · ·"HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL"
·6
·7· · · · · · · · · 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF
·8· · · · · · · · · · ·
·9· · · · · · · ·ON BEHALF OF ALPHABET, INC.
10· · · · · · · · · · ·FEBRUARY 28, 2022
11
12· · ·ORAL VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
13 produced as a witness at the instance of the United
14 States Department of Justice and duly sworn, was taken
15 in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 28th day
16 of February, 2022, from 8:36 a.m. to 5:59 p.m. PST,
17 before Melinda Barre, Certified Shorthand Reporter in
18 and for the State of Texas, reported by computerized
19 stenotype machine, all parties appearing remotely via
20 web videoconference, pursuant to the rules of procedure
21 and the provisions stated on the record or attached
22 hereto.
23
24
25
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 4 of 279 PageID# 3069
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
2
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES
· · · · · ·(ALL APPEARED VIA ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE.)
·2
·3 FOR GOOGLE:
·4·
· ·
·5·
· ·
·6·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Ms. Julie Elmer
Ms. Daphne Lin
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER
701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
·7· · · Telephone: 202.777.4500
· · · · E-mail: julie.elmer@freshfields.com
·8
·9 FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION:
10·
· ·
11·
· ·
12·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Mr. Brent Nakamura
Mr. Arshia Najafi
Attorney at Law
450 5th Northwest, Suite 8700
Washington, D.C. 20001
13· · · Telephone: 202.307.0924
· · · · E-mail: brent.nakamura@usdoj.gov
14
15 ALSO PRESENT:· Ryan LaFond, Videographer;
; Seumas Macneil;
· · · · · · · · ·
16· · · · · · · ·
; Daniel Bitton
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 7 of 279 PageID# 3072
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
5
·1· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Good morning.· We are
·2 now on the record.· Today's date is February 28th, 2022.
·3 The time is 8:36 a.m. Pacific Time.· This is the video
·4 deposition of the 30(b)(6) for Alphabet, Inc.,
·5
This is in the Google matter, Case
·6 No. 60-516110-0009.
·7· · · · · · · ·This deposition is taking place via web
·8 video conference with all participants attending
·9 remotely.· My name is Ryan LaFond.· I am videographer.
10 Our court reporter today is Melinda Barre.· We represent
11 Lexitas.
12· · · · · · · ·Would counsel please identify yourself,
13 state whom you represent beginning with the questioning
14 attorney.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Good morning.· This is
16 Brent Nakamura from the U.S. Department of Justice
17 Antitrust Division.· I'm a trial attorney with the
18 Division, and I'm joined by my colleagues, Arshia
19 Najafi, a trial attorney with the Division, and Seumas
20 Macneil, also who is a paralegal with the Division.
21 Additional personnel may join the deposition later.
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'm Julie Elmer with
23 Freshfields.· I'm here for Google and the witness.· With
24 me today is
and
, in-house
25 counsel at Google; Daniel Bitton from the Axinn law
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 5
YVer1f
PDF Page 9
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 8 of 279 PageID# 3073
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
6
·1 firm; and Daphne Lin, my colleague at Freshfields.
·2· · · · · · · ·Before we get started today, I'd like to
·3 designate the entire transcript highly confidential.
·4· · · · · · · ·I'd also like to note for the record the
·5 deferrals of CID topics relating to Projects Metta,
·6 Garamond and 1Door, in accordance with our
·7 correspondence and the DOJ's correspondence of
·8 November 8 and November 9, 2021.
·9· · · · · · · ·We also object to the topics set forth in
10 the CID as improper to the extent they seek to invade
11 the attorney/client privilege and the attorney work
12 product doctrine.· The company's designation of a
13 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding the undeferred
14 projects set forth in the CID does not constitute a
15 waiver of the attorney/client privilege or the work
16 product doctrine.
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Will the reporter
18 please swear in the witness.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 6
YVer1f
PDF Page 10
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 9 of 279 PageID# 3074
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
7
·1· · · · · · · · · · ·
·2 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
·3· · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
·4 QUESTIONS BY MR. NAKAMURA:
·5· · ·Q.· ·Good morning,
As I said earlier,
·6 my name is Brent Nakamura, and I'm a trial attorney with
·7 the Department of Justice Antitrust Division.· We last
·8 spoke on August 11th, so pleasure to see you again.
·9· · · · · · · ·Let me begin with a few housekeeping
10 matters related to virtual depositions.· I know we went
11 over these issues in your August 11th, 2021 deposition;
12 but I want to make sure that we are both clear on these
13 rules.
14· · · · · · · ·First, there could be technical issues
15 today with the video conference.· If there are, we will
16 take a break and resolve them off the record.
17· · · · · · · ·You are permitted to consult with your
18 lawyer if needed during the deposition.· If you need to
19 do so, please request a break and we will go off the
20 record.· You can then meet privately with your counsel
21 in a virtual breakout room that has been set up for you.
22· · · · · · · ·You are not permitted to communicate with
23 others or consult documents or notes other than things
24 we specifically discuss and agree to while we are on the
25 record.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 7
YVer1f
PDF Page 11
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 10 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3075
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
8
·1· · · · · · · ·While I'm at that, do you have any notes
·2 in front of you right now?
·3· · ·A.· ·I have a letter that was provided to you.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And what is the date on the letter?
·5· · ·A.· ·I believe it's Feb. 25.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· We will circle back to discussing
·7 that.
·8· · · · · · · ·Do you have anything else in front you in
·9 the form of notes or aids that would help you testify
10 today?
11· · ·A.· ·No, not immediately at hand.
12· · ·Q.· ·Great.
13· · · · · · · ·When we are taking a break and not on the
14 record, you may communicate with third parties.· For
15 example, you can check work e-mail and you can text
16 family members; but you should not discuss today's
17 deposition with third parties while it is ongoing.· Do
18 you understand that?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·We will review documents during today's
21 deposition.· I will share them with you electronically
22 and give you time to review them.· For longer documents
23 I will direct you to the parts about which I will ask
24 questions.
25· · · · · · · ·Do you agree to these initial ground
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 8
YVer1f
PDF Page 12
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 11 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3076
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
9
·1 rules?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Great.
·4· · · · · · · ·So now I'd like to go over some additional
·5 ground rules for this specific deposition.· While I took
·6 part of your deposition on August 11th in your personal
·7 capacity, several different rules apply to today's
·8 deposition because your company, Alphabet, has
·9 designated you as its corporate representative for the
10 purposes of this deposition.
11· · · · · · · ·First, do you understand that you are
12 providing testimony today in response to the civil
13 investigative demand that I will later introduce as
14 Exhibit 1 on behalf of Alphabet, Incorporated?
15· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you repeat that?
16· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· Do you understand that you're providing
17 testimony today on behalf of Alphabet, Incorporated?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · ·Q.· ·From time to time I may refer to Alphabet as
20 either "Alphabet" or "Google."· By using either name, I
21 mean to ask you questions about the corporate position,
22 understanding, knowledge and/or testimony of Alphabet.
23· · · · · · · ·If there is any testimony you provide
24 today for which the distinction between Google and
25 Alphabet is relevant, you must explicitly inform me of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 9
YVer1f
PDF Page 13
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 12 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3077
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
10
·1 that fact.· Do you agree to that?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·If there is another relevant distinction based
·4 on the status of any subsidiary of Alphabet, you must
·5 explicitly inform me of that.· Do you agree to that?
·6· · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
·7· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Please answer "yes" or "no."
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
10· · · · · · · ·When I ask you a question, I'm asking you
11 as the representative of Alphabet, and I will assume
12 that the answers that you provide are on behalf of
13 Alphabet.· If you are providing testimony in your
14 personal capacity and not on behalf of Alphabet, you
15 must explicitly tell me that.
16· · · · · · · ·Do you understand that?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·Great.· You as the corporate representative of
19 Alphabet are under oath today and sworn to tell the
20 truth just like if you were testifying in court.· This
21 requirement to tell the truth extends to any and all
22 testimony you give, whether on behalf of yourself in
23 your personal capacity or on behalf of Alphabet.
24· · · · · · · ·Do you understand that?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 10
YVer1f
PDF Page 14
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 13 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3078
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
11
·1· · ·Q.· ·Great.· For the sake of the court reporter and
·2 especially because this deposition is being conducted
·3 remotely, we both need to speak loudly and clearly.
·4 Please wait until I finish a question before answering
·5 so we don't speak over each other.· I will try my best
·6 to do so as well.
·7· · · · · · · ·Please answer questions with a "yes" or
·8 "no" instead of a nod or a "yeah."
·9· · · · · · · ·If any of my questions are unclear or you
10 don't understand what I'm asking, please let me know;
11 otherwise, I will assume you understand the question as
12 I asked it.
13· · · · · · · ·You are required to answer each of my
14 questions truthfully and to the full extent of
15 Alphabet's knowledge.· Specifically, even if you do not
16 know the complete answer to my question, as Alphabet's
17 representative, you're required to provide me with any
18 knowledge Alphabet has in response to my question.
19· · · · · · · ·Do you understand that?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·Great.· At times your attorney may object to
22 one of my questions.· When there is an objection, you
23 should wait until your attorney and I are finished
24 discussing her objection.· You must then answer my
25 question unless your lawyer specifically instructs you
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 11
YVer1f
PDF Page 15
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 14 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3079
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
12
·1 not to do so and you make the affirmative choice not to
·2 answer my question.
·3· · · · · · · ·Do you understand that?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · ·Q.· ·Great.· When I ask a question, I am not asking
·6 you to disclose the substance of any privileged
·7 communications you may have had with your attorney.
·8· · · · · · · ·I will try to take breaks at reasonable
·9 intervals during our discussion today.· If you need to
10 take a break at any time, please let me know.· However,
11 I ask that you not take a break while there is a
12 question pending; that is, when I have asked a question
13 but you have not yet answered the question.
14· · · · · · · ·Do you have any questions about these
15 ground rules?
16· · ·A.· ·No.
17· · ·Q.· ·Will you abide by each of the rules I have laid
18 out?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·Is there anything such as medication you have
21 taken that would prevent you from understanding my
22 questions today?
23· · ·A.· ·No.
24· · ·Q.· ·Is there anything else that would prevent you
25 from giving full, complete, honest testimony today?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 12
YVer1f
PDF Page 16
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 15 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3080
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
13
·1· · ·A.· ·No.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Do you understand that you're here today
·3 pursuant to a civil investigative demand issued to
·4 Alphabet in connection with a DOJ investigation?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
·7 upload tab 1 into the Chat.· Thank you.
·8· · · · · · · ·I'd like the court reporter to please mark
·9 this as Alphabet Exhibit 1.
10· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1 marked)
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
12 know when you have this in front of you.
13· · · · · · · ·Do you have the exhibit in front of you?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·It's in the Chat.· If you want to open the Chat
16 window, it should have been dropped in the Chat.
17· · ·A.· ·My Chat is empty.
18· · ·Q.· ·That's strange.
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Julie, do you have the
20 exhibit?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I do.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Let's go off the
23 record for a second.
24· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
25 8:46 a.m.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 13
YVer1f
PDF Page 17
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 16 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3081
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
14
·1· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·2· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·3 8:53 a.m.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· We have solved
·5 that technical problem.· So let's move forward.
·6· · · · · · · ·
do you have what has been
·7 marked as Alphabet Exhibit 1 in front of you?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Great.· This is Civil Investigative Demand
10 No. 30769 issued on August 23rd, 2021.· Is this the
11 civil investigative demand that you are here in response
12 to?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes, I believe so.
14· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Do you have any reason to believe that
15 you are not here in response to this civil investigative
16 demand?
17· · ·A.· ·No.· But my hesitation is merely that there's a
18 lot of detail provided here.· So I would defer to my
19 lawyers to make sure this is the correct one.· But yes,
20 my understanding is that this is the subject matter for
21 why I'm here.
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object to the extent that
23 there are no specifications that are attached to this
24 copy.· This is just the cover portion of the CID.· So I
25 think what's confusing is that the specifications are
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 14
YVer1f
PDF Page 18
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 17 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3082
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
15
·1 not included here.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· Seumas, could you
·3 upload tab 2.
·4· · · · · · · ·And could the court reporter please mark
·5 this as Alphabet Exhibit 2.
·6· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 2 marked)
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
·8 know when you have that in front of you.
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes, I have that in front of me.
10· · ·Q.· ·All right.· As Ms. Elmer was saying, this is
11 the schedule that was attached to the civil
12 investigative demand.· Have you seen this document
13 before?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·And is this the schedule of questions or topics
16 that you are here in response to?
17· · ·A.· ·With -- yes with the exception that several of
18 the projects here, I believe, are out of scope for this
19 discussion.
20· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· We will get to that, and I appreciate you
21 noting that.
22· · · · · · · ·When did Alphabet notify you that it was
23 considering designating you as the representative for
24 this deposition?
25· · ·A.· ·Approximately a month ago.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 15
YVer1f
PDF Page 19
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 18 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3083
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
16
·1· · ·Q.· ·And when did Alphabet decide that you
·2 specifically would be its representative for this
·3 deposition?
·4· · ·A.· ·Shortly after that discussion.
·5· · ·Q.· ·So about a month ago is at the end of
·6 January 2022.· Is that correct?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Great.· Do you understand the civil
·9 investigative demand and the schedule that was attached
10 to it as Alphabet Exhibits 1 and 2?
11· · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·Do you have any questions about anything
13 contained in Exhibits 1 or 2?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·I'm going to reference specifically Exhibit 1,
16 which is the civil investigative demand itself.· Do you
17 understand that the information you provide during this
18 deposition may be used by the Department of Justice in
19 other civil, criminal, administrative or regulatory
20 cases or proceedings?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·All right.· For Exhibit 2, this is the civil
23 investigative demand schedule that is part of what I
24 introduced to you as Exhibit 1.· So are you prepared to
25 testify about the matters in this schedule other than
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 16
YVer1f
PDF Page 20
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 19 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3084
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
17
·1 specifications 1e, 1h and 1i as well as specification 2
·2 as related to those three deferred topics?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Are there any matters or parts of matters
·5 listed in this schedule other than those that have been
·6 deferred about which you are not prepared to testify to?
·7· · ·A.· ·No.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Aside from what you have learned from your
·9 counsel, what is your understanding of what the justice
10 department is investigating?
11· · ·A.· ·My understanding is that the justice department
12 is investigating general antitrust in the advertising
13 ecosystem.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what is that understanding based on?
15· · ·A.· ·That's based on a number of articles I've seen
16 provided as well as the letters and the discussions that
17 have been provided as well as the testimony that I have
18 reviewed, you know, and the questions that have been
19 asked.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what articles that you have seen have
21 helped you understand what this investigation is?
22· · ·A.· ·I believe they were articles published about -23 and I could be mistaken here and I can look
24 specifically -- but about the DOJ inquiring into Google.
25· · ·Q.· ·Do you recall what publications those were
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 17
YVer1f
PDF Page 21
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 20 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3085
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
18
·1 published in?
·2· · ·A.· ·Specifically no, but I can search for them if
·3 you'd like.
·4· · ·Q.· ·No.· That's okay.
·5· · · · · · · ·How long ago did you read those articles?
·6· · ·A.· ·This would have been a while ago because my
·7 understanding is that this investigation has been going
·8 on for quite a while and -- in addition to, you know,
·9 the preparation for my last deposition as well, you
10 know, that the subject matter's fairly clear.
11· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And have you discussed this
12 investigation with others at Google other than your
13 attorneys?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·Have you discussed this investigation with
16 anyone outside of Google other than your attorneys?
17· · ·A.· ·No.
18· · ·Q.· ·Besides your attorneys, did you meet with
19 anyone to prepare for this deposition?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·Who was it?
22· · ·A.· ·I had conducted two interviews with my
23 attorneys -- so I don't know if that changes the answer
24 or not -- but to inquire about times and dates and in
25 particular involvement of individuals in the subject
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 18
YVer1f
PDF Page 22
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 21 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3086
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
19
·1 matter requested in the CID.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I will get to your preparation in just a
·3 little bit, but I thank you for that.
·4· · · · · · · ·So let me speak to you now about any
·5 previous deposition experience that you've had.· Have
·6 you personally ever been a plaintiff or defendant in a
·7 lawsuit?
·8· · ·A.· ·Does it count if I'm representing a
·9 corporation?
10· · ·Q.· ·I'll ask you about that in a second, but have
11 you ever been named as a plaintiff or defendant in a
12 lawsuit, meaning your name would have been on the
13 caption,
versus someone, for example?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· Since August 11th, 2021, which is
16 your last deposition, have you been deposed?
17· · ·A.· ·No.
18· · ·Q.· ·Have you ever been deposed as a designated
19 representative of any company, whether pursuant to the
20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other rules or
21 statutes?
22· · ·A.· ·So I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what
23 qualifies there.· But I believe you asked the questions
24 prior, and I've had one deposition that I've been
25 involved with previously and that was on behalf of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 19
YVer1f
PDF Page 23
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 22 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3087
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
20
·1 Google in an IP matter.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Got it.· Thank you.
·3· · · · · · · ·So specifically about your preparation for
·4 this deposition, what did you do to prepare for this
·5 deposition?
·6· · ·A.· ·Did a number of things.· So first off reviewed
·7 the CID to understand which topics were to be discussed.
·8 I spoke with a few individuals about people and times,
·9 looked at a number of documents to understand -- or
10 looked at specifically the metadata about the documents
11 to understand when they were created, who else was
12 involved.
13· · · · · · · ·I reviewed my calendar to see when these
14 projects took place, again, who was involved.· I also
15 reviewed timelines and time frames of letters and public
16 articles about numerous investigations that I believe
17 are related to this.
18· · · · · · · ·I also reviewed the testimony of a number
19 of my colleagues that were provided to you earlier to
20 review both what they had said and to make sure that any
21 discrepancies would be accounted for.
22· · · · · · · ·I think that's -- that's most of -- most,
23 if not all, of the preparation.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· That's a very good introduction.
25· · · · · · · ·So which individuals -- what are the names
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 20
YVer1f
PDF Page 24
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 23 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3088
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
21
·1 of the individuals with whom you spoke in preparation
·2 for this deposition?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I spoke with
and
·4· · ·Q.· ·And could you spell their names, please?
·5· · ·A.· ·Sure.·
·6
, last name
.· And
.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· And what is
job title
·8 and responsibilities at Alphabet?
·9· · ·A.· ·He is a principal engineer, and he is
10 responsible for -- actually, I don't know what he's
11 responsible for now; but during these projects he was
12 responsible for ad serving on the AdManager product.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how many times did you meet with
14
15· · ·A.· ·In preparation?
16· · ·Q.· ·Yes.
17· · ·A.· ·One, one time.
18· · ·Q.· ·And how long was that meeting?
19· · ·A.· ·Approximately half hour.
20· · ·Q.· ·And who else was present at that meeting?
21· · ·A.· ·The attorneys present here, as well as another
22 attorney.
23· · ·Q.· ·What is the name of that other attorney?
24· · ·A.· ·
25· · ·Q.· ·And for
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
He's an in-house counsel.
what is her job title, what
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 21
YVer1f
PDF Page 25
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 24 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3089
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
22
·1 are her job responsibilities currently at Alphabet?
·2· · ·A.· ·She is a director of corporate development, and
·3 she covers the ads area as well as some other areas.
·4· · ·Q.· ·What are those other areas, to the best of your
·5 knowledge?
·6· · ·A.· ·I don't know.· Possibly payments and shopping.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And how many times did you meet with
·8· · ·A.· ·For preparation I met with her one time.
·9· · ·Q.· ·On what date did you meet with her?
10· · ·A.· ·Friday, February 18th.
11· · ·Q.· ·And what date did you meet with
12· · ·A.· ·The same.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how long was your meeting with
14· · ·A.· ·30 minutes.
15· · ·Q.· ·And who else was present at that meeting?
16· · ·A.· ·The same group I identified before, legal.
17· · ·Q.· ·To be clear, when you say the attorneys that
18 are here for this deposition, do you mean every one of
19 the attorneys that is here currently?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·And
in-house counsel for
22 Alphabet, was also present at your meeting with
23
correct?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Did you speak to any other individuals in
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 22
YVer1f
PDF Page 26
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 25 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3090
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
23
·1 preparation for this deposition?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·While you were meeting with
·4
and
did you review any documents that they
·5 provided to you?
·6· · ·A.· ·No.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Did you review any documents during your
·8 sessions with either
or
·9· · ·A.· ·No.
10· · ·Q.· ·So you also said that you reviewed documents in
11 preparation for this deposition.· About how many
12 documents did you review?
13· · ·A.· ·Just to be specific, I reviewed the document
14 information, but I didn't go through documents.· So I
15 would pull up a document to look at when it was created,
16 who's in the share part and who was the owner.· That's
17 the three pieces of information I was looking for.
18· · ·Q.· ·So when you say "I reviewed the document
19 information," you mean you restricted your review to the
20 metadata on that document.· Is that correct?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·And to further clarify for the record, that
23 also means that you did not view the content of any of
24 the documents you reviewed in preparation for this
25 deposition.· Is that correct?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 23
YVer1f
PDF Page 27
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 26 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3091
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
24
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.· Not for preparation, that's correct.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Did you for any other reason review the
·3 contents of the documents that you also viewed in
·4 preparation for this deposition?
·5· · ·A.· ·I did not review them now.· I think the
·6 distinction here is that I was integral in the
·7 preparation of materially all of the docs noted.· So
·8 there was no purpose for me to review the docs.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· I appreciate that.
10· · · · · · · ·So in total, how many documents' metadata
11 did you review in preparation for this deposition?
12· · ·A.· ·Approximately between five and ten, probably
13 closer to ten documents.
14· · ·Q.· ·And you also stated that you reviewed your own
15 calendar in preparation for this deposition.· Is that
16 correct?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·And how long did you spend reviewing your own
19 calendar for this deposition?
20· · ·A.· ·About an hour.
21· · ·Q.· ·And did you take any notes based on what you
22 saw in your calendar in preparation for this deposition?
23· · ·A.· ·No.· I was in discussion with counsel while
24 reviewing, and I noted the dates -25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Please don't share what you
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 24
YVer1f
PDF Page 28
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 27 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3092
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
25
·1 told counsel.
·2· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Oh, okay.
·3· · ·A.· ·So what was the question again?· Did I take
·4 notes?
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Yes.
·6· · ·A.· ·No.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·8· · · · · · · ·But you conveyed information to your
·9 counsel regarding what was on your calendar during those
10 discussions.· Is that correct?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection, calls for
12 attorney/client privilege.· I instruct the witness not
13 to answer.
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· What is the basis for your
15 instruction?· I'm simply asking whether he conveyed
16 information, not what information was conveyed.
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· You may share whether you
18 conveyed information or not,
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
20· · ·A.· ·Information was conveyed.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And that was over the phone
22 at the same time you were reviewing your calendar.· Is
23 that correct?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· Did you review anyone else's
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 25
YVer1f
PDF Page 29
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 28 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3093
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
26
·1 calendars in preparation for this deposition?
·2· · ·A.· ·I personally did not.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone convey information to you about
·4 other Alphabet employees' calendars in preparation for
·5 this deposition?
·6· · ·A.· ·It's possible that as I was asking questions,
·7 that some of that was through my colleagues looking at
·8 their cameras -- or, sorry, calendars.· But I don't know
·9 specifically if that's what they were doing.
10· · ·Q.· ·And when you say your colleagues, you mean only
11
and
Is that correct?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· You also said that in preparation
14 for this deposition you reviewed testimony from Alphabet
15 employees.· What were the names of the individuals for
16 whom you reviewed testimony?
17· · ·A.· ·
, Philipp Schindler,
And I think -- and
19
20· · ·Q.· ·Let me just go through and clarify this for the
21 record.
22· · · · · · · ·So the first person was
, correct?
24· · ·A.· ·
, yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 26
YVer1f
PDF Page 30
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 29 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3094
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
27
·1· · · · · · · ·And the second person was Philipp
·2 Schindler.· Is that correct?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·4· · ·Q.· ·The third person is
Is that
·5 correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·7· · ·Q.· ·The fourth person is
.
·8 Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yep.
10· · ·Q.· ·The second-to-last person is
11 Is that correct?
12· · ·A.· ·Yep.
13· · ·Q.· ·And the last person is
14
.· Is that
15 correct?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.· As well as my own.
17· · ·Q.· ·As well as your own deposition.· Thank you.
18· · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
19· · ·Q.· ·In reviewing these depositions, did you review
20 the entire deposition, portions that counsel selected
21 for you, or some other subset of the deposition?
22· · ·A.· ·I reviewed portions specific to the CID.
23· · ·Q.· ·And who identified those portions for you?
24· · ·A.· ·Counsel helped me identify those areas.
25· · ·Q.· ·And so other than the portions that you
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 27
YVer1f
PDF Page 31
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 30 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3095
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
28
·1 reviewed based on the instruction of counsel, did you
·2 review any other portions of the deposition?
·3· · ·A.· ·Incidentally possibly to understand the
·4 transitions, and that's it.· Primarily just those
·5 specific areas.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
·7· · · · · · · ·And approximately how long in total did
·8 you spend reviewing these depositions?
·9· · ·A.· ·I would say between -- probably about three
10 hours.
11· · ·Q.· ·And in preparation for this deposition, how
12 many times did you meet with your attorneys?
13· · ·A.· ·About five times.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what are the -15· · ·A.· ·Maybe more.
16· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.
17· · ·A.· ·Maybe more, yeah.
18· · ·Q.· ·And when was the first time in preparation for
19 this deposition that you met with your attorneys?
20· · ·A.· ·It would have been very early February or
21 possibly end of January, that time frame.
22· · ·Q.· ·And which attorneys did you meet with at that
23 first meeting?
24· · ·A.· ·It would have been the counsel on this call,
25 all, as well as
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 28
YVer1f
PDF Page 32
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 31 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3096
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
29
·1· · ·Q.· ·And when was the second meeting, to the best of
·2 your knowledge, with your attorneys in preparation for
·3 this deposition?
·4· · ·A.· ·That would have been, you know, about the week
·5 of Feb. 7.
·6· · ·Q.· ·I apologize for skipping around.· How long was
·7 your first meeting with your attorneys in preparation
·8 for this deposition?
·9· · ·A.· ·The first meeting, I believe it was 30 minutes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
11· · · · · · · ·And for the second meeting approximately
12 the week of February 7th, which attorneys were present
13 at that meeting?
14· · ·A.· ·It's the same group.
15· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And approximately how long was that
16 meeting?
17· · ·A.· ·About three hours, two to three hours.
18· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And for the third meeting, when did that
19 occur in preparation for this deposition?
20· · ·A.· ·I believe that same week, the 7th.
21· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And was it the same group of
22 attorneys -23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·-- in that meeting?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 29
YVer1f
PDF Page 33
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 32 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3097
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
30
·1· · ·Q.· ·And about approximately how long was that
·2 meeting?
·3· · ·A.· ·About three hours.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And when did the fourth meeting with your
·5 attorneys occur in preparation for this deposition?
·6· · ·A.· ·I believe it would have been the following
·7 week.
·8· · ·Q.· ·So the week of February 14th.· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·And who was at that meeting?
11· · ·A.· ·Again, the same group.
12· · ·Q.· ·And how long was that meeting?
13· · ·A.· ·About three hours.
14· · ·Q.· ·And for the fifth meeting in preparation for
15 this deposition with your attorneys, when did that take
16 place?
17· · ·A.· ·I believe that would have been on the 18th.
18· · ·Q.· ·And who was at that meeting?
19· · ·A.· ·The same group.
20· · ·Q.· ·And how long was that meeting?
21· · ·A.· ·Between 30 and 60 minutes.
22· · ·Q.· ·Have you had any meetings with your attorneys
23 subsequent to the 18th of February in preparation for
24 this deposition?
25· · ·A.· ·There were several meetings on the 18th
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 30
YVer1f
PDF Page 34
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 33 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3098
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
31
·1 relating to those other interviews as well that I had
·2 mentioned earlier that involved counsel.
·3· · ·Q.· ·So on the 18th you met three times, once with
·4 your attorneys?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Once with
and your attorneys?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And once with
and your attorneys.· Is
·9 that correct?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· And after the 18th did you have any
12 subsequent meetings with your attorneys in preparation
13 for this deposition?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.· We met this morning.
15· · ·Q.· ·And how long did you meet for?
16· · ·A.· ·45 minutes.
17· · ·Q.· ·And you had no meetings with your attorneys to
18 prepare for this deposition between the 18th of February
19 and today, this morning.· Is that correct?
20· · ·A.· ·Correct.
21· · ·Q.· ·So let me turn now to round out the sort of
22 preliminaries for this deposition.· Is your full legal
23 name
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Have you gone by or used any other names
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 31
YVer1f
PDF Page 35
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 34 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3099
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
32
·1 before?
·2· · ·A.· ·I go by
·3· · ·Q.· ·Are there other names or nicknames that people
·4 call you at work other than
·5· · ·A.· ·No.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Are you currently employed by Alphabet?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Where is your office located?
·9· · ·A.· ·It's in Mountain View.
10· · ·Q.· ·Do you have an office telephone number?
11· · ·A.· ·No.
12· · ·Q.· ·Do you have a cellular telephone that you use
13 for work?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·And what is the phone number associated with
16 that work cell phone?
17· · ·A.· ·
18· · ·Q.· ·What is your current job title at Alphabet?
19· · ·A.· ·Director of product management.
20· · ·Q.· ·Is there a formal classification associated
21 with your current job, such as level 9?
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what is that classification?
24· · ·A.· ·Level 9.
25· · ·Q.· ·Is this the same job that you have held since
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 32
YVer1f
PDF Page 36
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 35 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3100
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
33
·1 your last deposition in this matter on August -- in
·2 August of 2021?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·What department or division of Alphabet do you
·5 currently work in?
·6· · ·A.· ·I work in the ADVA team, which is the apps
·7 display and video advertising.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And how long have you held this position?
·9· · ·A.· ·The level or the role?
10· · ·Q.· ·Well, why don't we start with the role and then
11 you can tell me the level.
12· · ·A.· ·The role, since late August of 2019.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how long have you held the level 9
14 position?
15· · ·A.· ·Since October of 2020.
16· · ·Q.· ·What are your current job responsibilities at
17 Alphabet?
18· · ·A.· ·I'm responsible for the product -- for the
19 products that are publisher facing in advertising.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what are the names of those products?
21· · ·A.· ·AdManager, the ad exchange which is known as
22 authorized buyers and open bidding, AdMob and AdSense.
23· · ·Q.· ·Do you do work on Google ads?
24· · ·A.· ·So technically that product would not fit into
25 my portfolio, although it is a marketplace.· So those
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 33
YVer1f
PDF Page 37
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 36 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3101
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
34
·1 ads would flow through my products.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And do you do work outside of your current job
·3 responsibilities at Alphabet?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what is that work?
·6· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you rephrase the question?
·7 That's a little ambiguous.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· You described to me earlier what your
·9 job responsibilities were, and we just discussed Google
10 ads which, as you said, flows through the product.· And
11 I just want to make sure that I understand what other
12 products you may work with even though they are not part
13 of your job responsibilities.
14· · ·A.· ·Gotcha.
15· · ·Q.· ·So if you could help me with that, I would
16 appreciate it.
17· · ·A.· ·Sure.· Yeah.· So I'm on the global news
18 initiative board.
19· · ·Q.· ·And what is the global news initiative board?
20· · ·A.· ·So the global news initiative is a fund that
21 Google allocates to help the journalism industry.· So
22 while some of that pertains to advertising, the majority
23 of those activities don't have anything to do with
24 advertising.
25· · · · · · · ·I'm also on the Ads, Inc. board of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 34
YVer1f
PDF Page 38
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 37 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3102
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
35
·1 directors, which is an internal fund to start up new and
·2 unusual initiatives inside of the general ads PA beyond
·3 the portions that I work on directly.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And what -- I'm sorry.· What do you mean by
·5 "PA"?
·6· · ·A.· ·Product area.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And when you say the Ads, Inc. board of
·8 directors is an internal fund, do you mean that Alphabet
·9 provides funding to projects within the company?
10· · ·A.· ·It's a fund that provides funding, primarily
11 externally and sometimes internally.
12· · ·Q.· ·And can you provide an example of what an
13 externally funded project would be?
14· · ·A.· ·Sure.· They give grants to various journalists.
15 They fund trainings for journalism on a global basis,
16 things like that.
17· · ·Q.· ·And are there any other projects that you work
18 on that are outside the scope of your job
19 responsibilities at Alphabet?
20· · ·A.· ·I am responsible for certain fireside chats and
21 trainings for product managers in general across all of
22 Google.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what is the purpose of those fireside
24 chats?
25· · ·A.· ·To train our product managers on how to be
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 35
YVer1f
PDF Page 39
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 38 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3103
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
36
·1 better managers.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And what would you describe as the subject
·3 matter of that training?
·4· · ·A.· ·It's varied.· Depends on what's topical.· For
·5 example, what makes a great manager, how to manage a
·6 team partly remote and partly on-site.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Okay.
·8· · ·A.· ·Things like that.· Career coaching.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Very helpful.· Thank you.
10· · · · · · · ·Are there any other projects that you work
11 on that are outside your job responsibilities at
12 Alphabet?
13· · ·A.· ·Nope.
14· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· And currently to whom do you report
15 at Alphabet?
16· · ·A.· ·I report to
17· · ·Q.· ·And what is
title?
18· · ·A.· ·He's the general manager of YouTube ads and
19 ADVA, apps display and video ads.
20· · ·Q.· ·And to whom does
report?
21· · ·A.· ·To
22· · ·Q.· ·And to whom does
report?
23· · ·A.· ·To
24· · ·Q.· ·And how many people at Alphabet report to you?
25· · ·A.· ·In my organization or directly?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 36
YVer1f
PDF Page 40
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 39 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3104
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
37
·1· · ·Q.· ·Directly.
·2· · ·A.· ·Five.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And what are their names and titles?
·4· · ·A.· ·
.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And what are the titles of those five
·7 individuals?
·8· · ·A.· ·In order, director of product management,
·9 director of product management, director of product
10 management, group product manager and administrative -11 executive administrative assistant.
12· · ·Q.· ·And how many people in your organization report
13 to you?
14· · ·A.· ·Approximately 50.
15· · ·Q.· ·And what are the subject matter areas that
16 those 50 people work in who report to you in your
17 organization?
18· · ·A.· ·It's all product management for the products
19 that I described earlier.
20· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, the products you described
21 earlier that are within the scope of your job
22 responsibilities.· Is that correct?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· In your current position, since
25 assuming your position, have your job responsibilities
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 37
YVer1f
PDF Page 41
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 40 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3105
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
38
·1 changed?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Do you currently work on regulatory,
·4 investigation or litigation matters?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Which ones?
·7· · ·A.· ·So there's a number.· So the U.K. ICO relating
·8 to GDPR, the Texas AG suit, this investigation with the
·9 Department of Justice, the U.K. Competition Markets
10 Authority, the ACCC -- that's the Australian Competition
11 something -- and the Irish DPA, Data Protection
12 Authority.
13· · ·Q.· ·Do you work on any other regulatory,
14 investigation or litigation matters?
15· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you -- are you asking about
16 litigation?
17· · ·Q.· ·Other than those listed -18· · ·A.· ·Yeah.
19· · ·Q.· ·-- that you just listed, do you work on any
20 regulatory, investigation or litigation matters?· So
21 yes, it would include litigation.· I'm just trying to
22 make sure your list is complete.
23· · ·A.· ·Got it.· I'm just trying to understand what you
24 mean by "investigation."· Do you mean I'm investigating
25 or do you mean they're investigating?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 38
YVer1f
PDF Page 42
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 41 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3106
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
39
·1· · ·Q.· ·That's a great question.· Thank you for asking.
·2· · · · · · · ·For example, a government agency like us
·3 is investigating, so not any internal investigation that
·4 you're working on but any investigation that comes from
·5 outside of Alphabet.
·6· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Yes, I believe there are others but not
·7 related to the discussion today.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Well, I will just tell you this.· It is my view
·9 that as part of the qualifications of the witness, I
10 need to assess the amount of work you do on these
11 investigative matters.· And unless your counsel objects
12 and instructs you not to answer, all I am looking for is
13 the name of what those are.
14· · · · · · · ·So unless Ms. Elmer would like to enter an
15 objection, please let me know what the names of any
16 other litigation, external investigation or regulatory
17 matters that you work on are.
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· The names of the
19 investigating authorities are fine to share,
20· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.
21· · ·A.· ·New Mexico Attorney General.
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And,
if you need to
23 refer to the letter that you had mentioned earlier that
24 is in front of you today or that you brought with you
25 today to make sure that you've given a complete list,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 39
YVer1f
PDF Page 43
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 42 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3107
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
40
·1 feel free to.
·2· · ·A.· ·The European Commission would be the other one
·3 that is relevant.· Beyond that for investigations, no,
·4 that's it.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are there any litigation
·6 matters other than the Texas AG lawsuit you just
·7 mentioned that you work on currently?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what are those?· Just the names, please.
10· · ·A.· ·Those are relating -- that's a number of cases
11 all relating just to typical IP litigation.
12· · ·Q.· ·Are there any litigation matters on which you
13 are working for Alphabet that do not relate to IP
14 litigation?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Other than the Texas AG
16 lawsuit?
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.· Thank you, Julie.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Other than the Texas AG
19 lawsuit.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And the MDL cases associated
21 with it?
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· You did not,
24 mention the MDL cases associated with that Texas AG
25 lawsuit.· Are you working on the MDL cases associated
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 40
YVer1f
PDF Page 44
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 43 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3108
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
41
·1 with the Texas AG lawsuit?
·2· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· What does MDL refer to?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Multi-district litigation.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Those are the private
·5 plaintiff lawsuits that are associated with the Texas AG
·6 lawsuit.· Are you working on those?
·7· · ·A.· ·I don't know if those are wrapped up in the
·8 same discussions, so I don't know.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· That's fine.
10· · · · · · · ·Just so we're clear, are you a lawyer?
11· · ·A.· ·No.
12· · ·Q.· ·Do you ever provide legal advice for Alphabet?
13· · ·A.· ·No.
14· · ·Q.· ·What percentage of your time as an employee of
15 Alphabet are spent on regulatory, investigation or
16 litigation matters?
17· · ·A.· ·About 60 percent.
18· · ·Q.· ·And how would you describe your role with
19 respect to regulatory, investigative or litigation
20 matters at Alphabet?
21· · ·A.· ·So I'm responsible for defining the direction
22 of our business with respect to the regulatory changes,
23 yeah.
24· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean by "defining the direction of
25 our business"?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 41
YVer1f
PDF Page 45
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 44 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3109
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
42
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that your
·2 question, Brent, invades the work product doctrine or
·3 the attorney/client privilege, I instruct the witness
·4 not to answer.
·5· · · · · · · ·To the extent that you can answer in a way
·6 that doesn't share privileged information, you may do
·7 so.
·8· · ·A.· ·So with new regulatory changes and prospective
·9 regulatory changes, there likely would be changes
10 required to our business such as things that happened
11 with GDPR.
12· · · · · · · ·So I'm responsible for finding a way to
13 ensure that we continue to comply with the changing
14 regulations as well as the general, you know,
15 competitive marketplace here.· So I'm responsible for
16 charting that path for our business.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And do you provide, as part
18 of this role, any financial projections or business
19 analyses as part of Alphabet's response to potentially
20 required changes to your business in response to these
21 regulations?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
23 answer to the extent that this invades the work product
24 doctrine or the attorney/client privilege.
25· · ·A.· ·I mean, of course I do.· Like we're trying to
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 42
YVer1f
PDF Page 46
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 45 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3110
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
43
·1 run a business.· How do you not take those things into
·2 account?
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And who at Alphabet prepares
·4 these financial projections or business analyses that
·5 you provide as part of this role?
·6· · ·A.· ·Financial is typically prepared by finance in
·7 conjunction with input from legal and, you know, various
·8 working team members, cross-functional.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And can you -- I'm sorry.
10· · · · · · · ·And can you give me an example of who at
11 finance provides you with that information?
12· · ·A.· ·Sure.· Someone like
, who's the
13 director of finance.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what in-house counsel are involved with
15 those projections?
16· · ·A.· ·So depending on the products we're talking
17 about or the relevant subject matter, it likely would be
18 someone like
who has, you know,
19 knowledge of a specific area.
20· · ·Q.· ·And other than financial projections, what
21 other business analyses do you provide as part of this
22 role with respect to regulatory, investigation or
23 litigation matters?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form and also
25 object to the extent that your question seeks to invade
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 43
YVer1f
PDF Page 47
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 46 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3111
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
44
·1 the attorney work product doctrine or the
·2 attorney/client privilege.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I'll ask again,
·4
Other than financial projections, what
·5 other business analyses do you provide as part of your
·6 role with respect to regulatory, investigative or
·7 litigation matters?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·9· · · · · · · ·We've been going for about an hour.· Let's
10 take a break.
11· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· He needs to answer my
12 question that is pending, and then we can take a break.
13 I'm happy to do that.
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I've instructed the witness
15 not to answer the question.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
17 instruction not to answer?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I'll say this.· I believe I answered this
19 already.· I think if you're asking for anything further,
20 it would fall into privileged communications with
21 counsel.· And specifically what I said earlier was that
22 I'm responsible for steering the organization through
23 the changes in regulation.
24· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 44
YVer1f
PDF Page 48
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 47 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3112
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
45
·1· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Going off the record at
·2 9:39 a.m.
·3· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·4· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·5 9:54 a.m.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you for returning,
·7
·8· · · · · · · ·In your August 11th, 2021 deposition you
·9 told me about positions you held at Alphabet before your
10 current position.· Do you have anything to add to the
11 testimony you provided on August 11th, 2021 regarding
12 prior positions you have held at Google?
13· · ·A.· ·No.
14· · ·Q.· ·In your August 11th, 2021 deposition you told
15 me about positions you held prior to joining Alphabet or
16 Google, including jobs that you held at PayPal and other
17 companies.· Do you have anything to add to that
18 testimony?
19· · ·A.· ·Beyond the questions you asked, no.
20· · ·Q.· ·Great.· Are you still a board member and
21 investor in the company
?
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·Is your ownership interest in the company still
24 approximately
?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 45
YVer1f
PDF Page 49
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 48 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3113
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
46
·1· · ·Q.· ·What work do you currently do for that company?
·2· · ·A.· ·I'm a board member.· That's it.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Do you still work for the company
·4
·5· · ·A.· ·Sort of.· It's not really doing any business
·6 right now, and it's not a separate corporation.· It's
·7 just a sole proprietorship.· So, for example, if I refer
·8 a friend to a real estate broker, I might make money
·9 through that or something like that.· But no, I don't do
10 formal work.
11· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thanks for that.
12· · · · · · · ·In your August 2021 deposition you told me
13 about your educational background.· Do you have anything
14 to add to that testimony?
15· · ·A.· ·No.
16· · ·Q.· ·Great.· Is your Alphabet work e-mail address
17 still
google.com?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · ·Q.· ·Do you have any other e-mail addresses?
20· · ·A.· ·No.
21· · ·Q.· ·Does anyone else use your work e-mail address?
22· · ·A.· ·No.
23· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
24
com?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 46
YVer1f
PDF Page 50
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 49 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3114
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
47
·1· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
·2
gmail.com?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
·5
com?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
·8
com?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Do you still use the e-mail address
11
com?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Do you use any other e-mail addresses that I
14 have not yet mentioned?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes,
com.
16· · ·Q.· ·Are there any others?
17· · ·A.· ·Nope.
18· · ·Q.· ·Have you ever used any of these non-Google
19 e-mail addresses for Google or Alphabet business?
20· · ·A.· ·No.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please up
22 load tab 8 into the Chat.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
24 know when you have this document in front of you.
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'd like the court reporter
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 47
YVer1f
PDF Page 51
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 50 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3115
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
48
·1 to please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 3.
·2· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 3 marked)
·3· · ·A.· ·Okay.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter sent to the
·5 Division on October 28th, 2021 by your counsel,
·6 Ms. Elmer, regarding the civil investigative demand
·7 about which you are testifying today.· Have you seen
·8 this letter before?
·9· · ·A.· ·I don't know if I've seen this letter before,
10 but I have just read it.
11· · ·Q.· ·So prior to today, your testimony is that you
12 have not seen this letter before.· Is that correct?
13· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I don't remember specifically reviewing
14 this letter.
15· · ·Q.· ·Who prepared this letter?
16· · ·A.· ·It looks like Julie Elmer prepared it.
17· · ·Q.· ·Who at Alphabet assisted in the preparation of
18 this letter?
19· · ·A.· ·Our legal team would be my guess.
20· · ·Q.· ·But you don't know?
21· · ·A.· ·I don't know, but I can say with -- I strongly
22 believe that
and
together would have been
23 responsible for communicating with Julie.
24· · ·Q.· ·And what are
and
last names?
25· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· I'm not great with names.· They're
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 48
YVer1f
PDF Page 52
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 51 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3116
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
49
·1 on the call.· Can I ask them to show their names?
·2· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· I can see them as well, which is why I
·3 asked you.
·4· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Mainly I don't want to mess up their
·5 last names.
·6· · ·Q.· ·But it's okay.· We'll just -- the court
·7 reporter is taking them down.
·8· · · · · · · ·So they are the two attorneys who are
·9 present today.· Is that correct?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
12· · · · · · · ·Did any nonlawyers at Alphabet assist in
13 the preparation of this letter?
14· · ·A.· ·To my knowledge, no.
15· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· On the first page of this letter
16 Ms. Elmer wrote beginning in the middle of the first
17 paragraph to this letter, "Please see the information in
18 the file" -- I'm sorry.· Let me start again.
19· · · · · · · ·"Please see the information in the
20 appendix which sets forth the privilege log numbers of
21 documents that the company has withheld for
22 attorney/client privilege, work product protection
23 and/or another cognizable privilege in response to Civil
24 Investigative Demand No. 30471 and that contain the
25 names of the projects identified in the CID schedule."
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 49
YVer1f
PDF Page 53
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 52 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3117
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
50
·1· · · · · · · ·Did I read that correctly?
·2· · ·A.· ·I believe so.
·3· · ·Q.· ·In identifying the documents listed in the
·4 appendix to this letter, which are at pages 3 through 18
·5 of Exhibit 3, did Alphabet do a search only for
·6 documents that contain the exact names of the projects
·7 identified in the CID schedule?
·8· · ·A.· ·Can I confer with counsel on this briefly?
·9· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
11· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
12 10:01 a.m.
13· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
14· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
15 10:04 a.m.
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· So I object to your
17 questions, Brent, as being outside the scope of the CID.
18 The CID does not request how we manage our discovery
19 process, how we manage responding to DOJ correspondence,
20 how we do our privilege log.· All of that invades our
21 work product, the work product doctrine.
22· · · · · · · ·And the witness is not prepared to respond
23 to questions about how Freshfields responds to DOJ's
24 correspondence.
25· · · · · · · ·So I object to it as being outside the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 50
YVer1f
PDF Page 54
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 53 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3118
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
51
·1 scope.· He can answer in his individual capacity to the
·2 extent that he knows.
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· So what I'd like to
·4 understand, though, with respect to your scope objection
·5 is the subject line of this letter is "Civil
·6 Investigative Demand No. 30769."· That is the
·7 established CID that
as Alphabet's
·8 representative, is sitting here testifying to.
·9· · · · · · · ·I am surprised that a letter that came
10 many months ago was not reviewed by him, and I am going
11 to take testimony on Alphabet's corporate position.· To
12 the extent that he does not have an answer because he
13 was not prepared, obviously that is the answer that I
14 will get today.
15· · · · · · · ·But with that, I can resume questioning
16 unless you have anything else to say, Ms. Elmer.
17· · ·A.· ·I'd also like to interject.· So as I reviewed
18 the rest of the document -- I apologize here -19 including the documents, and I have seen this list
20 before.· This was part of my preparation.· And I
21 apologize.· The first page with a lot of legalese I did
22 not recognize, but I have viewed this document and I
23 have noted the many documents that were provided.
24· · · · · · · ·So I want to restate.· I have seen this
25 document.· I have reviewed the articles in the piece.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
I
888-267-1200 Page 51
YVer1f
PDF Page 55
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 54 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3119
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
52
·1 just did not recognize that front page.· So I have seen
·2 this.· But as -- and I'll defer back to Julie with
·3 respect to answering because "I don't know" is the
·4 answer to your question.· I don't know what process
·5 Freshfields used.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
·7· · · · · · · ·So as Alphabet's corporate designee
·8 sitting here today, is it Alphabet's representation this
·9 is a complete list of all documents withheld on the
10 basis of attorney/client privilege, the work product
11 protection and/or another cognizable privilege in
12 response to Civil Investigative Demand No. 30471?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object to your question as
14 improper as it invades the attorney/client privilege.
15 And, more importantly, it invades the work product
16 doctrine.· This is a letter that Freshfields wrote in
17 response to you-all.
18· · · · · · · ·If you'll also note, the letter says that
19 it is in reference to the CID, the document CID.·
20 is not here to talk about how Freshfields put together a
21 privilege log.
22· · · · · · · ·I instruct the witness not to answer this
23 question.
24· · · · · · · ·Your questions are improper.· And let's go
25 on to the scope of the CID, or I will terminate the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 52
YVer1f
PDF Page 56
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 55 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3120
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
53
·1 deposition.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· That is your option, and I
·3 understand your position.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
will you
·5 follow Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·8· · · · · · · ·All right.· One more question,
·9
-- or a couple more questions I guess about
10 this, about what you have reviewed.· So you said that
11 you have reviewed pages 3 through 18 to this Exhibit
12 No. 3.· Is that correct?
13· · ·A.· ·Can we put the document back up?
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
15 put that back in the Chat.
16· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· I still have it up separately.
I
17 think I'm okay.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.· So I reviewed 3 through 18, yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·And did you review any of the documents listed
21 here in preparation for this deposition?
22· · ·A.· ·Likely I reviewed the metadata of some of the
23 documents listed here, although it would -- I wouldn't
24 know it by the privilege log number.· Specifically I
25 would know it based on the documents being in my drive.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 53
YVer1f
PDF Page 57
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 56 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3121
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
54
·1· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, did you use this list to
·2 refresh your recollection with respect to how the
·3 documents related to certain projects?· For example, in
·4 the second or right-hand column, Project Banksy as
·5 related to the first document there, is that how you
·6 would have used this appendix?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection and same
·8 instruction.· You don't have to answer that question,
·9
That invades the work product doctrine and
10 attorney/client privilege.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you going to follow that
12 instruction?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·And did you ever communicate to any lawyer
15 about how you were using this list of documents on
16 pages 3 through 8 of appendix -- I'm sorry -- of
17 Exhibit 3?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· Assumes
19 facts.· I think you're misconstruing his testimony,
20 Brent.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'll have the court
22 reporter please read back the question.
23· · · · · · · ·(The record was read as requested.)
24· · ·A.· ·I feel like you're restating -- or you're
25 making an assumption in that that I haven't spoken to.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 54
YVer1f
PDF Page 58
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 57 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3122
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
55
·1· · · · · · · ·My advice from counsel is that any
·2 communications here are privileged.· So I'm not
·3 declining to answer your question.· I'm saying I don't
·4 understand how you came up with your question because
·5 it's assuming things I didn't convey to you.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Well, you've listened
·7 carefully, and that's very helpful.
·8· · · · · · · ·Just so I'm clear and to help me out, how
·9 again did you use pages 3 through 18 of Exhibit 3 in
10 preparation for this deposition?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· I don't think
12 he testified that he used them.· He testified that he's
13 seen them before, and that's a big distinction.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
how, if at
15 all, did you use the information provided in pages 3
16 through 18 of Exhibit 3 in preparation for this
17 deposition?
18· · ·A.· ·I reviewed the list.
19· · ·Q.· ·And did you use the project names listed in the
20 second column here, the right-hand column, of pages 3
21 through 8 of Exhibit 3?
22· · ·A.· ·So I'm confused about that question.· So yes,
23 of course I used the names; but that doesn't have
24 anything to do with this list.
25· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean by --
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 55
YVer1f
PDF Page 59
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 58 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3123
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
56
·1· · ·A.· ·The names are the projects on the CID.· How
·2 could I testify I didn't use the project names?· So
·3 you're conflating using the names on the right side with
·4 me doing stuff.· So I'm not -- I'm not clear what you're
·5 getting at here.
·6· · · · · · · ·Yes, of course the names were used.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·8· · ·A.· ·But not related to this list.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· That's helpful.· Thank you.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
11 put up tab 9, please.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay,
Please
13 let me know when you have that up.
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I have this up.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Could the court reporter
16 please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 4.
17· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 4 marked)
18· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter sent to the
19 Division on November 15th, 2021 by your counsel,
20 Ms. Elmer, regarding the civil investigative demand
21 about which you are testifying today.· Have you seen
22 this letter before?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·When did you see this letter?
25· · ·A.· ·As part of the preparation and -- earlier this
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 56
YVer1f
PDF Page 60
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 59 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3124
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
57
·1 month.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Did you see the entirety of this letter,
·3 including the first two pages as well as the appendix?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And who prepared this letter?
·6· · ·A.· ·It says that Julie Elmer prepared this letter.
·7· · ·Q.· ·What is Alphabet's position regarding who else
·8 prepared this letter?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I'm going to instruct the
10 witness not to answer.· This is -- well, I'll say this.
11 I object to the question as being beyond the scope.· He
12 may answer in his individual capacity.· But the CID does
13 not ask about Freshfields' preparation of letters, and
14 the witness is not prepared to talk about the process
15 that his outside counsel uses to prepare letters to the
16 DOJ.
17· · · · · · · ·But you may answer to the extent you know
18 in your individual capacity,
19· · ·A.· ·Okay.· I believe
would be involved.
20 That's the extent of my full -- like I do not know for a
21 fact, but I assume that she is involved.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So just so I round this out,
23 is it Alphabet's position today that you are not -- that
24 Alphabet is not going to provide any testimony today
25 regarding who prepared this letter.· Is that correct?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 57
YVer1f
PDF Page 61
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 60 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3125
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
58
·1· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· As suggested by counsel, yes.
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· That's outside the
·3 scope, Brent.· If you want to have a conversation with
·4 me later about this, I'm happy to do so.
·5· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I appreciate that.· I will
·6 likely take you up on your offer, Ms. Elmer.
I
·7 appreciate that.· But I want to make the record clear
·8 today, and I can move on.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So,
did you in
10 any way use the appendix to this letter listing
11 documents in your preparation for today's deposition as
12 Alphabet's corporate representative?
13· · ·A.· ·Aside from reviewing, no.
14· · ·Q.· ·And how did the -- how did you use the appendix
15 to this letter in reviewing for today's deposition as
16 Alphabet's corporate representative?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection, assumes facts and
18 misconstrues testimony.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I have received Julie's
20 privilege objection.· My question is how, if at all, did
21 you use the appendix to this letter in reviewing for
22 today's deposition as Alphabet's designated corporate
23 representative?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· He's already
25 testified that aside from reviewing it, he did not use
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 58
YVer1f
PDF Page 62
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 61 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3126
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
59
·1 it.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
I'd like an
·3 answer to my question about how, if at all, you used it.
·4 Let me just back up.· I'll make it clearer.
·5· · · · · · · ·When you say "reviewed," what do you mean
·6 by reviewed the documents listed in this letter?
·7· · ·A.· ·I didn't say reviewed the documents listed.
I
·8 said I reviewed the list.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Uh-huh.· And what did you -- how did reviewing
10 the list help you in your preparation?
11· · ·A.· ·It merely made me aware of the documents that
12 were noted here, and that's it.· I did not use this
13 further.
14· · ·Q.· ·All right.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
16 upload tab 6 into the Chat.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
18 know when you have that in front of you.
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'd like the court reporter
20 to mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 5.
21· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 5 marked)
22· · ·A.· ·Okay.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter sent to the
24 Division on September 14th, 2021 by your counsel,
25 Ms. Elmer, regarding the civil investigative demand
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 59
YVer1f
PDF Page 63
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 62 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3127
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
60
·1 about which you are testifying today.
·2· · · · · · · ·Have you seen this letter before?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And when have you seen this letter before?
·5· · ·A.· ·In early February as part of the preparation
·6 process.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And who at Alphabet prepared this letter?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· It's outside
·9 scope.
10· · · · · · · ·You may testify in your individual
11 capacity, if you know,
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'm sorry.· Hold on a sec.
13 So, Ms. Elmer, I'd like to understand the basis for your
14 outside-the-scope objection, given that this letter
15 literally responds to specifications point by point to
16 the CID to which
is sitting in response to
17 today.· Why is that out of scope?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Well, first of all, the DOJ
19 has rejected these letters as being responsive to the
20 CID and has insisted upon
testimony.· A 30(b)(6)
21 witness is the testimony of the company.· That's why
22 we're here today.
23· · · · · · · ·And your CID does not include a
24 specification seeking testimony about outside counsel
25 preparation of letters to the DOJ on any topic,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 60
YVer1f
PDF Page 64
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 63 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3128
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
61
·1 including the topic of this CID.
·2· · · · · · · ·So if you insist on asking the witness
·3 questions about outside counsel's work, I will terminate
·4 the deposition and suggest that you move on to the
·5 specifications that are set forth in the CID.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· I understand your
·7 position.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
is it
·9 Alphabet's position today that this letter does not
10 represent the corporate position of Alphabet with
11 respect to this civil investigative demand to which you
12 are sitting here in response to today?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I am here to testify with the corporate
14 position which supersedes this letter.
15· · ·Q.· ·Does anything in this letter represent the
16 corporate position of Alphabet?
17· · ·A.· ·I believe if we discuss these line by line, you
18 will find a lot of overlaps; and you may also find some
19 discrepancies.
20· · ·Q.· ·So what in this letter represents the corporate
21 position of Alphabet?
22· · ·A.· ·Okay.· This is going to take a long time to
23 walk through.· Would you like to walk through that?
24· · ·Q.· ·Yes.
25· · ·A.· ·Okay.· I think the easiest way to say this is
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 61
YVer1f
PDF Page 65
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 64 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3129
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
62
·1 that we have updated this letter specifically with the
·2 communication on February 25th to correct a couple of
·3 pieces of information that likely outside counsel did
·4 not have full knowledge of.
·5· · · · · · · ·So if you're asking which pieces of this,
·6 I think you'll find them specifically in the letter
·7 dated Feb 25.
·8· · ·Q.· ·So I'm just trying to make this process
·9 simpler.· I just want to understand, because in my
10 reading of this letter, there's some pieces of
11 information here that are not included in the
12 February 25th letter, and I don't know whether that is
13 by mistake or whether or not something supersedes
14 something else.· So that is why I'm asking you these
15 questions.
16· · · · · · · ·So what in this letter is Alphabet's
17 corporate position with respect to the specifications in
18 the CID?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection, asked and answered.
20 I'd like to take a break to discuss an issue of
21 privilege.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'm sorry.· Before you go
23 off the record, are you intending to claw back part of
24 this document?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· No.· The question has been
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 62
YVer1f
PDF Page 66
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 65 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3130
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
63
·1 asked and answered.· He's already answered your
·2 question, Brent.
·3· · · · · · · ·
if you'd like to answer it again,
·4 please go ahead before we go off the record.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Yeah.· So the question
·6 pending is what in this letter is Alphabet's corporate
·7 position with respect to the specifications that you are
·8 here to testify about today in the CID?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Other than what he's already
10 said about the February 25th letter?· What more are you
11 asking for, Brent?
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
if you'd like,
13 we can just walk through this letter and you can tell me
14 what is right, what is wrong, what is superseded and
15 what is not.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you upload
17 into the Chat -- you know what, let's just do it this
18 way.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So,
please
20 just keep this on your computer.· I'll be referring back
21 to it later.· Okay?
22· · ·A.· ·Okay.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, why don't you
24 upload tab 7 into the Chat.
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.· I asked for a break.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 63
YVer1f
PDF Page 67
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 66 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3131
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
64
·1 So let's take a break before we move on to the next
·2 document, please.
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's take a
·4 break.
·5· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·6 10:22 a.m.
·7· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·8· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·9 10:29 a.m.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
I'd just like
12 to clear up one matter before we move on.· I notice that
13 you picked up your phone just before we went on the
14 break.· I just want to make sure to remind you that use
15 of a phone or any other device is not permitted while
16 you're on the record during this deposition.· Do you
17 understand that?
18· · ·A.· ·I don't recall picking up my phone.
19· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Perhaps I was just mistaken, but I just
20 wanted to issue that reminder.· That's totally my
21 mistake.
22· · ·A.· ·I think that was my teacup.
23· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· My mistake, I apologize.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you upload
25 tab 7 into the Chat.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 64
YVer1f
PDF Page 68
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 67 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3132
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
65
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
·2 please let me know when you have that in front of you.
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Could the court reporter
·4 please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 6.
·5· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 6 marked)
·6· · ·A.· ·Okay.· I have this document.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter sent to the
·8 Division on October 24, 2021 by your counsel, Ms. Elmer,
·9 regarding the civil investigative demand about which you
10 are testifying today.· Have you seen this letter before?
11· · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·When did you see this letter?
13· · ·A.· ·In preparation in early February.
14· · ·Q.· ·Approximately when in early February did you
15 see this letter?
16· · ·A.· ·February 7th.
17· · ·Q.· ·And when did you first see the letter that was
18 previously marked as Exhibit 5 that was sent on
19 September 14, 2021?· Was that also on February 7?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·Who prepared this letter?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection as
23 before.· We're not here to talk about how outside
24 counsel prepares letters, particularly ones that have
25 been rejected by the DOJ, as being acceptable responses
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 65
YVer1f
PDF Page 69
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 68 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3133
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
66
·1 to CID No. 30769.
·2· · · · · · · ·But if you know who prepared the letter,
·3 you may say so,
in your individual capacity.
·4· · ·A.· ·I believe Julie Elmer prepared this letter.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Did you or anyone else at
·6 Alphabet assist in the preparation of this letter?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection, same scope
·8 objection, outside scope.
·9· · · · · · · ·You may testify in your individual
10 capacity if you know,
11· · ·A.· ·I don't know.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· On page 1 of the letter
13 Ms. Elmer wrote in the first full paragraph, "In
14 response to your letter of September 17th, 2021 and
15 based on further investigation, the company submits the
16 following information in response to the Division's
17 civil investigative demand for 30(b)(6) deposition
18 testimony (CID) issued August 23, 2021."
19· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·What further investigation did anyone at
22 Alphabet do in preparing this letter?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
24 answer to the extent that it calls for -- or because it
25 calls for work product.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 66
YVer1f
PDF Page 70
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 69 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3134
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
67
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
·2 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I don't know how I can answer that
·4 without potentially violating privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you upload
·7 tab 20, please, into the Chat.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
·9 know when that is in front of you.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Could the court reporter
11 please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 7.
12· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 7 marked)
13· · ·A.· ·I have this in front of me.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· This is a letter that has
15 been marked as Alphabet Exhibit 7 that was attached to
16 an e-mail sent to the Division at 8:47 p.m. Eastern Time
17 on Friday, February 25th, from your counsel, Ms. Elmer.
18· · · · · · · ·So, first of all, do you know why
19 Ms. Elmer sent me this letter?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object as calling for work
21 product information.· I instruct the witness not to
22 answer.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you going to follow
24 Ms. Elmer's instruction?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes, with the exception if you actually read
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 67
YVer1f
PDF Page 71
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 70 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3135
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
68
·1 the letter, it says this letter corrects counsel's
·2 letters.· So I am willing to say that.
·3· · · · · · · ·Other than that, I think privilege
·4 applies.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what errors were made that needed to be
·6 corrected in the counsel's letters of September 14th,
·7 2021 and October 4th, 2021?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Are you asking for -- I think,
·9 Brent, if you have a specific question that you can
10 direct the witness to, I think that would be easier.
11 You know, the scope of your CID does not include topics
12 of how does outside counsel prepare letters.· So this is
13 something that he is not prepared to testify for in his
14 capacity as a corporate designee.· So I think you're
15 going to need to point him to specific items in the
16 letters and ask him specific questions.
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you for that,
18 Ms. Elmer.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Let me just confirm one
20 thing for you,
Ms. Elmer just told us
21 that as to what errors were made that needed to be
22 corrected in the counsel's letters of September 14th,
23 2021 and October 4th, 2021, that you were not prepared
24 as the corporate designee to testify to those topics.
25 Do you agree with that?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 68
YVer1f
PDF Page 72
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 71 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3136
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
69
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Again, Brent, I object to the
·2 entire line of questioning as being improper because it
·3 is about outside counsel work product.· This is not a
·4 topic that was listed in your CID.
·5· · · · · · · ·And just because a letter has a "re" line
·6 that is referring to the CID doesn't mean that it
·7 relates to a specification set forth in the CID.· We've
·8 had a lot of process disputes about this CID, and I am
·9 not going to allow the witness to answer questions about
10 letters that are drafted by Freshfields, full stop.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· And,
12
are you going to follow Ms. Elmer's
13 instruction not to answer my question?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I think she's provided a fairly
15 straightforward reason why.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Did you provide any information to
17 Alphabet's counsel that assisted in the preparation of
18 this February 25th letter?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection and same
20 instruction.
21· · · · · · · ·Don't answer that,
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you going to follow
23 Ms. Elmer's instruction?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I believe that's privileged.
25· · ·Q.· ·Are you using this letter to assist you in
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 69
YVer1f
PDF Page 73
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 72 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3137
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
70
·1 testifying today as the corporate designee, as
·2 Alphabet's corporate representative?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I'm using this as a portion.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Have you had this letter in front of you during
·5 the entirety of this deposition so far?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And do you intend to use this letter to assist
·8 you with your testimony throughout the remainder of this
·9 deposition?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·So I ask again.· And if you would like to
12 refuse to answer, that is your prerogative.· But did you
13 provide any information, whether written or oral, to
14 Alphabet's counsel that assisted in any way in the
15 preparation of this letter?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And,
I'll state this,
17 that I object to the question to the extent that it
18 invades the privilege.· To the extent that you can
19 answer the question without invading the privilege, you
20 may answer.
21· · ·A.· ·I provided information to counsel.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· In what form?
23· · ·A.· ·Orally.· And this -- I will say that the letter
24 is consistent with Google's official position.
25· · ·Q.· ·So is it correct that the entirety of this
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 70
YVer1f
PDF Page 74
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 73 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3138
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
71
·1 letter is representative of Alphabet's corporate
·2 testimony today?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection.· The DOJ has
·4 already rejected letters as being responsive to the CID
·5 and has insisted on us putting a witness up live, which
·6 we are doing here today.
·7· · · · · · · ·So I think you guys have already made
·8 clear that the -- this letter is not the complete
·9 representation of Alphabet's testimony; rather, the
10 witness' testimony is Alphabet's testimony per the DOJ's
11 own insistence over the last six months.
12· · · · · · · ·So I object to that question as assuming
13 facts, being misleading, being argumentative and trying
14 to confuse the witness.· Why don't you re-ask your
15 question and make it more clear, Brent.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· When you state that this
17 letter reflects Google's official position, what parts
18 of the letter reflect Google's official position?
19· · ·A.· ·So Google's position is consistent with
20 everything that's contained in this Feb. 25 letter.· And
21 I am also here to ask any additional questions that you
22 might have.
23· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
24· · · · · · · ·Did you write any part of this letter?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object as to scope; but,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 71
YVer1f
PDF Page 75
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 74 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3139
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
72
·1
to the extent you can answer in your individual
·2 capacity and if you know, you may answer.
·3· · ·A.· ·No.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All righty.· Let's move on,
·5 keeping this exhibit up to help us both.· I'm sorry.
·6 Let me back up.
·7· · · · · · · ·You have a hard copy of this letter in
·8 front of you.· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·I will now move on to ask you about Project
11 Sunday, which is part of specifications 1a and
12 specification 2.
13· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Sunday" for
14 the project?
15· · ·A.· ·I don't know for certain, but I believe it was
16
17· · ·Q.· ·What is Project Sunday?
18· · ·A.· ·Project Sunday was an analysis to respond to
19 potential regulatory action.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what was the goal of Project Sunday?
21· · ·A.· ·Without invading privileged information, it was
22 to inform our leadership about our options.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what were Alphabet's objectives as part of
24 Project Sunday?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
I advise you to be
888-267-1200 Page 72
YVer1f
PDF Page 76
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 75 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3140
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
73
·1 cautious of invading the work product doctrine or the
·2 privilege.· But to the extent that you can answer
·3 without doing so, you may.
·4· · ·A.· ·Sure.· You asked the objectives?· Is that
·5 right?
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Yes.· I'll just restate.
·7· · · · · · · ·What were Alphabet's objectives as part of
·8 Project Sunday?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
10· · ·A.· ·To understand the implications of our potential
11 responses to regulatory actions.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Were there any other
13 objectives that Alphabet had as part of Project Sunday?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·And do you say "no" because any other
16 objectives are protected in Alphabet's view by privilege
17 or because there were no other objectives?
18· · ·A.· ·There were no other objectives.
19· · ·Q.· ·And what are -- what in Alphabet's view were
20 the business implications of Alphabet's potential
21 responses to regulatory actions as a part of Project
22 Sunday?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object to that question as
24 invading the work product doctrine and instruct the
25 witness not to answer.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 73
YVer1f
PDF Page 77
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 76 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3141
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
74
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·2 instruction?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·What outside counsel were involved with Project
·5 Sunday?
·6· · ·A.· ·Outside counsel, for that, I'll need to look
·7 through the letter.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, if it helps you, I'm happy to
·9 just work through the letter.· I just need your sworn
10 testimony that what the letter says is or is not
11 accurate.
12· · · · · · · ·So we can go piece by piece through that
13 if that's a good starting point for you.
14· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I would appreciate that, and I'll
15 reiterate that the letter is here to assist as well to
16 make sure that we have as correct a set of facts as
17 possible.· So I'm happy to work through in conjunction
18 with that.
19· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So on Exhibit 7, page 4 under the
20 heading Project Sunday, let me know when you have that
21 in front of you.
22· · ·A.· ·I do.
23· · ·Q.· ·Is this list on the second bullet point of
24 outside counsel a full, complete and accurate list of
25 all outside counsel who worked on Project Sunday?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 74
YVer1f
PDF Page 78
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 77 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3142
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
75
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Is the third bullet point a full and complete
·3 list of all Google in-house counsel who worked on
·4 Project Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Is the fourth bullet point a full and complete
·7 list of all Google employees who worked on Project
·8 Sunday?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·What was the role of -11· · ·A.· ·And can I just -- I want to make sure that
12 we're clear about semantics here.· When you say "worked
13 on," there's a fairly large distinction between "worked
14 on" and "was made aware of."· So I don't want to convey
15 that everyone on this list was an active working member
16 of this project.
17· · · · · · · ·I would say that a subset of these people
18 worked on it and a larger subset of this group were made
19 aware of the information here.
20· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I appreciate that.
21· · · · · · · ·So on this fourth bullet point the first
22 name is
What was that individual's
23 responsibility and work performed as to Project Sunday?
24· · ·A.· ·So his responsibility was to designate his
25 direct report,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
to lead the corporate
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 75
YVer1f
PDF Page 79
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 78 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3143
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
76
·1 development aspects of the project; and that was his
·2 entire responsibility.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·4· · · · · · · ·And what was
responsibility
·5 and what work did she do on Project Sunday?
·6· · ·A.· ·I can't speak to the work she did because I
·7 think that would violate privilege, but her
·8 responsibility was a combination of project manager and
·9 representative in her corporate capacity.
10· · ·Q.· ·So let me get this refusal on the record.· What
11 work did
do for Project Sunday?
12· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I think you're asking me to tell you
13 what we did in a project that was specifically directed
14 by legal to do.· So I don't understand how I could do
15 that without violating the privilege of this project.
16· · ·Q.· ·If you refuse to answer my question, I
17 understand that.· Are you refusing to answer my question
18 as to what work
did for Project Sunday?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·What department does
work in at
21 Google?
22· · ·A.· ·Corporate development.
23· · ·Q.· ·What was the work that
performed
24 for Project Sunday?
25· · ·A.· ·He worked for
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
and provided analysis.
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 76
YVer1f
PDF Page 80
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 79 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3144
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
77
·1· · ·Q.· ·And what department does
work in?
·2· · ·A.· ·Corporate development.· I'm sorry.· Did you say
·3 what does he work in or what did he work in?
·4· · ·Q.· ·At the time he worked on Project Sunday, what
·5 department did
work in?
·6· · ·A.· ·Corporate development.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
do for Project
·8 Sunday?
·9· · ·A.· ·As stated, analysis.
10· · ·Q.· ·And what types of analysis did
do?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object and instruct the
12 witness not to answer to the extent it invades the work
13 product doctrine.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow that
15 instruction?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·Other than privileged information, can you
18 describe any work
did on Project Sunday?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Objection, asked and answered.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
other than
21 privileged information, can you describe any work that
22
did on Project Sunday?
23· · ·A.· ·Nope.
24· · ·Q.· ·What work did
do on Project Sunday?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
To
888-267-1200 Page 77
YVer1f
PDF Page 81
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 80 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3145
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
78
·1 the extent that answering would invade the work product
·2 doctrine, I instruct you not to answer.
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.· The response is identical to what I gave
·4 you for
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what department does
·6
work in -- worked in at Alphabet at the time
·7 of Project Sunday?
·8· · ·A.· ·Corporate development.
·9· · ·Q.· ·What work did
do for Project Sunday?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
11· · ·A.· ·She did no work on the project.
12· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· What were her
13 responsibilities with respect to Project Sunday?
14· · ·A.· ·To designate me to complete portions of the
15 project and to review the outcome.
16· · ·Q.· ·What did
do to review the outcome of
17 Project Sunday?
18· · ·A.· ·She listened to a presentation.
19· · ·Q.· ·And did
make any decisions with
20 respect to Project Sunday based on the information
21 provided to her?
22· · ·A.· ·No, no decisions were made.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what were your responsibilities with
24 respect to Project Sunday?
25· · ·A.· ·To provide analysis.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 78
YVer1f
PDF Page 82
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 81 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3146
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
79
·1· · ·Q.· ·What types of analysis were you to provide as
·2 part of your job responsibilities with respect to
·3 Project Sunday?
·4· · ·A.· ·That would invade privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·So are you refusing to answer my question about
·6 your job responsibilities on Project Sunday on the basis
·7 of privilege?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes, of course.
·9· · ·Q.· ·What work did you do with respect to Project
10 Sunday?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Instruct the witness not to
12 answer to the extent that responding would invade the
13 work product doctrine.
14· · · · · · · ·
if there is a way to respond that
15 would not invade the work product doctrine or the
16 privilege, you may do so.
17· · ·A.· ·I provided an analysis and I gave a
18 presentation.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· When did you give this
20 presentation?
21· · ·A.· ·October -- either September or October, in that
22 time frame, of 2020.
23· · ·Q.· ·And to whom did you present?
24· · ·A.· ·To the list of Google employees included here.
25· · ·Q.· ·Did you present to any Google employees who are
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 79
YVer1f
PDF Page 83
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 82 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3147
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
80
·1 not listed here?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·What was the format of the presentation?
·4· · ·A.· ·There was a slides document, and it was
·5 provided over a GVC videoconference.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else give that presentation other
·7 than you?
·8· · ·A.· ·Portions, yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And who were those other people who delivered
10 portions of that presentation?
11· · ·A.· ·
and
12· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else present besides the people we
13 have just mentioned?
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·Is there any other work that you did for
16 Project Sunday other than the presentation given in
17 September or October of 2020?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
19· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· What's the instruction?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Which is to the extent that
21 you can answer without invading the work product
22 doctrine or privilege, you may do so.
23· · ·A.· ·Sure.· I believe the presentation was given -24 when
moved to a different role, I believe
25 the presentation was given as a -- for awareness to her
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 80
YVer1f
PDF Page 84
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 83 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3148
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
81
·1 successor, who was
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.· And
·3 approximately what was the date of that presentation?
·4· · ·A.· ·Best guess, late April 2021.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what was
set of
·6 responsibilities with respect to Project Sunday?
·7· · ·A.· ·Sure.· He was responsible for providing
·8 analysis.
·9· · ·Q.· ·What kind of analysis was he in charge of
10 providing as part of Project Sunday?
11· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I can't answer that, you know, per
12 privilege.
13· · ·Q.· ·So to be clear, you're refusing to answer my
14 question on the basis of privilege.· Is that correct?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And the work product doctrine.
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.· Obviously we
18 can have that as a continuing objection to speed this
19 along.· That's fine with me.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· Great.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What department does
22
work in at Google at the time of Project
23 Sunday?
24· · ·A.· ·In the -- he's in the Ads division.
25· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Could you explain more about what
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 81
YVer1f
PDF Page 85
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 84 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3149
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
82
·1 you mean by the Ads division and what products he
·2 covers?
·3· · ·A.· ·He was responsible for buy-side products, not
·4 including Google ads.· So I believe he was in a
·5 division -- I'm sorry.· The divisions have changed names
·6 over time, but he was responsible for DB360 and the
·7 product DCM, the campaign manager.
·8· · ·Q.· ·DoubleClick Campaign Manager.· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· And what work did
do
11 for Project Sunday?
12· · ·A.· ·He was a recipient or a listener to the
13 presentation.
14· · ·Q.· ·And by "the presentation," you mean the
15 presentation given in September/October of 2020.· Is
16 that correct?
17· · ·A.· ·Yep.
18· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job
19 responsibilities with respect to Project Sunday?
20· · ·A.· ·I can give you what his responsibilities were
21 in general; but I think with respect to the project, I
22 think that would invade privilege.
23· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And are you refusing to answer my
24 questions specifically with respect to Project Sunday on
25 the basis of privilege as to
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
job
888-267-1200 Page 82
YVer1f
PDF Page 86
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 85 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3150
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
83
·1 responsibilities?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And what generally outside -- just generally at
·4 Alphabet were
job responsibilities at the
·5 time of Project Sunday?
·6· · ·A.· ·So he worked for the CFO, and his job was to
·7 understand financial impact and provide guidance to the
·8 businesses.
·9· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry for interrupting you.
10· · · · · · · ·And when you say "the CFO," do you mean
11 Ruth Porat?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
14· · · · · · · ·What was
job
15 responsibilities with respect to Project Sunday?
16· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· He listened to the presentation.
17· · ·Q.· ·What work, if any, did
produce
18 as part of Project Sunday?
19· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I think you're going to get a consistent
20 answer.· So I don't know if you want to keep asking
21 every time.
22· · ·Q.· ·I must.· So I'm just going to ask you.· What
23 work product did
produce as part of
24 Project Sunday?
25· · ·A.· ·He didn't produce any work.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 83
YVer1f
PDF Page 87
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 86 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3151
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
84
·1· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·2· · · · · · · ·And what were
job
·3 responsibilities at Alphabet at the time of Project
·4 Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·He was a director of finance in Ads.
·6· · ·Q.· ·What work did
, do as part of
·7 Project Sunday?
·8· · ·A.· ·She provided analysis.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what kinds of analysis did she provide?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
11 answer as it invades the work product doctrine and
12 attorney/client privilege.
13· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
15· · · · · · · ·And what job responsibilities did
16 have at the time of Project Sunday?
17· · ·A.· ·She was a -18· · ·Q.· ·I apologize.· With respect specifically to
19 Project Sunday.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Wait.· Please ask the question
21 again, Brent.· It got garbled.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I appreciate that, Julie.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So with respect specifically
24 to Project Sunday, what were
job
25 responsibilities?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 84
YVer1f
PDF Page 88
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 87 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3152
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
85
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction,
·2· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· To provide analysis.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And you are otherwise
·4 refusing to answer on the basis of privilege.· Is that
·5 correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·At the time of Project Sunday what were
·8
job responsibilities at Google?
·9· · ·A.· ·She was a finance manager.
10· · ·Q.· ·And to whom did she report?
11· · ·A.· ·To
.
12· · ·Q.· ·What work did
do with
13 respect to Project Sunday?
14· · ·A.· ·He listened to a presentation.
15· · ·Q.· ·And is that only the presentation in September
16 or October of 2020?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·What responsibilities did
have
19 with respect to Project Sunday?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· To the
21 extent that you can answer without invading the
22 privilege, you may.
23· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I can't answer.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Was
a key
25 decision-maker with respect to Project Sunday?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 85
YVer1f
PDF Page 89
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 88 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3153
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
86
·1· · ·A.· ·So you're asking a speculative question that
·2 assumes decisions would have been -- or decisions were
·3 made.· So I guess I don't know how to answer your
·4 question.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, I asked because in a previous
·6 letter sent by Ms. Elmer,
was described as
·7 a key decision-maker.· So I'm just seeking clarification
·8 as to whether or not that's correct.· Obviously, if it's
·9 not correct and you've corrected it here in testimony,
10 I'm fine with that.
11· · · · · · · ·My question is simply was
a
12 key decision-maker with respect to Project Sunday?
13· · ·A.· ·No.· I think that prior letter was incorrect.
14· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· What work did
do with
15 respect to Project Sunday?
16· · ·A.· ·He listened to the presentation.
17· · ·Q.· ·Did he do any other work with respect to
18 Project Sunday?
19· · ·A.· ·No.
20· · ·Q.· ·What responsibilities did
have
21 with respect to Project Sunday?
22· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that.
23· · ·Q.· ·And why not?
24· · ·A.· ·Privilege and work product.
25· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And did
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
attend both the
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 86
YVer1f
PDF Page 90
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 89 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3154
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
87
·1 presentation in late April 2021 and the presentation in
·2 September or October of 2020?
·3· · ·A.· ·I am -- I'm certain he attended the one in
·4 October.· I don't know if he would have attended given
·5 it was materially the same presentation.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· What work did
do with
·7 respect to Project Sunday?
·8· · ·A.· ·He listened to the presentation.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Did he produce any other work with respect to
10 Project Sunday?
11· · ·A.· ·No.
12· · ·Q.· ·What were
responsibilities with
13 respect to Project Sunday?
14· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that.
15· · ·Q.· ·And why not?
16· · ·A.· ·Privilege.
17· · ·Q.· ·What were
responsibilities with
18 respect to Project Sunday?
19· · ·A.· ·She listened to the presentation.
20· · ·Q.· ·Did she create any work product -21· · ·A.· ·No.
22· · ·Q.· ·-- in response to Project Sunday?
23· · ·A.· ·Did she create any work product?
24· · ·Q.· ·Did she do any work?· I apologize.· Did she do
25 any work other than just listening to the presentation
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 87
YVer1f
PDF Page 91
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 90 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3155
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
88
·1 with respect to Project Sunday?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And, lastly, what did
do with respect
·4 to Project Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·He listened to the presentation.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Did he create any written work product or
·7 anything else for Project Sunday?
·8· · ·A.· ·No.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job responsibilities
10 with respect to Project Sunday?
11· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that.
12· · ·Q.· ·Why not?
13· · ·A.· ·Privilege.
14· · ·Q.· ·Who initiated Project Sunday?
15· · ·A.· ·Ted Lazarus.
16· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else initiate Project Sunday?
17· · ·A.· ·It likely -- or it may have been in conjunction
18 with one or more of the senior management folks, as he
19 would have spoken with them to advise on issues
20 happening.
21· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean by "senior management folks"?
22 Who are those individuals?
23· · ·A.· ·
or
or
24· · ·Q.· ·And are any of those individuals lawyers?
25· · ·A.· ·Are you asking are they acting in the capacity
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 88
YVer1f
PDF Page 92
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 91 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3156
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
89
·1 as a Google lawyer or are they -·2· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· That is my question.
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And which individuals are you
·4 referring to, Brent?
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are
·6
or any of those senior
·7 management folks acting for Google as attorneys?
·8· · ·A.· ·No.
·9· · ·Q.· ·What event began Project Sunday?
10· · ·A.· ·I think it would be more consistent to say what
11 events precipitated it, and it was a host of global
12 regulatory action across privacy and antitrust.
13· · ·Q.· ·And did Mr. Walker begin Project Sunday by
14 sending an e-mail, starting a discussion?· What
15 precipitated, what began Project Sunday in Alphabet's
16 view?
17· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Did you say Mr. Walker?
18· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Mr. Lazarus.· I apologize.· I'll
19 ask again.· I'm sorry.· That's my fault.
20· · · · · · · ·Did Mr. Lazarus begin Project Sunday by
21 sending an e-mail, starting a discussion or doing
22 something else?
23· · ·A.· ·I believe he had a discussion, and I don't know
24 if it was an e-mail or a discussion.· But I believe he
25 had a discussion with
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
to instruct him to
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 89
YVer1f
PDF Page 93
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 92 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3157
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
90
·1 allocate a project lead.· And then shortly thereafter I
·2 was instructed along with
in the finance
·3 group about our respective parts.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And who was the project lead that
·5 designated?
·6· · ·A.· ·
·7· · ·Q.· ·So within Project Sunday then did you report to
·8
·9· · ·A.· ·I'm not sure I understand that.· I think you
10 could have a project lead and then you work as a team
11 with your relevant subject matter experts.
12· · ·Q.· ·And how would you describe the role of a
13 project lead with respect to what
was doing
14 for Project Sunday?
15· · ·A.· ·A coordinator.
16· · ·Q.· ·And a coordinator of what?
17· · ·A.· ·Just time frames, work product deliverables and
18 presentations.
19· · ·Q.· ·When did Project Sunday end?
20· · ·A.· ·Ended approximately -- I mean, effectively the
21 presentation was the final -- sort of the final like -22 work ended just at or before that final presentation.
23· · ·Q.· ·And by "that final presentation," do you mean
24 the presentation you and others gave on September or
25 October 2020?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 90
YVer1f
PDF Page 94
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 93 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3158
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
91
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·Q.· ·So no work went on with respect to Project
·3 Sunday between October of 2020 and late April of 2021
·4 when a presentation was given at the point
·5 transitioned jobs.· Is that correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Has any work on Project Sunday gone on after
·8 April -- late April 2021?
·9· · ·A.· ·No.· No work has gone on.
10· · ·Q.· ·What was the cost to Alphabet associated with
11 Project Sunday, whether specified in dollars or hours?
12· · ·A.· ·It's very hard to give a cost.· It was an
13 analysis.· And so aside from outside counsel fees and
14 some individual time from the project members that we
15 discussed, there were no costs.
16· · ·Q.· ·And how much has Alphabet paid to outside
17 counsel in fees with respect to Project Sunday?
18· · ·A.· ·That's also very difficult to pinpoint because
19 we have counsel retained for a variety of issues, and a
20 lot is going on there.· So detangling what was for this
21 versus what was for, you know, handling many other
22 aspects of both litigation and ongoing compliance are -23 would be difficult.
24· · · · · · · ·So I guess that's the extent I can answer
25 that.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 91
YVer1f
PDF Page 95
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 94 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3159
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
92
·1· · ·Q.· ·So sitting here today as Alphabet's designated
·2 corporate representative, do you have any reasonable
·3 estimate of the amount that Alphabet paid to outside
·4 counsel with respect to Project Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·Can I confer briefly with counsel?
·6· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
·7· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record?· Off
·8 the record at 11:09 a.m.
·9· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
11 11:13 a.m.
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Could the court
13 reporter please read back the question.
14· · · · · · · ·(The record was read as requested.)
15· · ·A.· ·No, I don't for the reasons that I mentioned
16 earlier around many projects ongoing and really the
17 advice blurring between a number of different projects.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Did you look at billing
19 records from outside counsel to attempt to determine how
20 much Alphabet spent with respect to Project Sunday?
21· · ·A.· ·I did not.
22· · ·Q.· ·Did you do any other work to attempt to
23 determine whether Alphabet -- I'm sorry.· Strike that.
24· · · · · · · ·Did you do any other work to attempt to
25 determine the amount of money Alphabet spent on outside
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 92
YVer1f
PDF Page 96
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 95 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3160
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
93
·1 counsel with respect to Project Sunday?
·2· · ·A.· ·No, I did not.
·3· · ·Q.· ·How many Alphabet employee hours have been
·4 spent on Project Sunday?
·5· · ·A.· ·That's impossible to answer because we don't
·6 track time internally.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Did you do anything to attempt to form a
·8 reasonable estimate of the amount of Alphabet employee
·9 hours that have been spent on Project Sunday?
10· · ·A.· ·That I could, you know, answer with full
11 surety, no.
12· · ·Q.· ·My question is about a reasonable estimate.
13 Did you do any work to attempt to form a reasonable
14 estimate with respect to the number of Alphabet employee
15 hours spent on Project Sunday?
16· · ·A.· ·So I could give a ballpark estimate, but that's
17 about as good as we could do.· If you find that
18 informative, great; but it would be with the caveat that
19 it is impossible to know the amount of time individuals
20 spend on a specific project that's not part of a
21 meeting.
22· · ·Q.· ·I appreciate your explanation.· What is the
23 ballpark estimate?
24· · ·A.· ·30 hours.
25· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And how did you come to make that
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 93
YVer1f
PDF Page 97
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 96 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3161
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
94
·1 assessment?· What materials did you consider?
·2· · ·A.· ·Calendar.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Anything else?
·4· · ·A.· ·General understanding of the final work
·5 product.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Please name each governmental
·7 investigation or litigation that serves as a basis for
·8 Alphabet's work product privilege claims with respect to
·9 Project Sunday.
10· · ·A.· ·Sure.· The U.K. ICO, the Irish DPA, U.S.
11 Department of Justice, the Texas AG, the U.K. CMA and I
12 believe the EC.· Yes, the EC also.
13· · ·Q.· ·I apologize.· I failed to do this because it
14 was out of order.· But if you wanted to turn to page 2
15 of Exhibit 7, you have provided a list.· I just want to
16 make certain that that list is complete with respect to
17 all litigations and government investigations that form
18 the basis for Alphabet's privilege claims with respect
19 to Project Sunday.· Is that correct?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I will interject here to the
21 extent that this list does not include the private
22 litigation that is in the MDL, which is where the State
23 of Texas' litigation is now pending.
24· · · · · · · ·But with that caveat, you may answer,
25
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 94
YVer1f
PDF Page 98
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 97 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3162
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
95
·1· · ·A.· ·I'll say this is materially all.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· And by "materially
·3 all," you mean everything listed on Exhibit 7, page 2 as
·4 well as, as Ms. Elmer noted, the MDL litigation that
·5 includes the State of Texas.· Is that correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Sorry.· Was your question what active
·7 investigations?
·8· · ·Q.· ·No.· My question is what investigations,
·9 litigation or regulatory matters was Project Sunday
10 initiated in response to?
11· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So I think you have to separate those
12 out.· You're asking for regulatory matters as well,
13 which is an entirely different set.
14· · · · · · · ·So if you want to talk regulatory matters,
15 I'll have to start including many countries or regions
16 that have put into effect some -- either privacy or
17 antitrust regulations.· So that list is going to be much
18 longer here.
19· · · · · · · ·But if you want to speak to the first two
20 items, I can answer that this list materially provides
21 answers for the first two.
22· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, this list provides answers to
23 what investigations or litigation were involved with -24 Alphabet believes were involved with the initiation of
25 Project Sunday.· Is that correct?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 95
YVer1f
PDF Page 99
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 98 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3163
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
96
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes, that's correct.
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'll note here that the
·3 list -- if you look at the letter itself, the list is
·4 talking about active government regulation or
·5 investigations.· It is not talking about litigation.
·6· · · · · · · ·So I don't want the record to be muddled
·7 here.· Are you asking him about the list of government
·8 investigations that's in the letter, or are you also
·9 asking him about litigation that is the basis of the
10 privilege?
11· · · · · · · ·And, by the way, the litigation that is
12 the basis of the company's work product claims is not
13 within scope.· So if you could maybe un-compound your
14 question, I think it would be helpful.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· That's fine.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So what government
17 investigations form the basis for Project Sunday?
18· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So that, I can answer more precisely,
19 and that is consistent with the list that you'll find on
20 page 2.
21· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
22· · · · · · · ·Are there any government investigations
23 that are not included on the list on page 2 of Exhibit 7
24 that Project Sunday was initiated in response to?
25· · ·A.· ·Are there any investigations?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 96
YVer1f
PDF Page 100
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 99 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3164
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
97
·1· · ·Q.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·A.· ·Not that I'm aware of.
·3· · ·Q.· ·What litigations was Project Sunday initiated
·4 in response to?
·5· · ·A.· ·To get precise here, I need to speak with
·6 counsel for a minute.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
·8· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
·9· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thanks.
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record,
11 11:21 a.m.
12· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
13· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record,
14 11:30 a.m.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
what
16 litigations was Project Sunday initiated in response to?
17· · ·A.· ·So I don't think I have an answer specifically
18 about what litigations.· I think it was primarily on the
19 investigations that we had just discussed, which is
20 listed in No. 2.
21· · · · · · · ·And very specifically there, these were
22 serious-enough investigations that we were very worried
23 or very concerned that they would turn into litigation
24 and protracted, you know, engagement with a number of
25 these different authorities.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 97
YVer1f
PDF Page 101
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 100 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3165
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
98
·1· · · · · · · ·So that's -- at the time none of those
·2 were litigations, but that really was the basis for why
·3 we needed to start mapping out analyses.
·4· · ·Q.· ·So to be clear, as Alphabet's corporate
·5 designee, are you saying that there are no other -- or
·6 no litigations that Alphabet believes were part of the
·7 reason to initiate Project Sunday?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form of the
·9 question as garbled.· Could you please rephrase it.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· As Alphabet's corporate
11 designee, is it correct that there are no litigations
12 that Alphabet believes were part of the reason to
13 initiate Project Sunday?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I object to the extent
15 that this question goes beyond the scope of the CID.
16· · · · · · · ·But,
you can answer in your
17 individual capacity if you know.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Actually, let me address
19 Ms. Elmer's representation.
20· · · · · · · ·Alphabet has claimed privilege, both in
21 its privilege logs as to attorney/client and work
22 product privilege, over documents and testimony
23 associated with Project Sunday.· It is squarely within
24 scope.· And if he refuses to answer in his capacity as
25 Alphabet's representative, that is fine; and I
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 98
YVer1f
PDF Page 102
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 101 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3166
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
99
·1 understand your objection.
·2· · · · · · · ·But I want to make clear that the
·3 Division's position is that these questions are squarely
·4 within scope.· So with that, let me repeat the question.
·5· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)·
you can answer
·6 according to your counsel's instructions as you see fit.
·7· · · · · · · ·As Alphabet's corporate designee, is it
·8 correct that there are no litigations that Alphabet
·9 believes were part of its reason to initiate Project
10 Sunday?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I have the same objection
12 as to scope and to the extent that
is not
13 an attorney, but he may answer individually if he knows.
14 He's already provided an answer as the corporate
15 designee that I think was very clear, and you are
16 attempting to garble the record.
17· · · · · · · ·What do you mean by "any litigations"?
18 What is that?
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
as Alphabet's
20 corporate designee, are there any litigations that are
21 not listed in Exhibit 7 that Alphabet believes were part
22 of its reasons to initiate Project Sunday?
23· · ·A.· ·And are you talking about active litigations or
24 anticipation of litigation?
25· · ·Q.· ·Either active or anticipated litigation.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 99
YVer1f
PDF Page 103
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 102 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3167
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
100
·1· · ·A.· ·Okay.· Well, the anticipated I believe covers
·2 this list.· And I'll say I don't know if there are other
·3 litigations, but this list that we've discussed here was
·4 serious enough on its own that any reasonably
·5 responsible corporation would undertake analysis to plan
·6 for the future.
·7· · ·Q.· ·For each of the government investigations
·8 listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7, on what date did Alphabet
·9 anticipate litigation?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I object to this question as
11 invading the attorney work product doctrine, the
12 attorney/client privilege, and instruct the witness not
13 to answer.
14· · · · · · · ·If you want to ask when the government
15 investigations began, he's prepared to answer that.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· No.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· My question is -- and, of
18 course,
should you choose to follow your
19 counsel's instruction not to answer, that is your
20 prerogative.
21· · · · · · · ·For each of the government investigations
22 listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7, on what date did Alphabet
23 anticipate litigation?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.· And same instruction to
25 the witness.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 100
YVer1f
PDF Page 104
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 103 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3168
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
101
·1· · · · · · · ·Let's take a break to discuss this.· I'd
·2 like to take a break to discuss an issue of privilege,
·3 and then we can come back and respond to your question.
·4· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.
·5· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'd ask for that as well.
·6 Thank you.
·7· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·8 11:35 a.m.
·9· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
11 11:50 a.m.
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So, Brent, I'd like to address
13 your response to my scope objection.· If you'd please
14 point me to the spec in the CID that asks for a
15 corporate designee to identify the litigation and the
16 government investigations that were a reason to initiate
17 Project Sunday, I'd like to see that.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· It's a very simple
19 schedule, only two specifications here.· Obviously,
20 specification 1a and everything related and all of
21 specification 2 have to deal with questions with respect
22 to business reasons, as well as other conclusions,
23 findings or recommendations made, reached or adopted by
24 Google relating to internal projects with the code name
25 Project Sunday.·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
has refused to respond to
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 101
YVer1f
PDF Page 105
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 104 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3169
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
102
·1 many questions that are within that scope.
·2· · · · · · · ·And to the extent that Alphabet is raising
·3 a privilege claim, I am entitled squarely within the
·4 scope of the notice to understand what the facts, not
·5 the law, the facts are with respect to what those claims
·6 are.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· Well, you're still
·8 unable to point to a specification that asks for a
·9 designee to testify about the litigation that was a
10 reason to initiate Project Sunday.· So I reiterate my
11 scope objection that I made earlier.
12· · · · · · · ·Now,
has already provided
13 testimony about the identities of the government
14 authorities that were actively investigating the company
15 before all of the projects at issue in the CID were
16 undertaken.
17· · · · · · · ·And he's also testified that Exhibit 7,
18 our letter of February 25th, is consistent with his
19 testimony and the company's position about when those
20 active government investigations began.
21· · · · · · · ·So I reiterate my scope objection; but to
22 the extent that he can answer in his individual capacity
23 without violating the work product doctrine or the
24 privilege, he may.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
I just
888-267-1200 Page 102
YVer1f
PDF Page 106
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 105 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3170
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
103
·1 need to make sure that I get any refusals or nonanswers
·2 on the record.· So I repeat -·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· That's not what I said.
·4 That's not what I said.· I said "to the extent."· So why
·5 don't you repeat your question.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· Let me be clear for
·7 the record.· I just need to make sure that to the extent
·8 a question is not answered, I need to know the reason
·9 why and I need to know whether that refusal is made in
10 Alphabet's corporate capacity or whether it's personal
11 to
12· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· So with that, my question is
13 for each of the government investigations listed on
14 page 2 of Exhibit 7, on what date did Alphabet
15 anticipate litigation?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So same scope objection and
17 instruction; but you may answer,
to the extent
18 that you can in your individual capacity.
19· · ·A.· ·Sorry.· I apologize.· I need to speak with
20 counsel for just one quick minute.· I apologize.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
22· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
23 11:53 a.m.
24· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
25· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 103
YVer1f
PDF Page 107
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 106 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3171
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
104
·1 11:57 a.m.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· My question,
·4 is that for each of the government investigations listed
·5 on page 2 of Exhibit 7, on what date did Alphabet
·6 anticipate litigation?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I object to that question
·8 as invading the attorney/client privilege and the
·9 attorney work product doctrine as it invades the opinion
10 of counsel, in-house and outside counsel, also
11 attorney/client communications.· I also reiterate the
12 same scope objection that I made earlier.
13· · · · · · · ·But to the extent that you can answer,
14
without invading the privilege, please do so.
15· · ·A.· ·So I provided the dates that are consistent
16 with what's in the letter, which are primarily all in
17 2019 with the exception of the ACCC.· And that's when
18 those investigations started.· So as corporate
19 representative, those are the dates that I provide as
20 investigations starting.
21· · · · · · · ·I can answer in a personal capacity of
22 when I believe -- when I believe we viewed these as
23 anticipating litigation would have been, you know, by Q4
24 of 2019, given the number and just the nature of the
25 investigations and what we'd seen.· So that's in my
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 104
YVer1f
PDF Page 108
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 107 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3172
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
105
·1 personal capacity, I'll note that.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And so in your personal
·3 capacity, when you say "Q4 of 2019," what dates does
·4 that cover in 2019?
·5· · ·A.· ·I'm confused.· Are you asking me to articulate
·6 what a quarter is?
·7· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· Do you mean September through December of
·8 2019 is when Google anticipated litigation, or do you
·9 mean something else?
10· · ·A.· ·I believe -11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form to the
12 extent it mischaracterized what a quarter is in a year.
13· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· I just think this is a fairly
14 straightforward question, so what am I missing here?
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· On what precise date within
16 Q4 of 2019 in your personal capacity did Alphabet
17 anticipate litigation with respect to the investigations
18 listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.· And I
20 instruct the witness not to answer to the extent it
21 invades the attorney/client privilege and the work
22 product doctrine.
23· · ·A.· ·I'd say that it's -- yeah.· I guess I'll answer
24 this in two ways.
25· · · · · · · ·First off, if you're asking for when I
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 105
YVer1f
PDF Page 109
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 108 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3173
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
106
·1 might have conferred with counsel or one of our senior
·2 lawyers had conferred with counsel and our business
·3 leaders about a determination, I think that's
·4 privileged.· I think anyone would agree with that.
·5· · · · · · · ·If you're asking for my personal view,
·6 there was a growing series of investigations that were
·7 taking place; and so the likelihood was continuing to
·8 increase up through and into the beginning of Q4,
·9 including with your own suit -- or your own
10 investigation, I'm sorry.· Let me be precise.· I'm not a
11 lawyer, so bear with me.
12· · · · · · · ·I think it's that combination that really
13 made it appear that litigation would be, you know, very
14 anticipated at that point.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you for your personal
16 testimony on that topic.
17· · · · · · · ·Just to close this out, sitting here today
18 as Alphabet's corporate designee in response to the CID,
19 does Alphabet have any testimony to offer with respect
20 to the date on which it anticipated litigation with
21 respect to the investigations listed on page 2 of
22 Exhibit 7?
23· · ·A.· ·I think we've mentioned the scoping argument
24 there.· You know, I have provided my personal view,
25 given that it was not my understanding that this would
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 106
YVer1f
PDF Page 110
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 109 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3174
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
107
·1 be covered.
·2· · ·Q.· ·So you were not prepared as Alphabet's
·3 corporate designee sitting here today in response to the
·4 CID to offer any testimony with respect to the dates on
·5 which Alphabet anticipated litigation with respect to
·6 the investigations listed on page 2, Exhibit 7?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I reiterate the same scope
·8 objection and the same objection to the extent that this
·9 question is improper and invades the work product
10 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
11· · · · · · · ·There is no CID specification asking for a
12 witness to testify on this topic, Brent, and these are
13 improper questions.
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· So, Ms. Elmer, let me just
15 ask you for the basis of your privilege claim.· Are you
16 saying that the dates on which Alphabet anticipated
17 litigation are properly privileged subject to an
18 instruction not to answer?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I am not saying that they're
20 properly privileged.· I'm saying that this witness is
21 not a corporate designee on that topic because you in
22 your CID did not put that topic down there.· And if you
23 had, you know, we would be having a different
24 discussion; but you did not.
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· We can disagree on the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 107
YVer1f
PDF Page 111
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 110 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3175
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
108
·1 scope of the notice.· I believe this is plainly within
·2 scope.· But if
wants to say as the designee
·3 that he does not have any prepared answer, that is fine.
·4 I just need him to say that, and we can move on.
·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· This is outside the scope of
·6 the CID.· This is outside the scope of the CID.· We did
·7 not bring a witness here today to talk about the
·8 company's thought process, how their attorneys think.
·9 That is not why the witness is here today.
10· · · · · · · ·He is here to provide nonprivileged,
11 nonwork product facts regarding six topics, six projects
12 at issue in the CID; and you are way off the
13 reservation.
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· If you want to instruct
15 your witness not to answer my question, that is fine.
16 I'm just going to ask it one more time.· If he has no
17 answer, he has no answer; and I understand that.
I
18 understand your out-of-scope objection.
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Repeat the question, and then
20 we can move on.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
you are not
22 prepared as Alphabet's corporate designee sitting here
23 today in response to the CID to offer any testimony with
24 respect to the dates on which Alphabet anticipated
25 litigation with respect to the investigations listed on
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 108
YVer1f
PDF Page 112
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 111 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3176
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
109
·1 page 2, Exhibit 7?
·2· · ·A.· ·I can offer -- as a corporate designee, I can
·3 offer that Project SingleClick, which was the first in
·4 the series of these projects, would never have been
·5 undertaken if we did not anticipate litigation.· And
·6 that project started in December 2019.
·7· · · · · · · ·But I can't answer your other question the
·8 specific way you phrased it because I think that -- in
·9 my opinion, that violates -- like you're asking me to
10 tell you exactly my conversations with a lawyer or our
11 internal conversations as a corporate with our counsel
12 and our business leaders.
13· · ·Q.· ·To be clear,
I'm not asking you
14 for what you told your lawyers or anything else like
15 that.· All I'm asking for is Alphabet's position on the
16 dates on which it anticipated litigation in response to
17 the investigations listed on page 2, Exhibit 7.· What
18 are those dates?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Brent, he just told you what
20 the date was.· He has answered your question.
21· · ·A.· ·I just don't understand how this would not be a
22 privileged conversation.· You're asking for our
23 combination of our general manager and legal analysis to
24 a regulatory situation.· I just don't get what you're
25 asking and how that would be fair.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 109
YVer1f
PDF Page 113
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 112 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3177
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
110
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· So just to confirm,
·2 and, again, we can close this out and move on.· I am
·3 simply asking, are you saying you are not going to give
·4 me a response because you believe that it would be
·5 privileged,
·6· · ·A.· ·I gave you a response.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· He's already provided you a
·8 response, Brent.· He answered your question.· He said
·9 that SingleClick in December of 2019 would not have been
10 undertaken had litigation not been anticipated.· He's
11 answered your question.· Please stop badgering and
12 harassing the witness.
13· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I am simply attempting to
14 just close out this line of questioning.· If he is not
15 prepared today to testify on it, that is perfectly fine.
16 I just have to know that.
17· · · · · · · ·If you think it's outside of the scope,
18 you can instruct him not to answer.· These are all
19 simple solutions.
20· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· My question -- I'm just
21 trying to close this out -- is,
on what
22 dates did Alphabet anticipate litigation for each
23 investigation listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· If you do not have an
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 110
YVer1f
PDF Page 114
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 113 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3178
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
111
·1 answer, that is okay.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And I would caution counsel
·3 that objections are to be limited to protect the
·4 privilege, preserve a Fifth Amendment right or otherwise
·5 stated shortly and plainly.· If nothing else, we can
·6 just move on.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'll remind the questioner not
·8 to harass the witness.· Same scope objection, asked and
·9 answered.· And I instruct the witness not to answer to
10 the extent that the answer would invade attorney/client
11 privilege or the work product doctrine.
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· To be clear, because
13
brought this up himself, is it your
14 position, Ms. Elmer, today that the dates on which
15 Alphabet anticipated litigation are privileged?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· No.· It is my position that
17 this witness is not the corporate designee on that topic
18 and that that particular question invades attorney work
19 product, opinion work product.
20· · · · · · · ·The date on which counsel for a company
21 decides that a government investigation is likely to
22 lead to litigation is a matter of attorney opinion work
23 product.
24· · · · · · · ·So no, I have not brought a witness here
25 today to testify about opinion work product of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 111
YVer1f
PDF Page 115
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 114 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3179
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
112
·1 attorneys.· So let's move on.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
do you refuse
·3 to answer my question on the basis of your counsel's
·4 advice?
·5· · ·A.· ·I feel like I've answered your question four
·6 times already.· So no, I believe I did answer your
·7 question.
·8· · ·Q.· ·
do you refuse to provide any
·9 additional information in response to my question based
10 on your counsel's advice?
11· · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
13· · · · · · · ·As part of Project Sunday, is Alphabet
14 considering any divestitures?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
16 answer because the question invades the privilege and
17 work product.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow your
19 counsel's instruction?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·Prior to Project Sunday, since 2019, has
22 Alphabet considered divesting any of its AdTech
23 products?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I'm sorry.· Outside of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 112
YVer1f
PDF Page 116
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 115 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3180
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
113
·1 Project Sunday, since 2019, has Alphabet considered
·2 divesting any of its AdTech products?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
·4 answer to the extent that the question invades the
·5 privilege or attorney work product.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I don't understand,
·7 Ms. Elmer, the basis for your privilege instruction,
·8 given that I said "outside of Project Sunday."· Are you
·9 saying that everything outside of Project Sunday is
10 privileged?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I think we're here about a lot
12 of projects, Brent, today.· So why don't you ask a
13 better question.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· As part of any projects
15 outside of Project Sunday, did Alphabet consider any
16 divestitures of its AdTech products?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Is your privilege
19 instruction, Ms. Elmer, based on the notion that the
20 names of projects outside of Project Sunday are
21 privileged?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· It is not.
23· · · · · · · ·And we've been going for quite some time,
24 and I think we've reached our lunch break time.· So why
25 don't we take a lunch break, and then we can come back.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 113
YVer1f
PDF Page 117
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 116 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3181
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
114
·1· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's go off
·2 the record.
·3· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Going off the record at
·4 12:10 p.m.
·5· · · · · · · ·(Luncheon recess)
·6· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·7 12:52 p.m.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Thanks for
·9 returning,
I'm just going to finish off
10 the question I had earlier.
11· · · · · · · ·As part of any projects outside of Project
12 Sunday, did Alphabet consider any divestitures of its
13 AdTech products?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Brent, do you mean the other
15 projects listed in the CID, or do you mean any other
16 projects at Google ever?
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Any other projects at
18 Google ever since 2019.
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· So I object to
20 your question as being outside the scope of the CID, but
21
may answer in his personal capacity if he can to
22 the extent that such an answer would not invade the
23 privilege or work product.
24· · ·A.· ·So as the corporate designee relating to these
25 projects --
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 114
YVer1f
PDF Page 118
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 117 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3182
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
115
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Well,
I'm sorry to
·2 interrupt.· I'm sorry to interrupt.· But because this
·3 question is going beyond the scope of the CID, I'm
·4 instructing you to answer in your personal capacity
·5 here.
·6· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Oh, okay.
·7· · ·A.· ·Then I would say I can't answer due to
·8 privilege.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is one of the -- and
10 what are the names of projects for which Alphabet was
11 considering divestitures of its AdTech products?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
13 answer the question because the question invades the
14 attorney/client privilege and the work product doctrine.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow your
16 counsel's instruction?
17· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Are you actually asking me, like, about
18 the privileged contents?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· He is, and I instruct you not
20 to answer.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And that's fine.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· As part of -- I'm sorry.
23 And are you going to follow your counsel's instruction
24 not to answer?
25· · ·A.· ·Yeah.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 115
YVer1f
PDF Page 119
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 118 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3183
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
116
·1· · ·Q.· ·As part of Project Sunday, is Alphabet
·2 considering any changes to the way its AdTech products
·3 operate?
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you going to follow your
·6 counsel's instruction?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Did Project Sunday incorporate any business
·9 analyses previously performed by Alphabet employees
10 before Project Sunday began?
11· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry, can you repeat it?
12· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· Did Project Sunday incorporate any
13 business analyses performed by Alphabet employees before
14 Project Sunday began?
15· · ·A.· ·So my understanding is there was an industry
16 report that had been prepared in the general course of
17 normal business separate from the project and that
18 pieces of that, namely, facts, were taken and then
19 incorporated into the project.
20· · · · · · · ·Yeah.· That's for a portion of the
21 project; and, yeah, that's the extent of my
22 understanding there.
23· · ·Q.· ·And who performed that -- or who created that
24 industry report that you just described?
25· · ·A.· ·And actually, I want to amend my last answer
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 116
YVer1f
PDF Page 120
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 119 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3184
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
117
·1 after I answer this.
·2· · · · · · · ·So Lazard, the investment bank, was on a
·3 general retainer for general industry trends.· So they
·4 had provided that report as part of a separate sort of
·5 ongoing, what's going on in industry retainer.· So they
·6 were unaware of its use in this project.
·7· · · · · · · ·And again I'll say that that was a
·8 collection of facts that were then used.· So that's
·9 that.
10· · · · · · · ·I want to say also there were pieces of
11 analysis from other projects listed in the CID that
12 were -- that were used and incorporated in Project
13 Sunday.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what are the names of those projects whose
15 pieces of analyses were included in Project Sunday?
16· · ·A.· ·SingleClick and Stonehenge.
17· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And other than work from Projects
18 SingleClick, Stonehenge and Lazard's work as you
19 previously described, was any other business analysis
20 performed by an Alphabet employee incorporated into
21 Project Sunday?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form as
23 mischaracterizing testimony and assuming facts.
24· · · · · · · ·But you may answer.
25· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you repeat?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 117
YVer1f
PDF Page 121
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 120 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3185
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
118
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Sure.· And is there any
·2 other business analysis other than from Project
·3 SingleClick, Project Stonehenge and Lazard incorporated
·4 into Project Sunday -·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form -- go
·6 ahead.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· -- that was undertaken prior
·8 to the beginning of Project Sunday?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form as
10 mischaracterizing testimony, assuming facts and
11 misleading.
12· · · · · · · ·But you may answer if you can.
13· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· I'm still not -14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Other than what you've just
15 listed, were there any other business analyses performed
16 by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of Project
17 Sunday that were incorporated into Project Sunday?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the
19 mischaracterization of SingleClick and Stonehenge as
20 business analyses.· Also object to the
21 mischaracterization of any work provided by Lazard as
22 being the work of a Google employee.
23· · · · · · · ·Other than that, you may answer if you
24 can,
25· · ·A.· ·I'm not aware of any other prior work that had
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 118
YVer1f
PDF Page 122
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 121 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3186
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
119
·1 been done that was contributed to Project Sunday.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
·3· · · · · · · ·And what data sources did Alphabet
·4 employees rely upon for any financial analyses prepared
·5 for Project Sunday?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object as invading the work
·7 product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
·8· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So I can't answer for those reasons.
·9· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I'm sorry.· To be clear,
10 are you instructing
not to answer?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow your
13 counsel's instruction?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·So if you turn to Exhibit 7, page 4 at the
16 bottom -- let me know if you need us to refresh that or
17 if you have it up.
18· · ·A.· ·Is this the 225 -- oh, no, wait.· That's
19 No. 20.
20· · ·Q.· ·That's my internal tab number.· That is
21 Exhibit 7.· So it is the February 25th letter.
22· · ·A.· ·Okay.
23· · ·Q.· ·Let me know when you have that up.
24· · ·A.· ·Page 4, yes.· I have that up.
25· · ·Q.· ·So I just want to make sure that in the last
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 119
YVer1f
PDF Page 123
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 122 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3187
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
120
·1 bullet point that spills over to the next page, does
·2 that accurately summarize Lazard's involvement in
·3 providing work that was used in Project Sunday?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.· And -·5· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Go ahead.
·6· · ·A.· ·To be very specific, work not for Project
·7 Sunday but work that was subsequently used in Project
·8 Sunday, yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And who on Google's corporate development team
10 interfaced with Lazard?
11· · ·A.· ·
He's the primary contact with
12 Lazard.
13· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else from Alphabet interact with
14 Lazard with respect to the project as described on
15 page 4 of Exhibit 7?
16· · ·A.· ·With respect to the general retainer agreement,
17 I believe
likely interacts with them
18 occasionally.
19· · ·Q.· ·And did Lazard make a presentation to any
20 Alphabet employee with respect to the general overview
21 of the AdTech industry as described at the top of page 5
22 of Exhibit 7?
23· · ·A.· ·That, I don't know.· At the very least they
24 provided a document.
25· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I'll now turn to ask you about Project
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 120
YVer1f
PDF Page 124
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 123 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3188
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
121
·1 Monday, which is part of specifications 1b,
·2 specification 2.
·3· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Monday" for
·4 the project?
·5· · ·A.· ·I did.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And what was the subject matter of Project
·7 Monday?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
·9 answer to the extent that it would invade the privilege;
10 but, otherwise, you may answer.
11· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· It was an analysis for a particular
12 remedy to be undertaken due to the anticipated
13 litigation.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what was the particular
15 remedy to be undertaken?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
17· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· That's privileged.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So will you follow your
19 counsel's instruction not to answer?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·So turning to page 5 of Exhibit 7, is this a
22 complete list in bullet point 2 of all outside counsel
23 who worked on Project Monday?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·And is this a complete list of all Google
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 121
YVer1f
PDF Page 125
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 124 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3189
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
122
·1 in-house counsel who worked on Project Monday?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes, although, again, I want to distinguish
·3 between "worked on" and "made aware of."
·4· · ·Q.· ·And what is that distinction?
·5· · ·A.· ·In that I don't know if all of them were
·6 contributing to the document as much as possibly, you
·7 know, this would have been provided to them but they
·8 likely didn't do -- many of them likely didn't do work,
·9 quote unquote, work.
10· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And who initiated Project Monday?
11· · ·A.· ·I did.
12· · ·Q.· ·Did Mr. Schindler initiate Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·No.· I think I just told you I did.
14· · ·Q.· ·And did anyone else initiate Project Monday?
15· · ·A.· ·No.
16· · ·Q.· ·What was -- what were your job responsibilities
17 with respect to Project Monday?
18· · ·A.· ·To steward the business through regulatory -19 potential regulatory action.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what work did you do with respect to
21 Project Monday?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And,
I instruct you not
23 to answer to the extent that answering would invade the
24 work product doctrine or privilege.· But if there's a
25 way that you can answer with not invading the privilege,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 122
YVer1f
PDF Page 126
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 125 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3190
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
123
·1 then you may do so.
·2· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sure.
·3· · ·A.· ·In conjunction with legal counsel, I authored a
·4 potential remedy.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And which legal counsel did
·6 you author that in conjunction with?
·7· · ·A.· ·Ted Lazarus and
and I believe
·8 possibly
·9· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Could you spell that last name?
10· · ·A.· ·It's a first name,
11· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· Could you spell that for us, please.
12· · ·A.· ·
.
13· · ·Q.· ·I see now.· Okay.· And is his last name
14
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
17· · · · · · · ·And that's listed at the last line of
18 Google's in-house counsel included.· Is that correct?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · ·Q.· ·And when did you author that legal remedy?
21· · ·A.· ·So that was approximately -- it was early
22 March 2021.
23· · ·Q.· ·And did you write that legal remedy down in a
24 document?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 123
YVer1f
PDF Page 127
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 126 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3191
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
124
·1· · ·Q.· ·What form did that document take?
·2· · ·A.· ·A written docs, document.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Did you make any presentations to anyone at
·4 Alphabet with respect to that legal remedy?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And when did you make that presentation?
·7· · ·A.· ·In the April/May time frame.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And I'm sorry.· To be clear, do you mean
·9 April/May 2021?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·And who was at the presentation in April or
12 May 2021?
13· · ·A.· ·Scott Spencer,
14 possibly
Ted Lazarus,
And that would have been it.
15· · ·Q.· ·And what was Mr. Lazarus' role in the
16 presentation?
17· · ·A.· ·Audience and -- yeah, primarily audience, but
18 also, you know, had provided legal advice.
19· · ·Q.· ·Did anyone else present the legal remedy that
20 you authored in the April or May 2021 presentation?
21· · ·A.· ·I suspect that may have happened up the chain
22 that I wasn't personally aware of.· But yeah, I do
23 believe that the contents of this were presented up to
24 senior management without me.
25· · ·Q.· ·And who did the presentation of that legal
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 124
YVer1f
PDF Page 128
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 127 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3192
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
125
·1 remedy after April or May 2021?
·2· · ·A.· ·I believe
and/or
·3· · ·Q.· ·And who attended that presentation in senior
·4 management of the legal remedy that you had authored?
·5· · ·A.· ·I believe it might have been
·6
Those are the ones that I'm aware -- that
·7 I'm -- that I believe are likely.
·8· · · · · · · ·Also, actually, now that I think about it
·9 as well, I believe in March some of this would have been
10 presented as well to
and she may have
11 presented it up further as well.
12· · ·Q.· ·And returning to this list, what was
13
job responsibility with respect to
14 Project Monday?
15· · ·A.· ·Are you asking what work he performed or are
16 you asking -17· · ·Q.· ·What were his job responsibilities with respect
18 to Project Monday?
19· · ·A.· ·I mean, primarily he was the audience.
20· · ·Q.· ·Did
make any decisions based on
21 the presentation of Project Monday?
22· · ·A.· ·No decisions were made regarding Project
23 Monday.
24· · ·Q.· ·I apologize.· Did
do any work with
25 respect to Project Monday?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 125
YVer1f
PDF Page 129
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 128 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3193
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
126
·1· · ·A.· ·No.
·2· · ·Q.· ·What were
job responsibilities
·3 with respect to Project Monday?
·4· · ·A.· ·As audience.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what do you mean by "as audience"?
·6· · ·A.· ·Meaning it was presented to him -- I believe it
·7 was presented to him as a document.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And did
make any decisions with
·9 respect to Project Monday?
10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·What were Mr. Schindler's job responsibilities
12 with respect to Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·I don't know if he was read in or not to
14 Project Monday.· So if he was, it would be the same
15 answers I've just given for
and
If he
16 wasn't read in, then he wasn't part of the project.
17· · ·Q.· ·In preparing for this deposition as Alphabet's
18 corporate representative, what did you do to attempt to
19 determine whether
was read in to Project
20 Monday?
21· · ·A.· ·I think we checked to see if he was included on
22 the document specifically, given there was no formal
23 presentation of this as there was in Project Sunday.
24· · · · · · · ·So I believe his name was on the document,
25 which means someone likely shared the document with him.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 126
YVer1f
PDF Page 130
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 129 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3194
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
127
·1· · ·Q.· ·But you did not as part of your preparation
·2 speak to or receive information about whether
·3 Mr. Schindler participated in Project Monday.· Is that
·4 correct?
·5· · ·A.· ·That is correct, yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·What was
job responsibility with
·7 respect to Project Monday?
·8· · ·A.· ·This would be the same as I've said for
·9
and
10· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
do with respect to
11 Project Monday?
12· · ·A.· ·It would be the same.
13· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· If you could complete your answer.
14 This would be the same as?
15· · ·A.· ·As for
and
16· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job responsibilities
17 with respect to Project Monday?
18· · ·A.· ·The same.
19· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry?
20· · ·A.· ·This is going to be the same for, like, just
21 about everyone on this list.· So do you want me to
22 identify who the working team members were or identify
23 who falls into this same bucket just for expediency?
24· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
25· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So the following group all were just
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 127
YVer1f
PDF Page 131
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 130 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3195
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
128
·1 audience and had no other associated work.· So
·2
Scott Spencer -- actually, no, let me separate
·3 that.
·4· · · · · · · ·
all had no involvement other than audience,
·7
as well.
·8· · · · · · · ·Then the working members of the team were
·9 Scott Spencer,
and me, along with
10 counsel, of course.
11· · ·Q.· ·And which counsel were part of the working team
12 for Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·Ted Lazarus primarily.
14· · ·Q.· ·Were any other of the listed Google in-house
15 counsel part of the working team for Project Monday?
16· · ·A.· ·I believe
and
would have provided
17 some amount of advice as well.
18· · ·Q.· ·Are there any other Google in-house -- I'm
19 sorry.
20· · ·A.· ·And maybe
.
21· · ·Q.· ·Are there any other Google in-house counsel
22 that are not listed here who are part of the working
23 team for Project Monday?
24· · ·A.· ·Actually, it's likely that
was involved
25 in some initial document creation but not in the -- but
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 128
YVer1f
PDF Page 132
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 131 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3196
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
129
·1 not in the further working team.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, that's
who is
·3 listed here?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes, that's right.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And so let me just ask my question to round
·6 this out.· Are there any other Google in-house counsel
·7 that are not listed here who were part of the working
·8 team for Project Monday?
·9· · ·A.· ·No.
10· · ·Q.· ·And when did Project Monday begin?
11· · ·A.· ·Early March 2021.
12· · ·Q.· ·And what event began Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·The creation of a document.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what document do you mean when you say "the
15 creation of a document"?
16· · ·A.· ·A document of a remedy.· I don't want to say
17 anything further for privilege.
18· · ·Q.· ·And that is, to be clear, the document that was
19 presented in April or May of 2021.· Is that correct?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I wouldn't say presented, but it was a
21 document that was completed.
22· · ·Q.· ·When did Project Monday end?
23· · ·A.· ·May 2021.
24· · ·Q.· ·And how did Alphabet determine that Project
25 Monday ended in May of 2021?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 129
YVer1f
PDF Page 133
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 132 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3197
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
130
·1· · ·A.· ·No further work was done on the project.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Did someone at Alphabet make the decision to
·3 close or end Project Monday?
·4· · ·A.· ·No.· I don't think it was anything that
·5 definitive.· I think basically I looked at what we had
·6 and decided enough analysis had been performed and put
·7 it on a shelf.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Have any meetings with respect to Project
·9 Monday occurred since May of 2021?
10· · ·A.· ·No, though given this was an analysis, you
11 know, the knowledge -- the knowledge persists, and we're
12 still under, you know, the eight investigations
13 mentioned here.· So it's likely that the work product
14 from that is factoring into our thinking.· So I'll note
15 that.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· At any time did anyone at Alphabet
17 discuss Project Monday with an individual or entity not
18 employed by Alphabet other than outside counsel?
19· · ·A.· ·No.
20· · ·Q.· ·Did any discussions of Project Monday occur
21 with Lazard?
22· · ·A.· ·No.
23· · ·Q.· ·What was the cost associated -- I'm sorry.
24· · · · · · · ·What was the cost to Alphabet associated
25 with Project Monday specified in dollars or hours?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 130
YVer1f
PDF Page 134
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 133 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3198
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
131
·1· · ·A.· ·So I don't believe there's any dollars that I
·2 would note explicitly here that could be, like, easily
·3 disentangled.· This was a smaller project, so I think
·4 the hours would be, you know, a small fraction of those
·5 that I had noted on Project Sunday.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And sitting here today as Alphabet's corporate
·7 designee, what is your reasonable estimate as to the
·8 number of employee hours spent on Project Monday?
·9· · ·A.· ·Ten.
10· · ·Q.· ·And that is across the company or just for you
11 personally?
12· · ·A.· ·Across the company.
13· · ·Q.· ·And sitting here today as Alphabet's corporate
14 designee, how much has Alphabet spent on outside counsel
15 with respect to Project Monday?
16· · ·A.· ·This is hard to answer.· I would say not a lot,
17 but I don't know how to get into -- like even if I
18 looked at timelines, I don't think that could be
19 determined.· So a small amount.
20· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And what, translated into dollars, if
21 you have any reasonable estimate, does "a small amount"
22 mean?
23· · ·A.· ·I don't know.
24· · ·Q.· ·Okay.
25· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I don't know.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 131
YVer1f
PDF Page 135
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 134 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3199
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
132
·1· · ·Q.· ·Did you do anything in preparation for this
·2 deposition to determine the amount that Alphabet spent
·3 on outside counsel with respect to Project Monday?
·4· · ·A.· ·I did review calendar entries of attorneys that
·5 would have been present on the calls, and it was not
·6 easily discernible.· And if I looked further in, I don't
·7 think I would have gotten to an answer.· So I didn't
·8 spend time there because I don't believe it would have
·9 assisted.
10· · ·Q.· ·And what government investigations served as a
11 basis for Alphabet initiating Project Monday?
12· · ·A.· ·This is going to be the same discussion we had
13 for Sunday.
14· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear then, is the list of government
15 investigations that caused Alphabet to initiate Project
16 Sunday listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes, that's correct, although I would say -18 yeah.· In particular the first seven listed, the last
19 one was, you know, less of an impact, but I would say
20 the first seven had a -- were primary.
21· · ·Q.· ·And by "last one listed," you mean the
22 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.· Is that
23 correct?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·Is there any litigation, whether anticipated or
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 132
YVer1f
PDF Page 136
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 135 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3200
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
133
·1 actual, that the project was undertaken in response to?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·What is that litigation?
·4· · ·A.· ·The anticipated litigation are the first seven
·5 listed here.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Is there any other litigation not listed here
·7 that Project Monday was undertaken in response to?
·8· · ·A.· ·That were primary cause?· I don't believe so.
·9 I think this is -- this is materially the list.· There
10 may have been some others that, you know, potentially
11 could rise to that but not -- I don't believe they're
12 primary.· I think that's the question you're asking.
13· · ·Q.· ·No.· My question is, is there any litigation,
14 whether anticipated or actual, that Project Monday was
15 undertaken in response to?
16· · ·A.· ·Is there any litigation or anticipated
17 litigation?
18· · ·Q.· ·Either.
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So other than the ones that
20 he's already testified about that are listed in the
21 letter?
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.· I'm just trying to
23 determine whether this list is complete, and if not,
24 what those litigations, whether actual or anticipated,
25 are.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 133
YVer1f
PDF Page 137
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 136 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3201
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
134
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the extent that it's
·2 already been asked and answered.
·3· · · · · · · ·But you can answer again,
·4· · ·A.· ·Well, if you're asking other anticipated
·5 litigation like -- we're under a lot of scrutiny
·6 globally.· So yeah, of course there are going to be
·7 other considerations.· But to the extent they were
·8 materializing, this is the list I think at the time that
·9 we're -- where we had a -- you know, a belief in
10 anticipated litigation.
11· · · · · · · ·If you're asking were there any other
12 possibly that were -- yes, although I can't name them
13 specifically.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Were there any
15 regulations that Alphabet initiated Project Monday in
16 response to?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the extent that it
18 exceeds the scope of the CID.
19· · · · · · · ·But you may answer in your personal
20 capacity, if you know,
21· · ·A.· ·I think regulations are an aspect that have to
22 be considered in all of this.· I guess maybe if you can
23 be precise in your question again, and I'll try to
24 answer as best I can.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What are the names of any
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 134
YVer1f
PDF Page 138
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 137 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3202
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
135
·1 regulations that caused Alphabet to initiate Project
·2 Monday?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so I object because this
·4 is a question that invades the attorney/client privilege
·5 and the work product doctrine, and I instruct the
·6 witness not to answer.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Will you follow your
·8 counsel's instruction?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Were there any draft presentations prepared
11 regarding Project Monday that were not finalized?
12· · ·A.· ·It's possible, yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how many -14· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I think there were two or three
15 documents, and my guess is -- I believe one of them was
16 finalized and two of them were not.
17· · ·Q.· ·And who wrote the documents that were not
18 finalized?
19· · ·A.· ·I wrote one of them, and our legal team had
20 begun writing another of them and likely had -- I likely
21 contributed to that one.
22· · ·Q.· ·And who on the legal team began writing the
23 other non-finalized document?
24· · ·A.· ·I believe the doc was created by
25 likely had authoring by Ted Lazarus and
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
and
-- some
888-267-1200 Page 135
YVer1f
PDF Page 139
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 138 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3203
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
136
·1 contributions by
and
·2· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry, two clarifications.· Do you mean
·3 Alex Bergersen?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what was the last name that you mentioned?
·6· · ·A.· ·
·7· · ·Q.· ·That's
.· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·That's correct.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
11· · · · · · · ·Did any Alphabet employee create a
12 financial forecast as part of Project Monday?
13· · ·A.· ·I think that's privileged.
14· · ·Q.· ·I'll ask again.· If your counsel wants to
15 object, she can.
16· · · · · · · ·Did any Alphabet employee create a
17 financial forecast as part of Project Monday?
18· · ·A.· ·It's still privileged.· I think I answered it.
19 You're asking me what -20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· Brent, our position
21 here is that you guys are not entitled to know the
22 substantive details of these work product and
23 attorney/client privileged projects.· We're here to
24 provide, you know, a verbal privilege log, and that's
25 what we're doing.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 136
YVer1f
PDF Page 140
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 139 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3204
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
137
·1· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· So I'll ask the
·2 question again; if you want to instruct him not to
·3 answer, let's do that and we'll move forward.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Did any Alphabet employee
·5 create a financial forecast as part of Project Monday?
·6· · ·A.· ·How many times are you going to ask me?
·7· · ·Q.· ·You need to answer my question unless your
·8 counsel specifically instructs you not to answer based
·9 on this; then we can just move on.
10· · ·A.· ·For the third time, that's privileged.· I don't
11 understand the disagreement here.
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· Brent, if you want me
13 to do a song and dance, okay.· I instruct him not to
14 answer to the extent that it seeks information protected
15 by the work product doctrine and the attorney/client
16 privilege.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· And,
do
18 you have any information to provide me subject to your
19 counsel's instruction regarding privilege?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And work product.
21· · ·A.· ·Again -22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· No.· My question,
23
is do you have any information to provide
24 me subject to your counsel's instruction regarding any
25 privilege?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 137
YVer1f
PDF Page 141
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 140 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3205
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
138
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Or work product.
·2· · ·A.· ·Do I have anything to provide?· No, I don't.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Do you have information that
·4 you know but are refusing to provide on the basis of
·5 privilege?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· That's ridiculous, Brent.
I
·7 really instruct you to stop harassing the witness here.
·8 That's enough.· He's answered your question.· Let's move
·9 on to the other topics in the CID.
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Counsel, I need a
11 refusal -12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· No.· You don't need.· You've
13 already gotten year answer, Brent.
14· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· So, Ms. Elmer, I think we
15 both know that as a legal requirement I need to ask the
16 question and he needs to refuse if he's going to refuse
17 on the basis of a valid privilege, and that's fine.
18· · · · · · · ·We can move forward professionally and
19 quickly through this, but procedure needs to be
20 followed.· And to the extent you would like to refuse to
21 follow that procedure, that is your choice.
22· · · · · · · ·But we are where we are today and I'm
23 going to keep asking.· To the extent he refuses to
24 answer for some other reason or is not responsive to my
25 questions, we have other remedies, and that's fine.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 138
YVer1f
PDF Page 142
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 141 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3206
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
139
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So my question is do you
·2 have information that you know but are refusing to
·3 provide on the basis of privilege?
·4· · ·A.· ·I can't answer that for two reasons: one, due
·5 to privilege and, two, because I think this is
·6 obnoxious.
·7· · ·Q.· ·My question is simply,
whether
·8 you have information that you're withholding on the
·9 basis of privilege, which is fine.· I just need to know
10 that that information exists.
11· · ·A.· ·I can't answer whether information exists or
12 not because that would violate privilege.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· What information -- what do
14 you mean by "information," Brent?· Maybe if you can ask
15 a better question, we can get somewhere.· Why don't you
16 rephrase your question.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
my question is
18 did any Alphabet employee provide -- I'm sorry.
19· · · · · · · ·Did any Alphabet employee create a
20 financial forecast as a part of Project Monday?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so
has
22 already declined to answer on the basis of the work
23 product doctrine.· What more do you need?
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Is that correct,
25
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 139
YVer1f
PDF Page 143
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 142 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3207
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
140
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· As part of Project Monday, is Alphabet
·3 considering any divestitures?
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
·5 to answer the question to the extent that it seeks
·6 information that invades the attorney/client privilege
·7 and the work product doctrine.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you answer my question,
·9
10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·As part of Project Monday, did Alphabet
12 consider divesting any of its AdTech products?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I have the same instruction.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you answer my question,
15
16· · ·A.· ·Nope.
17· · ·Q.· ·As part of Project Monday, is Alphabet
18 considering any acquisitions?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
20· · ·A.· ·Decline to answer.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· On the basis of work product
22 privilege.· Is that correct?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Right.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· As part of Project Monday,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 140
YVer1f
PDF Page 144
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 143 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3208
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
141
·1 is Alphabet considering any changes to the way its
·2 AdTech products operate?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection -- or same
·4 instruction.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow your
·6 counsel's instruction?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yep.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Did Project Monday incorporate any other
·9 financial analyses previously performed by Alphabet
10 employees?
11· · ·A.· ·I think that it's not something that I can
12 answer again for the same reasons.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Why don't we take a break to
14 discuss -- a quick break to discuss an issue of
15 privilege.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
18 1:32 p.m.
19· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
20· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
21 1:39 p.m.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Well, thank you
23 for returning,
24· · · · · · · ·I want to make clear for the record that
25 the indications of attorney/client and work product
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 141
YVer1f
PDF Page 145
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 144 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3209
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
142
·1 privileges are legal judgments.· This is not a matter of
·2 mere process.· I'm just trying to move this along
·3 efficiently.· But it is a significant issue that counsel
·4 for the witness make the appropriate objections and,
·5
you as the witness either accept your
·6 advice of counsel and refuse to answer the question on
·7 the basis of privilege or that you provide an answer to
·8 the question since this is a legal issue and we have
·9 confirmed through your testimony today and otherwise
10 that you are not an attorney.
11· · · · · · · ·So with that, let me move on.· What data
12 sources did Alphabet employees rely upon for any
13 financial analyses prepared for Project Monday?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so, Brent, I object and
15 instruct the witness not to answer as your question is
16 seeking information regarding the contents of documents
17 that have been properly withheld as work product.· So I
18 am instructing the witness not to answer the question on
19 that basis.
20· · · · · · · ·In addition, I'm objecting to your
21 question as assuming facts not in evidence and as
22 misleading.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
will you
25 follow your counsel's instruction not to answer?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 142
YVer1f
PDF Page 146
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 145 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3210
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
143
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
·3 upon for any divestiture analyses prepared for Project
·4 Monday?
·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and same
·6 objection.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And,
will you
·8 follow that instruction?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
11 upon for any pricing analyses prepared for Project
12 Monday?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and same
14 objection.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
will you
16 follow that instruction?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·Are there any successor projects to Project
19 Monday?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to your question as
21 outside the scope of the CID and as invading the work
22 product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
23· · · · · · · ·I instruct the witness not to answer the
24 question.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow that
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 143
YVer1f
PDF Page 147
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 146 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3211
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
144
·1 instruction?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·All right.· I will now ask you about Project
·4 SingleClick, which is part of specifications 1d and
·5 specification 2.· So if you'd turn to Exhibit 7, page 2.
·6 That's the file name that begins with 20 previously in
·7 front of you.· Please,
let me know when
·8 you are there.
·9· · ·A.· ·I am there.
10· · ·Q.· ·Who chose the name "Project SingleClick" for
11 this project?
12· · ·A.· ·I believe it was
.
13· · ·Q.· ·And what is the subject matter of Project
14 SingleClick?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
16 answer to the extent that answering would invade the
17 privilege or work product doctrine, but you may answer
18 if you can do so without invading the privilege,
19· · ·A.· ·Sure.· It was an analysis of potential remedies
20 to some anticipated regulatory actions.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And was the project
22 undertaken in anticipation of litigation concerning
23 Google's AdTech business?
24· · ·A.· ·Yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·And what was the goal of Project SingleClick?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 144
YVer1f
PDF Page 148
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 147 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3212
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
145
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· You may
·2 answer to the extent you would not waive the privilege
·3 or invade the work product doctrine.
·4· · ·A.· ·To be properly prepared if regulatory actions
·5 occurred.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What outside counsel were
·7 involved in Project SingleClick?
·8· · ·A.· ·They're listed in the second bullet point
·9 here -10· · ·Q.· ·Were any -- sorry.
11· · ·A.· ·-- on page 2.
12· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And we are referring to
14 Exhibit No. 7.· Is that right?
15· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
17· · · · · · · ·Were any outside counsel who worked on
18 this project not listed here?
19· · ·A.· ·No.
20· · ·Q.· ·What Alphabet employees who are not lawyers
21 worked on, approved or evaluated Project SingleClick?
22· · ·A.· ·Those are listed in bullet point 4 here on
23 page 2 of Exhibit 7.
24· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And what was
role on Project
25 SingleClick?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 145
YVer1f
PDF Page 149
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 148 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3213
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
146
·1· · ·A.· ·To provide initial scoping of the project.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And did she have any other job responsibilities
·3 on Project SingleClick?
·4· · ·A.· ·Yes.· As a general manager, this falls within
·5 her business.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And what business is that?
·7· · ·A.· ·Running the ADVA division.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And did
do any work with respect to
·9 Project SingleClick?
10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·Who initiated Project SingleClick?
12· · ·A.· ·This was a combination of
and Ted
13 Lazarus.
14· · ·Q.· ·And how was Project SingleClick initiated?
15· · ·A.· ·Through a verbal discussion.
16· · ·Q.· ·And which Alphabet employees were involved in
17 that verbal discussion?
18· · ·A.· ·Ted Lazarus and
myself and
.
20· · ·Q.· ·
is listed under "Google employees
21 included."· Is that correct?
22· · ·A.· ·That's correct.
23· · ·Q.· ·What was
job responsibility with
24 respect to Project SingleClick?
25· · ·A.· ·Contributor.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 146
YVer1f
PDF Page 150
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 149 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3214
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
147
·1· · ·Q.· ·And what contributions did
make?
·2· · ·A.· ·That would violate privilege.
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· So I'll give the
·4 instruction.· To the extent that this question invades
·5 the work product doctrine or privilege, I instruct the
·6 witness not to answer.· If there is a way to answer
·7 without invading either one of those, then you may do
·8 so.
·9· · ·A.· ·He's an engineer.· That's all I can answer.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
11· · · · · · · ·What was
job responsibility
12 with respect to Project Monday -- I'm sorry, Project
13 SingleClick?· My apologies.
14· · ·A.· ·He's a contributor.
15· · ·Q.· ·What did his contributions involve?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· But if
17 there's a way to answer without invading the work
18 product doctrine or the attorney/client privilege, you
19 may do so.
20· · ·A.· ·He's a product manager.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And when you say, "He's a
22 product manager," what do you mean?
23· · ·A.· ·I mean his role at Google is as a product
24 manager in the AdManager product.
25· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 147
YVer1f
PDF Page 151
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 150 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3215
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
148
·1· · · · · · · ·And what were your job responsibilities
·2 with respect to Project SingleClick?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· If there's
·4 a way to answer without invading the privilege, you may
·5 do so.
·6· · ·A.· ·My role is to provide high-level guidance.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is your role to provide
·8 high-level guidance -- I'm sorry.· Strike that.
·9· · · · · · · ·To whom was your role to provide
10 high-level guidance?
11· · ·A.· ·To both the working team and to my leadership.
12· · ·Q.· ·And who was on the working team with respect to
13 Project SingleClick?
14· · ·A.· ·This is everyone in bullet 4 except for
15
16· · ·Q.· ·And who was part of the leadership with respect
17 to Project SingleClick?
18· · ·A.· ·
19· · ·Q.· ·And what was
role with respect
20 to Project SingleClick?
21· · ·A.· ·He's my engineering partner.
22· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean by "engineering partner"?
23· · ·A.· ·He's responsible for engineering for the same
24 products I'm responsible for.
25· · ·Q.· ·And what was
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
job responsibility
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 148
YVer1f
PDF Page 152
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 151 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3216
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
149
·1 with respect to Project SingleClick?
·2· · ·A.· ·She is in charge of AdManager as a product
·3 manager.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And at the time of Project SingleClick, did she
·5 report to you?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·When did Project SingleClick begin?
·8· · ·A.· ·December of 2019.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And did Project SingleClick begin with the
10 conversation between Mr. Lazarus,
and others
11 that you referenced earlier?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·And did Project SingleClick evolve into Project
14 Stonehenge?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · ·Q.· ·And how did Project SingleClick evolve into
17 Project Stonehenge?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And, again, to the extent that
19 answering would invade the privilege or work product
20 doctrine, I instruct you not to answer.· But if there's
21 a way to answer without invading the privilege, please
22 do so.
23· · ·A.· ·Stonehenge was further investigation and
24 analysis into one of the areas that SingleClick had
25 looked into.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 149
YVer1f
PDF Page 153
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 152 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3217
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
150
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what was the area
·2 SingleClick looked into?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I do instruct the witness not
·4 to answer because that is invading the privilege and the
·5 work product doctrine.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow your
·7 counsel's instruction?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·So is it Alphabet's position then that Project
10 SingleClick ended in February 2020?
11· · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · ·Q.· ·Are there any parts of Project SingleClick that
13 are ongoing other than aspects that have been merged
14 into Project Stonehenge?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So object to the form to the
16 extent it's misleading or assumes facts.
17· · · · · · · ·But you may answer.
18· · ·A.· ·You know, the project was -- work on this
19 project ceased in February.· I'll say the same thing I
20 said earlier, which is that the knowledge persists and,
21 you know, finds its way into analysis as we work with
22 these other investigations.· But the specific work on
23 this project ceased in February.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· In total how many
25 meetings occurred at Alphabet for Project SingleClick?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 150
YVer1f
PDF Page 154
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 153 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3218
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
151
·1· · ·A.· ·Approximately 15 to 20.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And how many of those 15 to 20 meetings were
·3 attended by inside or outside counsel for Google?
·4· · ·A.· ·I would say nearly all of them.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what was Mr. Lazarus' role on Project
·6 SingleClick?
·7· · ·A.· ·His was the primary legal oversight.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And who else from Google's in-house attorney
·9 team provided legal oversight of Project SingleClick?
10· · ·A.· ·Oversight?·
11· · ·Q.· ·And by "
and
you mean
as listed
12 here?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·Were any other in-house attorneys for Google
15 involved in Project SingleClick?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.· On the working team specifically,
.
18· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
19· · · · · · · ·At any time other than your attorneys,
20 Alphabet's attorneys, did anyone at Alphabet discuss
21 Project SingleClick with an individual or entity not
22 employed by Alphabet?
23· · ·A.· ·Are you asking if there was outside counsel?
24· · ·Q.· ·No.
25· · ·A.· ·Are you asking others?· No, no others outside
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 151
YVer1f
PDF Page 155
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 154 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3219
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
152
·1 of outside counsel.
·2· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I appreciate that.· Thank you.
·3· · · · · · · ·What was the cost to Alphabet associated
·4 with Project SingleClick specified in dollars or hours?
·5· · ·A.· ·Again, hard to measure internally because we
·6 don't track that.· And the outside pieces also are
·7 entangled in a number of other projects.· So it's just
·8 very hard to give an estimate.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what other projects are the outside pieces
10 entangled with?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
12 to answer because that invades the attorney/client
13 privilege and the work product doctrine.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
15 instruction?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·How many employee hours to a reasonable
18 estimate as Alphabet's corporate designee were spent on
19 Project SingleClick?
20· · ·A.· ·SingleClick, or are we on Stonehenge?
21· · ·Q.· ·SingleClick.
22· · ·A.· ·45 hours.
23· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, that 45-hour estimate is for
24 all Alphabet employees.· Is that correct?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 152
YVer1f
PDF Page 156
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 155 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3220
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
153
·1· · ·Q.· ·Turning to Exhibit 7, page 2, is this a
·2 complete list of all government investigations that
·3 caused Google to begin Project SingleClick?
·4· · ·A.· ·Your question is is this the list that
·5 caused -·6· · ·Q.· ·Yes.· I'll restate.
·7· · · · · · · ·Turning to Exhibit 7, page 2, is this a
·8 complete list of all government investigations that
·9 caused Google to begin Project SingleClick?
10· · ·A.· ·So, no.· The ACCC had not started yet with the
11 investigation.· So I wouldn't include that one.
12· · · · · · · ·Then I would also say I don't know if
13 there were others at the time that informed our -- the
14 advice as we were speaking with legal, but I would say
15 that these are the primary -- materially speaking, these
16 are the ones that were top of mind.
17· · · · · · · ·So there may be others.· You're asking if
18 I knew of any others that might have, and I don't know
19 because I don't know what was affecting our legal
20 opinion.
21· · ·Q.· ·What did you do in preparation for this
22 deposition to determine which government investigations
23 caused Alphabet to initiate Project SingleClick?
24· · ·A.· ·I conferred with our legal team and reviewed
25 this list of investigations.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 153
YVer1f
PDF Page 157
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 156 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3221
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
154
·1· · ·Q.· ·And sitting here today, you have nothing to add
·2 as Alphabet's corporate representative to the list of
·3 government investigations with the exception of the ACCC
·4 investigation that caused Alphabet to initiate Project
·5 SingleClick.· Is that correct?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I think this is more than -- I think
·7 seven investigations are more than sufficient basis for
·8 us to have anticipated litigation.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Is there any litigation, whether anticipated or
10 actual litigation, that the project was initiated in
11 response to?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Asked and answered.
13· · ·A.· ·I think that's the same question that I just
14 answered.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· My initial question was
16 about government investigations; and my question now is
17 is there any litigation, whether anticipated or actual
18 litigation, that Project SingleClick was initiated in
19 response to?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And the reason for my
21 objection, Brent, is because he has already testified
22 that the active government investigations were
23 anticipated litigation.· I think maybe if you would
24 break down your compound question, we might get
25 somewhere.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 154
YVer1f
PDF Page 158
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 157 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3222
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
155
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
are the
·2 government investigations listed here the basis for
·3 Alphabet's anticipated litigation that caused it to
·4 initiate Project SingleClick?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Other than the government investigations listed
·7 here, are there any litigations, whether actual or
·8 anticipated, that caused Project SingleClick -- that
·9 caused Alphabet to initiate Project SingleClick?
10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·Were any presentations prepared regarding
12 Project SingleClick?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·How many presentations were prepared regarding
15 Project SingleClick?
16· · ·A.· ·One presentation.
17· · ·Q.· ·Who authored that presentation?
18· · ·A.· ·It was a working team led primarily by
.
20· · ·Q.· ·And when did that presentation begin getting
21 prepared?
22· · ·A.· ·Right away and, like most documents, evolved
23 over the course of the project.
24· · ·Q.· ·By "right away," do you mean
25 began preparing the presentation in December of 2019?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 155
YVer1f
PDF Page 159
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 158 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3223
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
156
·1· · ·A.· ·It was either in like mid/late December or very
·2 early January, yes.· Right in that time frame is when
·3 that was started.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And who assisted in the drafting of that
·5 presentation?
·6· · ·A.· ·So that would be the following people:·
·9· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Let me back up.· I want to make
10 sure we're talking about the same thing.
11· · · · · · · ·If you could turn to page 2 of Exhibit 7,
12 I'm still asking about Project SingleClick.
13· · ·A.· ·Yep.
14· · ·Q.· ·Are you speaking now about a different project?
15· · ·A.· ·No.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So that's my fault.· I'll ask again.
17· · · · · · · ·Who assisted in drafting the presentation
18 that
began drafting in December or January
19 of either December '19 or January '20?
20· · ·A.· ·
.
22· · ·Q.· ·And to whom was that presentation given at
23 Alphabet?
24· · ·A.· ·
25· · ·Q.· ·And when was that presentation given to
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 156
YVer1f
PDF Page 160
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 159 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3224
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
157
·1
·2· · ·A.· ·The evolving presentation over the course of
·3 the project and the final one being in February 2020.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Who attended that presentation in February of
·5 2020?
·6· · ·A.· ·
me,
and then the rest
·7 of the Google employees listed here, and
·8· · ·Q.· ·Does that include all Google in-house counsel
·9 listed in the third bullet point under Project
10 SingleClick on page 2 of Exhibit 7?
11· · ·A.· ·Very likely.· There might have been one or two
12 or three missing from that final presentation, but -13· · ·Q.· ·Were any -- I'm sorry.
14· · ·A.· ·But the majority would have been there.
15· · ·Q.· ·Were any draft presentations prepared regarding
16 Project SingleClick that were not finalized?
17· · ·A.· ·No.
18· · ·Q.· ·Did any Alphabet employee create a financial
19 forecast as part of Project SingleClick?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so are you asking, Brent,
21 for the contents of the Project SingleClick documents?
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· My initial question is
23 simply whether any Alphabet employee created a financial
24 forecast as part of Project SingleClick.
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Sounds to me like your
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 157
YVer1f
PDF Page 161
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 160 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3225
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
158
·1 question is getting at the substance of a work product
·2 project.· So on that basis I'll instruct the witness not
·3 to answer.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·5 instruction?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Did Alphabet project, model or otherwise
·8 consider any cost savings as a part of Project
·9 SingleClick?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
12 instruction?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·Did Project SingleClick incorporate any other
15 financial analyses created by Alphabet employees prior
16 to Project SingleClick?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
19 instruction?
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
22 upon for any financial analyses prepared for Project
23 SingleClick?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· And also
25 object to the form as assuming facts not in evidence.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 158
YVer1f
PDF Page 162
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 161 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3226
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
159
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·2 instruction not to answer?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
·5 upon in preparing presentations for Project SingleClick?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and object to
·7 the form as assuming facts not in evidence.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·9 instruction not to answer?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·All righty.
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record
13 briefly.
14· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
15 2:05 p.m.
16· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
18 2:11 p.m.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Thanks for
20 taking that break,
21· · · · · · · ·I will now ask you about Project
22 Stonehenge, which is part of specifications 1c and
23 specification 2.
24· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Stonehenge"
25 for the project?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 159
YVer1f
PDF Page 163
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 162 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3227
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
160
·1· · ·A.· ·I think it was a few people on the original
·2 working team, the SingleClick, including
·3· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Turning to Exhibit 7, page 3.· Let me
·4 know when you have that in front of you.
·5· · ·A.· ·Okay.
·6· · ·Q.· ·What was the subject matter of Project
·7 Stonehenge?
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· To the extent that the
·9 question invades the privilege of work product, I
10 instruct the witness not to answer.
11· · · · · · · ·But,
if there's a way to answer
12 without invading the privilege, please do so.
13· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Given the anticipated regulatory
14 actions, we did an analysis of potential remedies.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· What was the goal of
16 Project Stonehenge?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
18· · ·A.· ·To be prepared in case of any litigation.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Was one of the
20 objectives of Project Stonehenge to consider
?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
23 answer because the question invades the attorney/client
24 privilege and the work product doctrine.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow that
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 160
YVer1f
PDF Page 164
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 163 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3228
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
161
·1 instruction,
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
·4 upload into the Chat tab 18.
·5· · · · · · · ·I'd like the court reporter to mark this
·6 document as Alphabet Exhibit 8.
·7· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 8 marked)
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Please let me know when you
·9 have it in front of you,
10· · · · · · · ·While you are doing that, I will let you
11 know a couple things.· No. 1, this is a document
12 produced to us by Alphabet that was identified as
13 related to Project Stonehenge and Project Banksy in
14 Ms. Elmer's November 15, 2021 letter.· It begins with
15 Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00660900 and ends in Bates
16 No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00660904.· It is a document that has
17 been produced to us in redacted form.
18· · · · · · · ·Please let me know when you have finished
19 reviewing the document,
20· · ·A.· ·Okay.· There's a lot here.· So give me a
21 minute.
22· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· So we need to take a
24 break to discuss an issue of privilege.
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's go off
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 161
YVer1f
PDF Page 165
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 164 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3229
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
162
·1 the record.
·2· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·3 2:14 p.m.
·4· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·5· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·6 2:34 p.m.
·7· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.·
--
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So before we get back started,
·9 we are going to claw back Exhibit No. 8.· We will
10 reproduce a redacted copy later in the deposition today.
11· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And how long until that
12 redacted copy is produced to us?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I do not have a reasonable
14 estimate at this time, but I promise you it will be
15 before the deposition is over.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
was one of the
18 objectives of Project Banksy consideration of
?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
21 answer because this question invades the attorney/client
22 privilege and work product doctrine.
23· · · · · · · ·Also, did you mean Project Banksy?
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I did.
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 162
YVer1f
PDF Page 166
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 165 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3230
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
163
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
will you
·2 follow Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And actually, I should clarify
·5 my instruction.· Are you asking about Project Banksy,
·6 the remedies project, Brent, or are you asking about
·7 Bansky, the concept that was a feature that was
·8 discussed prior to the remedies project?· In what
·9 context are you using that term?
10· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· That is a good question,
11 and it's hard to go out of order with Bansky, but since
12 this document was listed in your November 15th letter as
13 related to both, I will ask, but let me rephrase.
I
14 appreciate that.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So was one of the objectives
16 of Project Banksy, the product that is listed in the
17 specification to the CID to which you are testifying
18 today, was one of the objectives for that project
19 consideration of
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· Same instruction,
21 and I'm going to need to go off the record to discuss an
22 issue of privilege.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.
24· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
25 2:36 p.m.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 163
YVer1f
PDF Page 167
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 166 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3231
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
164
·1· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·2· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·3 2:40 p.m.
·4· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Before we broke
·5 for that privilege consultation, my question was, so was
·6 one of the objectives of Project Banksy, the project
·7 that is listed in the specification to the CID for which
·8
has appeared here today, was one of the
·9 objectives for that project consideration of
?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
12 to answer because your question invades the work product
13 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
15 Ms. Elmer's instruction,
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·What did Alphabet consider in evaluating
18
?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow that
21 instruction not to answer,
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet use in
24 considering
?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 164
YVer1f
PDF Page 168
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 167 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3232
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
165
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow the
·2 instruction not to answer,
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Who at Alphabet worked on the concept of
·5
?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and also as
·7 being outside the scope.· Perhaps if you rephrase your
·8 question, we may get somewhere.
·9· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I guess it's hard for me to
10 understand why, Ms. Elmer, that question's outside the
11 scope given that
appeared to be
12 related to Project Stonehenge, but perhaps I have that
13 wrong.· If so, you can let your objection stand, and
14
can either tell me that or not.· But it's
15 hard for me to evaluate the scope of your objection
16 without knowing more about it.
17· · · · · · · ·In any event, you can instruct him as
18 appropriate.· I will ask again.
19· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)· Who at Alphabet worked on
20 the concept of
?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
22 answer questions that invade the work product doctrine
23 or would tend to reveal the substance of projects that
24 are privileged and work product.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Subject to that instruction,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 165
YVer1f
PDF Page 169
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 168 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3233
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
166
what can you tell me about who at Alphabet
·1
·2 worked on the concept of
?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·4· · ·A.· ·I follow my counsel's advice not to answer.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Did Alphabet
·6 ultimately implement
?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
·9 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·And the last question on this, what
12 relationship, if any, does
have
13 to Alphabet's pricing decisions?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
16 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer,
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·All right.· Let's move on.
19· · · · · · · ·In Alphabet's view, what does it mean for
20 a product such as
?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I'd like to take a break to
23 discuss an issue of privilege.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's take a break.· Off
25 the record.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 166
YVer1f
PDF Page 170
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 169 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3234
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
167
·1· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·2 2:43 p.m.
·3· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·4· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·5 2:54 p.m.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Before we broke
·7 for the break,
I asked you, In Alphabet's
·8 view, what does it mean for a product such as
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that your
11 question calls for testimony regarding any work product
12 projects or privileged projects, I instruct the witness
13 not to answer because the answer would invade the
14 attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine.
15· · · · · · · ·To the extent that your question goes
16 beyond the scope of the six projects set forth in the
17 CID, I instruct -- the witness is not here as corporate
18 designee on any topics that go beyond those, but he may
19 answer in his individual capacity if he can answer in a
20 way that would not invade the privilege or work product.
21· · ·A.· ·Okay.· Then I'll speak to the -- to what the
22 document is referring to in an individual capacity and
23 not as a -- I'm sorry,
.
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· Just so we're
25 clear here, there is no exhibit that is on the record or
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 167
YVer1f
PDF Page 171
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 170 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3235
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
168
·1 no document that is sitting before us right now.· So
·2 we're just talking about Mr. Nakamura's question.
·3· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.
·4· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you restate the question, and
·5 I'll be happy to answer.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I will restate.
·7· · · · · · · ·In Alphabet's view, what does it mean for
·8 a product such as
?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I give the same
11 admonishment.· He will be testifying in his individual
12 capacity here.
13· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.
14· · ·A.· ·Okay.·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 168
YVer1f
PDF Page 172
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 171 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3236
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
169
.
·1
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you for that.
·3· · · · · · · ·
?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I give the same
·7 admonishment,
and you'll be testifying in your
·8 individual capacity because this goes beyond the scope
·9 of the CID.
10· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sure.
11· · ·A.· ·You said
, and what was the
12 third?
13· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Sure.· I'll repeat.
14· · · · · · ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 169
YVer1f
PDF Page 173
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 172 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3237
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
170
·4· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
·5· · · · · · · ·And in Alphabet's view, what does it mean
·6 for a product such as
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I give the same
·9 admonishment.· The witness is not testifying in
10 Alphabet's view but in his personal capacity, as this
11 question is beyond the scope of the CID.
12· · ·A.· ·
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you for that.
20· · · · · · · ·
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection and
24 instruction.· The witness is not testifying about
25 Alphabet's view because your question goes beyond the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 170
YVer1f
PDF Page 174
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 173 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3238
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
171
·1 scope of the CID, but he may testify in his personal
·2 capacity.
·3· · ·A.· ·
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you for that.
13· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you upload
14 into the Chat, please, tab 15.
15· · · · · · · ·Could the court reporter mark this as
16 Exhibit 9.
17· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 9 marked)
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
19 know when you have that in front of you.
20· · · · · · · ·While that is happening, let me read this
21 into the record.· This is a document produced by
22 Alphabet beginning in Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00205841
23 ending in Bates No. 5843.· The subject is regarding
24
25· · · · · · · ·This document is part of an e-mail thread.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 171
YVer1f
PDF Page 175
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 174 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3239
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
172
·1 It's the top e-mail in a thread that contained an e-mail
·2 that was identified in Ms. Elmer's November 15th, 2021
·3 letter as related to Project Stonehenge.
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Again, we're going to need to
·5 break to discuss an issue of privilege.
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sounds good.· Let's go off
·7 the record.
·8· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·9 3:02 p.m.
10· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
11· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
12 3:13 p.m.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· I can hear
14 somebody's -15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Hold on.· Let's go back off
16 the record.
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
18 3:13 p.m.
19· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
20· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
21 3:14 p.m.
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right, Brent, we are
23 clawing back Exhibit 9.· We will do the same thing as
24 for Exhibit 8.· We will be providing an updated redacted
25 version of this document before the end of the day
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 172
YVer1f
PDF Page 176
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 175 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3240
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
173
·1 today.
·2· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Absolutely you may
·3 claw that back.
·4· · · · · · · ·I will just make one note for the record
·5 that I had planned on introducing this document so as to
·6 establish that my questions with respect to the
·7
were within the scope of
·9 the CID notice.· But with that, we can just move on.
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I still maintain my scope
11 objection that to the extent that those features are not
12 related to a privileged project and relate to some other
13 context, that those features do fall outside the scope
14 of the deposition notice.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Thank you.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
what is
17
?
18· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Again, same admonishment.
19 This question goes outside the scope of the CID notice,
20 and so the witness will be testifying in his personal
21 capacity and not in his capacity as corporate designee.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
23
?
24· · ·A.· ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 173
YVer1f
PDF Page 177
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 176 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3241
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
174
·1
·9· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
10· · · · · · · ·
?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
14
is providing this testimony in his personal
15 capacity, as this question goes beyond the scope of the
16 CID.
17· · ·A.· ·Sure.·
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment, same
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 174
YVer1f
PDF Page 178
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 177 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3242
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
175
·1 objection as beyond the scope.·
is
·2 providing this testimony in his personal capacity as the
·3 question goes beyond the scope of the CID.
·4· · ·A.· ·
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· My question,
11
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment, same scope
15 objection.·
is providing this testimony in
16 his personal capacity.· I believe that this question has
17 already been asked and answered, and I object to it as
18 vague and ambiguous and misleading.
19· · · · · · · ·But you may answer in your personal
20 capacity if you can,
21· · ·A.· ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 175
YVer1f
PDF Page 179
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 178 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3243
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
176
·1
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.·
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment and scope
·8 objection.
·9· · · · · · · ·But you may answer.
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection.
15· · ·A.· ·
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you.
21· · · · · · · ·
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection.·
24 will be testifying in his personal capacity as the
25 question goes beyond the scope of the CID.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 176
YVer1f
PDF Page 180
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 179 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3244
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
177
·1· · ·A.· ·
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.·
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· The same scope objection.
12 This testimony will be in personal capacity, as this
13 question goes beyond the scope of the CID.
14· · ·A.· ·
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to form, also same
21 scope objection.· This testimony will be a personal
22 capacity testimony, as the question goes beyond the
23 scope of the CID.
24· · ·A.· ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 177
YVer1f
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 181 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3246
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
179
·1
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
·8· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection.
·9· · ·A.· ·
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you for that.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I will just note for the
19 record that it is my view that had I been allowed to
20 question
as Alphabet's representative on
21 the document that was just clawed back, I would have had
22 more questions; but that's just for the record.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So a new line of
24 questioning.· Did Alphabet consider
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 179
YVer1f
PDF Page 183
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 182 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3247
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
180
as part of Project Stonehenge?
·1
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
·3 to answer the question because the question invades the
·4 work product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow that
·6 instruction,
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· So, Ms. Elmer, it is the
·9 Division's position that Google has waived privilege
10 over this particular line of inquiry.
11· · · · · · · ·Seumas, could you please put in the Chat
12 tab 27.· And I would like the court reporter to mark
13 this as Alphabet Exhibit 10.
14· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 10 marked)
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Alphabet Exhibit 10 is an
16 excerpt from the August 11th, 2021 deposition of
17
As you can see in this excerpt which
18 contains the title page, the reporter's certification
19 and an excerpt, on page 197 I asked
this
20 question with respect to Stonehenge and additional work
21
.
22· · · · · · · ·He responded.· There was no clawback of
23 this transcript, motion to strike or anything else.
24· · · · · · · ·And as a result, not only have six months
25 passed, but I believe that Alphabet has waived the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 180
YVer1f
PDF Page 184
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 183 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3248
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
181
·1 ability to claim privilege over this line of
·2 questioning.
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· We dispute your waiver
·4 argument, and we'll just have to take that up at a later
·5 time.· But we are not going to waive the privilege in
·6 today's deposition.
·7· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I understand.· Thanks for
·8 your position.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· So let's move back to
10 Exhibit 7.· So turning to Exhibit 7, page 3.· Let me
11 know when you have that in front of you,
12· · ·A.· ·Is this the February 25th letter?
13· · ·Q.· ·Yes, it is.
14· · ·A.· ·Yep.
15· · ·Q.· ·Under Project Stonehenge the second bullet
16 point, is this a complete list of all outside counsel
17 who were involved in Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · ·Q.· ·And is the third bullet point a complete list
20 of all Google in-house counsel who were involved in
21 Project Stonehenge?
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·And is bullet point No. 4 a complete list of
24 all Google employees other than Google in-house counsel
25 who were involved in Project Stonehenge?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 181
YVer1f
PDF Page 185
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 184 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3249
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
182
·1· · ·A.· ·Yes, with the same note that some of these were
·2 on the working team and others were more of the
·3 audience.
·4· · ·Q.· ·All right.· That's very helpful.
·5· · · · · · · ·So who among these Google employees was on
·6 the working team?
·7· · ·A.· ·So I'll go in order here.·
13· · ·Q.· ·Was there a leadership -14· · ·A.· ·The nonlawyers.· And then there were lawyers.
15· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Yes.· That's my fault.
16· · · · · · · ·Who were the lawyers who were on the
17 working team for Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·
.· Those were the primary
19 day-to-day.
20· · ·Q.· ·And was there a leadership team associated with
21 Project Stonehenge?
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · ·Q.· ·Who was on that leadership team associated with
24 Project Stonehenge?
25· · ·A.· ·
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
, along with
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 182
YVer1f
PDF Page 186
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 185 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3250
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
183
·1 I would include
in there.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And were there any key decision-makers with
·3 respect to Project Stonehenge?
·4· · ·A.· ·That assumes that a decision was reached, so
·5 that's impossible for me to answer.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And that is because no decision was reached
·7 with respect to Project Stonehenge.· Is that correct?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job
10 responsibilities?
11· · ·A.· ·Sure.· It's
She is the lead product
12 manager for AdManager.
13· · ·Q.· ·And what work did she do for Project
14 Stonehenge?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I object to the extent
16 that answering the question would call for information
17 that invades the work product doctrine or the
18 attorney/client privilege.
19· · · · · · · ·However, if there's a way to answer the
20 question without invading the privilege, please do so.
21· · ·A.· ·Sure.· Before I do that, I should have noted
22 that
was part of the leadership team.
23· · · · · · · ·So her job was to lead the project as we
24 considered remedies for potential antitrust litigation
25 and privacy litigation.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 183
YVer1f
PDF Page 187
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 186 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3251
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
184
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Thank you for that.
·2· · · · · · · ·And what were
job
·3 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment, but you may
·5 answer if there's a way to do so without invading the
·6 privilege.
·7· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· He's responsible for all engineers, for
·8 all of the publisher products, including AdManager, so
·9 he was a contributor.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what work did
11
do as part of Project Stonehenge?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
13· · ·A.· ·He provided guidance.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And guidance to whom?
15· · ·A.· ·To the working team and to leadership.
16· · ·Q.· ·And when you say "leadership," do you mean the
17 leadership team we just discussed for Project Stonehenge
18 or some other leadership team?
19· · ·A.· ·I basically mean
20· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job responsibilities
21 with respect to Project Stonehenge?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
23· · ·A.· ·So he's responsible for the commercialization
24 of our publisher products and how we bring them to
25 market.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 184
YVer1f
PDF Page 188
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 187 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3252
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
185
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what work did
·2 do with respect to Project Stonehenge?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·4· · ·A.· ·He provided guidance to the working team.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what were your job
·6 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·8· · ·A.· ·Primarily as an audience and to provide
·9 guidance to both the working team and to leadership.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what work did you do
11 with respect to Project Stonehenge?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
13· · ·A.· ·I provided guidance to the working team and to
14 leadership.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What were
job
16 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
18· · ·A.· ·He works for
and he's a project manager
19 on AdManager.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what work did
21
do for Project Stonehenge?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
23· · ·A.· ·Analysis.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what analysis did
25
perform?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 185
YVer1f
PDF Page 189
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 188 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3253
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
186
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'd instruct the witness not
·2 to answer because the question invades the work product
·3 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·5 instruction?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· What were
job
·8 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
·9· · ·A.· ·Apologies.· Can I have one minute?
10· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· No problem.
11· · ·A.· ·Okay.· I'm ready to continue.
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment, but you may
13 answer to the extent you can without invading the
14 privilege,
15· · ·A.· ·I apologize.· Can you repeat the question.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Absolutely, no problem.
17· · · · · · · ·What were
job
18 responsibilities with respect to Project Stonehenge?
19· · ·A.· ·He is a senior engineering leader on the
20 AdManager team.
21· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
do with respect to
22 Project Stonehenge?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
24· · ·A.· ·Analysis.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what sort of analysis
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 186
YVer1f
PDF Page 190
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 189 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3254
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
187
·1 did
perform as part of Project Stonehenge?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
·3 answer because the question invades the work product
·4 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·6 instruction?
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Did you say "yes"?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· My fault.
11· · · · · · · ·What were Mr.
job responsibilities
12 with respect to Project Stonehenge?
13· · ·A.· ·He's the engineer responsible for AdManager.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what work did Mr.
perform as part of
15 Project Stonehenge?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
17· · ·A.· ·He was a contributor to the working team.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What contributions did
19 Mr.
make to the working team?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· If you can answer the question
21 without invading the privilege or work product doctrine,
22 you may; otherwise, I instruct the witness not to
23 answer.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Do you have any response
25 that you can provide,
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
subject to your
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 187
YVer1f
PDF Page 191
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 190 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3255
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
188
·1 counsel's instruction?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·All right.· And lastly on this list, what were
·4
job responsibilities with respect to Project
·5 Stonehenge?
·6· · ·A.· ·So she's the general manager for AVAD, which
·7 includes the publisher products.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And what work did she perform with respect to
·9 Project Stonehenge?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
11· · ·A.· ·Primarily audience, and she obviously among
12 this list has the senior responsibility to decide how to
13 steward the business in light of regulatory
14 potentialities.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Were any Alphabet employees
16 or executives not listed here involved in considering
17 any part of Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·Not to my knowledge based on the diligence that
19 we performed.
20· · ·Q.· ·And when did Project Stonehenge begin?
21· · · · · · · ·I'm sorry.· You're muted,
22· · ·A.· ·My apologies.
23· · · · · · · ·Stonehenge began in February of 2020.
24· · ·Q.· ·What event began Project Stonehenge?
25· · ·A.· ·Primarily the completion of a prior project at
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 188
YVer1f
PDF Page 192
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 191 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3256
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
189
·1 which point we decided to investigate a particular line
·2 of remedies.· And that prior project was precipitated by
·3 the seven investigations that were noted on page 2 of
·4 Exhibit 7.
·5· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· I appreciate the precision.
·6· · · · · · · ·And did Project Stonehenge evolve into
·7 Project Banksy as listed on the CID specification
·8 schedule?
·9· · ·A.· ·No.
10· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· When did Project Stonehenge end?
11· · ·A.· ·June 2020.
12· · ·Q.· ·Was there any event or occurrence that marked
13 the end of Project Stonehenge in Alphabet's view?
14· · ·A.· ·This was more of a completion of analysis to
15 our satisfaction.
16· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· How many meetings in total occurred at
17 Alphabet for Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·I'd say on the order of 25.
19· · ·Q.· ·And of those 25 meetings, how many were
20 attended by Alphabet's attorneys?
21· · ·A.· ·The majority, large majority.
22· · ·Q.· ·How many Alphabet employee hours have been
23 spent on Project Stonehenge?
24· · ·A.· ·About 50.
25· · ·Q.· ·And how much did Alphabet spend on outside
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 189
YVer1f
PDF Page 193
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 192 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3257
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
190
·1 counsel as related to Project Stonehenge?
·2· · ·A.· ·That's tough to answer, again, because this is
·3 conflated with many other ongoing projects and difficult
·4 to ascertain from the available data.· So I suspect it's
·5 a small to medium amount, likely more than SingleClick.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I appreciate that.
·7· · · · · · · ·And what records or information did you
·8 look at to come to the estimate you just provided that
·9 it is a small to medium amount and more than
10 SingleClick?
11· · ·A.· ·There were more meetings, as indicated by the
12 calendaring and the length of the project and analysis.
13· · ·Q.· ·And how many of the approximately 25 meetings
14 that occurred as a result of Project Stonehenge were
15 attended by Google's outside counsel?
16· · ·A.· ·A few.
17· · ·Q.· ·Less than five?
18· · ·A.· ·On the order of five.
19· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· If you could turn to page 2 of
20 Exhibit 7.
21· · ·A.· ·(Witness complies.)
22· · ·Q.· ·Is this a list of government investigations
23 that caused Alphabet to initiate Project Stonehenge?
24· · ·A.· ·The first seven, yes.
25· · ·Q.· ·And that, to be clear, excludes the Australian
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 190
YVer1f
PDF Page 194
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 193 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3258
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
191
·1 Competition and Consumer Commission.· Is that correct?
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And are there any of these investigations on
·4 this list on Exhibit 7, page 2 that Alphabet anticipated
·5 litigation or it was dealing with actual litigation that
·6 caused it to initiate Project Stonehenge?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form of the
·8 question as compound.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· You can answer if you
10 understand,
11· · ·A.· ·I was going to ask some clarifying questions
12 because I wasn't sure which specific question you're
13 asking.
14· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· So with respect to anticipated
15 litigation, did Alphabet anticipate any litigation from
16 any of the investigations on this list other than the
17 ACCC investigation that caused it to initiate Project
18 Stonehenge?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.· We anticipated litigation.
20· · ·Q.· ·And is there any actual litigation other than
21 the investigations listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7 that
22 Alphabet initiated Project Stonehenge in response to?
23· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So you're asking for any investigation
24 that are not on this list or litigation not on this
25 list?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 191
YVer1f
PDF Page 195
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 194 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3259
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
192
·1· · ·Q.· ·Any litigation not on this list.
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to be clear, you're asking
·3 for any actual litigation not on this list, correct?
·4 You're not talking about government investigations;
·5 you're talking about actual litigation?
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes, that's correct.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:·
do you understand the
·8 question?
·9· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do understand the
10 question, but I would like to sidebar with you briefly.
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· We'll take a quick
12 break.
13· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.
14· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
15 3:45 p.m.
16· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
18 3:49 p.m.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
is there any
20 actual litigation other than the investigations listed
21 on page 2 of Exhibit 7 that Alphabet initiated Project
22 Stonehenge in response to?
23· · ·A.· ·No.
24· · ·Q.· ·Is there any anticipated litigation other than
25 the investigations listed on page 2 of Exhibit 7 that
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 192
YVer1f
PDF Page 196
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 195 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3260
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
193
·1 Alphabet initiated Project Stonehenge in response to?
·2· · ·A.· ·I'll answer generally no.· You can't know
·3 what's going to happen.· But we undertook based on
·4 these -- primarily on these seven.
·5· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And were any -- I'm sorry.
·6· · · · · · · ·Were any presentations prepared regarding
·7 Project Stonehenge?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·How many?
10· · ·A.· ·One.
11· · ·Q.· ·On what date was that presentation given?
12· · ·A.· ·That was given approximately early June 2020.
13· · ·Q.· ·And who worked on creating that presentation?
14· · ·A.· ·That group that I walked through earlier.· It's
15 an extensive list of employees and counsel.
16· · ·Q.· ·And to be clear, does that involve all
17 individuals listed in bullet points 3 and 4 of page -18 under the heading Project Stonehenge on page 3 of
19 Exhibit 7, or does that include only the working group
20 individuals that you identified?
21· · ·A.· ·Only the working group.
22· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
23· · · · · · · ·And who attended the presentation given in
24 early June 2020 about Project Stonehenge?
25· · ·A.· ·The group in bullets 3 and 4 and a few people
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 193
YVer1f
PDF Page 197
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 196 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3261
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
194
·1 from bullet 2.
·2· · ·Q.· ·And who were the individuals from bullet 2 that
·3 attended the June 2020 presentation given about Project
·4 Stonehenge?
·5· · ·A.· ·I believe, and I'm not sure I can remember the
·6 specific detail, but I believe it was
·7 and
, if I recall.
·8· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· The second name you said was
?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.· They're both listed in bullet 2.
11· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· Just found it.
12· · · · · · · ·Were any draft presentations prepared for
13 Project Stonehenge that were not finalized?
14· · ·A.· ·No.· The draft turned into the final product.
15· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Did any Alphabet employee create a
16 financial forecast as a part of Project Stonehenge?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So object to the extent that
18 the question is attempting to get at the substance of
19 Project Stonehenge documents which are work product and
20 privileged.· To the extent that the question can be
21 answered without invading the privilege, the witness may
22 do so.
23· · ·A.· ·I am not able to.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Did Alphabet project,
25 model or otherwise consider any cost savings as a part
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 194
YVer1f
PDF Page 198
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 197 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3262
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
195
·1 of Project Stonehenge?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Are you able to provide an
·4 answer subject to your counsel's instructions,
·5
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· My question was are you able to
·8 provide an answer subject to your counsel's
·9 instructions?
10· · ·A.· ·I am not able to provide an answer.
11· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
12· · · · · · · ·As part of Project Stonehenge, is Alphabet
13 considering any changes to the ways its AdTech products
14 operate?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
16 answer because the question invades the work product
17 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow that
19 instruction,
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·As part of Project Stonehenge, is Alphabet
22 considering changing the pricing associated with any of
23 its AdTech products?
24· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 195
YVer1f
PDF Page 199
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 198 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3263
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
196
·1 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer,
·2· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Did Project Stonehenge incorporate any other
·4 analyses previously created by Alphabet employees prior
·5 to the beginning of Project Stonehenge?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that you can
·7 answer the question without invading the privilege or
·8 work product, you may do so; otherwise, I instruct the
·9 witness not to answer.
10· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Can you repeat it one more time.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Sure.· Did Project
12 Stonehenge incorporate any analyses previously created
13 by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of Project
14 Stonehenge?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same admonishment.
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what analyses previously
18 created by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of
19 Project Stonehenge were incorporated into Project
20 Stonehenge?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So same instruction.· If you
22 can answer without invading the privilege or the work
23 product doctrine, you may do so.· If your answer would
24 invade the work product doctrine or the privilege, I
25 instruct you not to answer.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 196
YVer1f
PDF Page 200
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 199 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3264
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
197
·1· · ·A.· ·I think the extent to which I can answer is
·2 that analysis from Project SingleClick was used, but I
·3 can't go into the details without invading the
·4 privilege.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
·6· · · · · · · ·What data sources did Alphabet employees
·7 rely upon for any financial analyses prepared for
·8 Project Stonehenge?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So object to the form as
10 assuming facts not in evidence, and I also instruct the
11 witness not to answer to the extent that doing so would
12 invade the work product doctrine or the attorney/client
13 privilege.
14· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I'm unable to answer.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Can we take a quick break?
17 I'm sorry.· It's for me.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yeah.· No problem.· That's
19 fine, Julie.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Can we take ten minutes?· I've
21 got to get a bite to eat.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yeah.· That's totally fine.
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.· Thank you.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· You're welcome.
25· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 197
YVer1f
PDF Page 201
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 200 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3265
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
198
·1 3:56 p.m.
·2· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·3· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We're back on the
·4 record at 4:03 p.m.
·5· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Thank you for
·6 returning,
I just have one more question.
·7 What data sources did Alphabet's employees rely on for
·8 any pricing analyses prepared for Project Stonehenge?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I instruct the witness not
10 to answer because the question invades the work product
11 doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.· I also
12 object to the form as assuming facts not in evidence.
13· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And,
will you
14 follow your counsel's instruction not to answer?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
17 put in the Chat tab 14.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
19 Please let me know when you have that in front of you.
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· While you are downloading
21 it, this is a document produced by Alphabet beginning at
22 Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00030150, ending in Bates
23 No. 0159.· It is a document that was produced in
24 redacted form and identified in Ms. Elmer's
25 November 15th letter as related to Project SingleClick
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 198
YVer1f
PDF Page 202
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 201 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3266
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
199
·1 and Project Stonehenge.
·2· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· With that, please let me
·3 know when you have reviewed this document.
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· All right.· We'll be clawing
·5 this one back as well.· And I'd like to take a break to
·6 discuss an issue of privilege, but I can tell you we'll
·7 be clawing that one back as well.
·8· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Sounds good.· Go off
·9 the record.
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
11 4:05 p.m.
12· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
13· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
14 4:16 p.m.
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So as I stated a moment ago,
16 we'll be clawing back this exhibit as well and
17 reproducing a copy that we can use in the deposition
18 shortly.
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Thank you.· Do you
20 have any estimate, Ms. Elmer, with respect to the other
21 documents that were clawed back as to when they will be
22 produced to me?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Momentarily.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Just for the record for
25 completeness, I would like the court reporter to have
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 199
YVer1f
PDF Page 203
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 202 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3267
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
200
·1 marked the exhibit that was just clawed back as
·2 Exhibit 11; but, of course, you may claw it back.
·3· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 11 marked)
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· With that, I'll
·5 move on.
·6· · · · · · · ·
I would now like to ask you
·7 about Project Banksy which is part of specifications 1f
·8 and specification 2.
·9· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Banksy" for
10 the project?
11· · ·A.· ·I suspect it was the lead engineer working on
12 the project,
13· · ·Q.· ·
is that what you just said?
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· What was the subject -- I'm sorry,
16 let me back up.
17· · · · · · · ·Let's refer to Exhibit 7, which is the
18 February 25th letter sent by your counsel, Ms. Elmer,
19 page 4.· Please let me know when you have that in front
20 of you.
21· · ·A.· ·Yep, I do.
22· · ·Q.· ·Great.· What is the subject matter of Project
23 Banksy?
24· · ·A.· ·So as laid out in
testimony,
25 there's two parts to it.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 200
YVer1f
PDF Page 204
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 203 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3268
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
201
·1· · · · · · · ·One was an early examination of header
·2 bidding as a project feature, and then, secondly, it
·3 morphed into a product or into an effort that was a
·4 response to a particular antitrust investigation.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what antitrust investigation was the second
·6 Project Banksy a response to?
·7· · ·A.· ·The French Competition Authority.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And what were Alphabet's objectives as part of
·9 Project Banksy?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So to the extent that this -11 well, actually, I instruct the witness not to answer the
12 question as it invades the work product doctrine and the
13 attorney/client privilege.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow that
15 instruction,
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·Turning now to bullet point 2 that starts on
18 page 4 and runs into page 5 of Exhibit 7, is this a full
19 and complete list of all outside counsel who worked on
20 the second Project Banksy?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·And is the first full bullet point on page 4 a
23 full and complete list of all Google in-house counsel
24 who worked on the second version of Project Banksy?
25· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I just want to again specify that not
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 201
YVer1f
PDF Page 205
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 204 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3269
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
202
·1 everyone here worked on it.· Some were made aware of the
·2 project.
·3· · ·Q.· ·But in terms of anyone who worked on the
·4 project, is that a full and complete list?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'd like to clarify.· I think,
·8 Brent, in your earlier question about a bullet point
·9 that started on page 4 and runs into page 5, what you
10 meant to say was bullet point 2 that starts on page 3
11 and runs into page 4.
12· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.· Thank you, Julie.
13 That is what I meant.· I appreciate that.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And so on the second full
15 bullet point on page 4, is this a full and complete list
16 of Google employees who worked on or were an audience
17 for Project Banksy?
18· · ·A.· ·There may be a few others who were an audience.
19· · · · · · · ·And I think it's important to note in a
20 project like this, especially given the tight relation
21 to a regulatory matter, that it would have gone up the
22 chain for acknowledgments, though I don't -- I wouldn't
23 necessarily classify the cross-functional leadership up
24 the chain as an audience as much as they were very
25 briefly made aware, possibly asked for a simple ack.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 202
YVer1f
PDF Page 206
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 205 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3270
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
203
·1· · · · · · · ·So I'll just note that there may be some
·2 names in executive leadership not included here in that
·3 capacity.· So it's really a question of what you mean by
·4 audience.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what do you mean by "simple ack"?
·6· · ·A.· ·An ack, acknowledgment.· So, for example, if
·7 the working team came up with a plan in conjunction with
·8 counsel that they intended to supply to a regulatory
·9 authority, they would pass that to me; I would ask some
10 questions.
11· · · · · · · ·And then once that's to my satisfaction,
12 it would go up to my superiors in product, maybe
13 engineering, maybe general management, maybe finance,
14 maybe legal, so further up the chain there.· And they
15 would be informed but not necessarily in a presentation.
16· · · · · · · ·It would be more of a, Hey, here's what we
17 plan to do.· We want to make you aware.· Do you have any
18 concerns?· If not, we're going to move forward.· Please
19 acknowledge this e-mail.· And then they would simply say
20 "ack" or "I agree."
21· · · · · · · ·And that's generally how these matters
22 work because of the complicated structures in our
23 corporate environment.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· I appreciate that explanation.
25 It's very helpful.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 203
YVer1f
PDF Page 207
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 206 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3271
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
204
·1· · · · · · · ·So what are the names in executive
·2 leadership not included in this bullet point that would
·3 have been possibly asked for a simple a-c-k, ack?
·4· · ·A.· ·I imagine
and Kent Walker and
·5 possibly Philipp.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And when you say "Philipp," you mean Philipp
·7 Schindler.· Is that correct?
·8· · ·A.· ·That's right, yep.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And is it common for Mr. Walker to be involved
10 in these sorts of simple ack issues?
11· · ·A.· ·I don't think these happen very often.· So here
12 we're talking about, you know, a potential settlement
13 with a regulatory authority.· As you can empathize,
14 these things don't happen very often.· So when they do,
15 it's important that our, you know, chief legal and
16 public affairs officer is aware and supportive.
17· · ·Q.· ·Just to be clear, Mr. Walker then is both your
18 chief legal and public affairs officer.· Is that
19 correct?
20· · ·A.· ·To my knowledge, yes.
21· · ·Q.· ·And as part of the Project Banksy, the version
22 that we are now discussing, which is the second version,
23 who was on the working team with respect to Project
24 Banksy?
25· · ·A.· ·So I'm reading from the fourth bullet point
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 204
YVer1f
PDF Page 208
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 207 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3272
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
205
·1 which is on page 4 of Exhibit 7,
Yeah, those are the employees, the
·5 nonlawyer employees.
·6· · · · · · · ·And then I would note
, actually, pretty much everyone on the
·8 in-house Google counsel was part of the working team
·9 here.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.· I appreciate that.
11· · · · · · · ·And who, if anyone, was on the leadership
12 team with respect to Project Banksy?
13· · ·A.· ·
and then
14 several of the in-house counsel.
15· · ·Q.· ·And which specific in-house counsel were on the
16 leadership team?
17· · ·A.· ·Ted and
and
18· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Is there anyone else?
19· · ·A.· ·No.
20· · ·Q.· ·And so what were
responsibilities
21 with respect to Project Banksy?
22· · ·A.· ·He's a product manager on AdManager.
23· · ·Q.· ·And what work did he perform with respect to
24 Project Banksy?
25· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And so to the extent that you
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 205
YVer1f
PDF Page 209
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 208 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3273
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
206
·1 can answer the question without invading the work
·2 product doctrine or the attorney/client privilege, you
·3 may; otherwise, I instruct you not to answer.
·4· · ·A.· ·He provided product management.· That's the
·5 extent of the detail I can go into.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And am I correct in that you
·7 cannot provide more detail because it would require you
·8 to divulge privileged information?· Is that correct?
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
11· · · · · · · ·And what were
job
12 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
13· · ·A.· ·Engineering.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
perform with
15 respect to Project Banksy?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
17· · ·A.· ·Engineering.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is it that you cannot
19 provide more detail because it would be disclosing
20 privileged information?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·What were
job responsibilities
23 with respect -- I apologize, with respect to Project
24 Banksy?
25· · ·A.· ·Can I confer for a second?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 206
YVer1f
PDF Page 210
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 209 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3274
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
207
·1· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· Let's go off the record.
·2· · ·A.· ·Thank you.
·3· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·4 4:29 p.m.
·5· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·6· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· On the record at
·7 4:33 p.m.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What were
job
·9 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
10· · ·A.· ·General engineering.
11· · ·Q.· ·Can you provide any more detail as to what you
12 mean by "general engineering"?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
14· · ·A.· ·No.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And just to be clear, since
16 we just took a break, do you mean that you're refusing
17 to answer on the basis of Ms. Elmer's privilege
18 instruction?
19· · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And work product.
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· What were
job
23 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
24· · ·A.· ·He leads commercialization with the publisher
25 community.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 207
YVer1f
PDF Page 211
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 210 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3275
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
208
·1· · ·Q.· ·And what work did
perform with
·2 respect to Project Banksy?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So to the extent you can
·4 provide an answer to the question without invading the
·5 work product doctrine or the attorney/client privilege,
·6 you may; otherwise, I instruct you not to answer.
·7· · ·A.· ·He and his team would be responsible for public
·8 outreach.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And public outreach to whom?
10· · ·A.· ·To publishers.
11· · ·Q.· ·And as part of Project Banksy, did
12 team actually reach out to any publishers?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·And which publishers did
team
15 reach out to as part of Project Banksy?
16· · ·A.· ·I don't know.· It would have been probably a
17 small- to medium-sized group.
18· · ·Q.· ·Did you review any documents in preparation for
19 this deposition that would have helped you understand
20 which publishers he reached out to as a part of Project
21 Banksy?
22· · ·A.· ·No, I didn't.· It's a fairly standard process
23 that we go through with, you know, hundreds of different
24 product launches.· So this would have been fairly
25 ordinary.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 208
YVer1f
PDF Page 212
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 211 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3276
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
209
·1· · ·Q.· ·And what were
job
·2 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So I object -- or instruct the
·4 witness not to answer to the extent that his answer
·5 would invade the privilege.· But if there is a way that
·6 he can provide an answer without invading the privilege,
·7 he may do so.
·8· · ·A.· ·She provided legal guidance and leadership.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is there any further
10 information you can provide me with respect to the legal
11 guidance and leadership?
12· · ·A.· ·Everything would be privileged there, so I
13 apologize.· I cannot.
14· · ·Q.· ·And what was Mr. Lazarus' job responsibilities
15 with respect to Project Banksy?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
17· · ·A.· ·Given he's our general product counsel for ads,
18 he would have been also involved in leadership and
19 guidance to the team.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what guidance did
21 Mr. Lazarus provide to the team with respect to Project
22 Bansky?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.· The
24 question invades the attorney/client privilege, and I
25 instruct the witness not to answer.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 209
YVer1f
PDF Page 213
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 212 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3277
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
210
·1· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
·2 instruction?
·3· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · ·Q.· ·And lastly, what were
job
·5 responsibilities with respect to Project Banksy?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· To the extent that you can
·7 answer without invading the privilege, you may.
·8· · ·A.· ·Well, he was product counsel for AdManager at
·9 the time.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Is there any more
11 information you can provide about his job
12 responsibilities?
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
14· · ·A.· ·Other than being product counsel, no.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· When did Project
16 Banksy begin?
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So are you referring to the
18 second type of Project Banksy, the remedies analysis, in
19 your question?
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.· Thank you.· I'll
21 rephrase.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· When did the Project Banksy
23 remedies analysis begin?
24· · ·A.· ·Approximately spring of 2020.
25· · ·Q.· ·And do you have any better approximation of on
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 210
YVer1f
PDF Page 214
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 213 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3278
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
211
·1 what date or month Project Banksy remedies analysis
·2 began?
·3· · ·A.· ·April.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
·5· · · · · · · ·And what event began Project Banksy?
·6· · ·A.· ·The investigation from the French authority.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And how many meetings regarding Project Banksy
·8 have taken place since -- the remedies Project Banksy
·9 have taken place since April of 2020?
10· · ·A.· ·A lot.
11· · ·Q.· ·What is your reasonable estimate as Alphabet's
12 designee about the number of meetings that have taken
13 place regarding Project Banksy, the remedies analysis?
14· · ·A.· ·Approximately 50 to 60.
15· · ·Q.· ·And how many of those 50 to 60 meetings were
16 attended by Google's in-house counsel?
17· · ·A.· ·So this depends, but I would say likely -- I
18 would say about half.
19· · ·Q.· ·And how many of those 50 to 60 meetings were
20 attended by Google's outside counsel?
21· · ·A.· ·Probably about a quarter.
22· · ·Q.· ·And at any time did anyone at Alphabet discuss
23 the remedies Project Banksy with an individual or entity
24 other than Alphabet's lawyers that was not employed by
25 Alphabet?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 211
YVer1f
PDF Page 215
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 214 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3279
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
212
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So are you excepting here the
·2 publisher outreach?
·3· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Or discussions with
·5 regulators?
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Well, my question is at any
·7 time did anyone at Alphabet discuss the remedies Project
·8 Banksy with an individual or entity other than
·9 Alphabet's lawyers that was not employed by Alphabet?
10· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· I object to the
11 question as vague.· I think maybe if you break it down
12 by time period or type of third party, it might be
13 helpful.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Other than the publishers
15 you referred to earlier, did anyone at Alphabet discuss
16 Project Banksy with an individual or entity not employed
17 by Alphabet, the remedies version of Project Banksy,
18 other than with Alphabet's outside counsel?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same objection.
20· · · · · · · ·You may answer if you know.
21· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I need about one minute with
22 counsel.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· Go off the record.
24· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
25 4:40 p.m.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 212
YVer1f
PDF Page 216
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 215 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3280
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
213
·1· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·2· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·3 4:44 p.m.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.·
to
·5 the best of your knowledge, did anyone at Google discuss
·6 Project Banksy's remedy portion with any third party
·7 that was not representing Google as legal counsel?
·8· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what were the third parties with whom
10 remedies Project Banksy was discussed?
11· · ·A.· ·So I can construct a timeline of who was spoken
12 with?
13· · ·Q.· ·That would be great, thank you.
14· · ·A.· ·Okay.· So the first non-counsel party we spoke
15 with was the regulator in France.· After we reached an
16 agreement there, we spoke with our customers to design
17 an appropriate solution; and then we further
18 commercialized the product and spoke with more customers
19 after -- or actually, we posted a -- we made a blog post
20 in conjunction with the settlement, and then we further
21 commercialized.
22· · ·Q.· ·And in the second step, the customers you spoke
23 to to design an appropriate solution, who were those
24 customers?
25· · ·A.· ·I can't speak to them directly, but I can give
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 213
YVer1f
PDF Page 217
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 216 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3281
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
214
·1 you the general character of them were publishers who
·2 were interested in including header bidding in their
·3 setups or who already did and for which this product
·4 would be a good enhancement for them.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what did you discuss with those customers
·6 with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
·7· · ·A.· ·I think we were confirming, validating
·8 particular features or subfeatures that would be
·9 included in the header bidding manager.
10· · ·Q.· ·And what were those particular features that
11 would be included in the header bidding manager?
12· · ·A.· ·Now you're into like some pretty technical
13 details.·
19· · ·Q.· ·And what subfeatures did Alphabet discuss with
20 customers as part of this process?
21· · ·A.· ·Those are the subfeatures.· The feature is
22 header bidding manager.· Yeah.· Those are the
23 subfeatures.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that clarification.
25· · · · · · · ·When communicating with these third-party
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 214
YVer1f
PDF Page 218
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 217 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3282
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
215
·1 customers, did Alphabet employees propose this solution
·2 as an alternative to header bidding?
·3· · ·A.· ·Not really.· It's more of a facilitation of
·4 header bidding and an integration of header bidding into
·5 AdManager.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And approximately how many customers did
·7 Alphabet employees speak with as a part of this second
·8 step in your timeline?
·9· · ·A.· ·On the order of ten.
10· · ·Q.· ·And who were those ten customers?
11· · ·A.· ·I don't know.
12· · ·Q.· ·Who at Alphabet would be knowledgeable about
13 the identities of those ten customers?
14· · ·A.· ·
and either
16· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
17· · · · · · · ·Let me loop back to close out one
18 question.
19· · · · · · · ·Of the approximately 50 to 60 meetings
20 that occurred as a result of remedies Project Banksy,
21 what percentage of those meetings did not involve any
22 legal counsel, whether inside or outside counsel?
23· · ·A.· ·About half.
24· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
25· · · · · · · ·What was the cost associated with Project
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 215
YVer1f
PDF Page 219
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 218 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3283
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
216
·1 Banksy specified in the number of employee hours worked
·2 on remedies Project Banksy?
·3· · ·A.· ·My best guess would be on the order of 2 to
·4 300 hours.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And how much did Alphabet pay to outside
·6 counsel in fees as a result of Project Banksy?
·7· · ·A.· ·Again, this is difficult to answer just because
·8 it's intertwined with the other issues that I can't
·9 speak to.· So it's hard for me to provide an estimate.
10 But I suspect, given it was entangled with a settlement
11 that was a much larger settlement, that I imagine it was
12 a lot.
13· · ·Q.· ·Which is to say larger than Project
14 SingleClick.· Is that correct?
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I think it's fair to say that regulators
16 require a lot of legal time.
17· · ·Q.· ·And has Alphabet paid any money to any
18 nonlawyer third parties as a result of remedies Project
19 Banksy?
20· · ·A.· ·No.· Any nonlawyer third parties as part of a
21 remedy.· I can't speak to parts of a settlement that
22 would have been outside of this portion.· So I just want
23 to caveat my answer with that.
24· · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry.· Were there parts of a settlement
25 that were outside of Project Banksy with the French
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 216
YVer1f
PDF Page 220
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 219 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3284
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
217
·1 Competition Authority?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· The question goes beyond the
·3 scope of the CID, but the witness may answer in his
·4 individual capacity if he knows.
·5· · ·A.· ·My understanding is that there were several
·6 other aspects to the settlement apart from this project
·7 that have -- that are not involved in my products, which
·8 may or may not have included some type of payment, which
·9 I think was your question.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Yes.· No.· That's helpful,
11 and I appreciate that clarification.
12· · · · · · · ·So turning to page 2 of Exhibit 7 -- and
13 that's the February 25th letter -- which of the
14 government investigations listed here served as a basis
15 for Alphabet's initiation of remedies Project Banksy?
16· · ·A.· ·Primarily the French Competition Authority, and
17 I would also say with, you know, additional concern from
18 the U.K. CMA, Texas, the U.S. Department of Justice and
19 the EC.
20· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.
21· · · · · · · ·And are there any government
22 investigations that are not listed here that caused
23 Alphabet to initiate Project Banksy remedies?
24· · ·A.· ·No.
25· · ·Q.· ·And was any actual litigation the cause of
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 217
YVer1f
PDF Page 221
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 220 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3285
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
218
·1 Alphabet initiating remedies Project Banksy?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· You're talking about actual
·3 lawsuits?
·4· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.
·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Is that correct?
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· That's distinct from
·8 government investigations, correct?
·9· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Yes, that's correct.
10· · ·A.· ·No.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Was there any anticipated
12 litigation other than the government investigations
13 listed here that caused Alphabet to initiate the
14 remedies Project Banksy?
15· · ·A.· ·No.
16· · ·Q.· ·Were any presentations prepared regarding
17 Project Banksy?
18· · ·A.· ·I'm sorry.· Could you repeat.
19· · ·Q.· ·I apologize.· Were any presentations prepared
20 regarding remedies Project Banksy?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · ·Q.· ·How many?
23· · ·A.· ·Several.
24· · ·Q.· ·And numerically what do you mean by "several"?
25· · ·A.· ·Meaning there were analysis documents and other
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 218
YVer1f
PDF Page 222
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 221 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3286
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
219
·1 types of documents all the way through to launching
·2 products.· So, I mean, that typically involves a number
·3 of different documents for each of those stages of the
·4 process.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And what was the final presentation made -- I'm
·6 sorry.
·7· · · · · · · ·When was the final presentation made
·8 regarding project remedies Bansky?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form, assumes
10 facts.
11· · · · · · · ·You may answer if you understand.
12· · ·A.· ·I think you're suggesting the project's done,
13 and I would dispute that the project is done.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· That is fair.
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Hey, Brent, I'm sorry.· Can we
16 take a quick break?
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.· Let's go off the
18 record.
19· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
20 4:56 p.m.
21· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
22· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
23 5:00 p.m.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
25 When was the latest presentation made with respect to
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 219
YVer1f
PDF Page 223
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 222 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3287
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
220
·1 remedies Project Banksy?
·2· · ·A.· ·Very recently.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And who made that presentation?
·4· · ·A.· ·
·5· · ·Q.· ·And who helped prepare that presentation?
·6· · ·A.· ·
·7
and likely the program manager,
, and either
.
·8· · ·Q.· ·Thank you for that.
·9· · · · · · · ·And who attended the most recent
10 presentation with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
11· · ·A.· ·That would have been
12 myself,
,
That's the likely lead set.
13· · ·Q.· ·Okay.
14· · ·A.· ·Probably also
.
15· · ·Q.· ·And did any attorneys attend the most recent
16 presentation with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.· Likely that would have been
who I
18 believe is not listed on here as in-counsel because
19 she's relatively recent.
20· · ·Q.· ·And what is
last name?
21· · ·A.· ·I believe it's
.· I can look that up
22 or submit it to you shortly.
23· · ·Q.· ·Sure.· We can get that from your counsel later.
24· · · · · · · ·And who created the first presentation
25 with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 220
YVer1f
PDF Page 224
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 223 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3288
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
221
·1· · ·A.· ·I believe that would have been
·2 and
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'm sorry.· Before we move on,
·4 I just wanted to confirm
last name is
·5· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Thank you.
·6· · ·A.· ·I apologize.· I'm terrible with names, so bear
·7 with me.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· No problem.· I'm glad you
·9 gave us the information.
10· · · · · · · ·So who attended the first presentation
11 with respect to remedies Project Banksy?
12· · ·A.· ·
.· That's it.
14· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
15· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· That's it.
16· · ·Q.· ·Did any attorneys attend the first remedies
17 Project Banksy presentation?
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.· That would have been
19 remember if
and I don't
was involved at that point.
20· · ·Q.· ·Did any Alphabet employee create a financial
21 forecast as a part of Project Remedies Bansky?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that your
23 question is seeking the contents of the privileged and
24 work product documents, I instruct the witness not to
25 answer.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 221
YVer1f
PDF Page 225
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 224 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3289
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
222
·1· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I unfortunately can't answer for
·2 privilege.
·3· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
·4· · · · · · · ·And did Alphabet project, model or
·5 otherwise consider any cost savings as a part of
·6 remedies Project Banksy?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow your
·9 counsel's instruction not to answer,
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·As part of remedies Project Banksy, is Alphabet
12 considering changing the pricing of any of its ad tech
13 products?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow your
16 counsel's instruction not to answer,
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·Did Project Banksy, the remedies version,
19 incorporate any other analyses created by Alphabet
20 employees prior to the beginning of Project Banksy?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Can we take a break to discuss
22 an issue of privilege?
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Sure.
24· · ·A.· ·Can you restate it before we break?
25· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Sure.· Did the remedies
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 222
YVer1f
PDF Page 226
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 225 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3290
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
223
·1 version of Project Banksy incorporate any analyses
·2 created by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of
·3 Project Banksy, the remedies version?
·4· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.
·5· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
·6· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·7 5:06 p.m.
·8· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·9· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
10 5:14 p.m.
11· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right,
12 Before the break I asked you whether the remedies
13 version of Project Banksy incorporated any analyses
14 created by Alphabet employees prior to the beginning of
15 the project.
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·And what were those analyses?
18· · ·A.· ·Well, we performed a lot of analyses in the
19 initial Bansky effort prior to the regulatory
20 (inaudible).
21· · ·Q.· ·And what were the names of those analyses?
22· · ·A.· ·I can't speak to that because that would be
23 privileged.
24· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Can you provide any more information
25 about the analyses that were performed as part of the
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 223
YVer1f
PDF Page 227
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 226 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3291
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
224
·1 initial Bansky effort?
·2· · ·A.· ·Sure.· If you're more specific, I can.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Well, all I have is the answer you gave as to,
·4 "And what were those analyses?
·5· · · · · · · ·"We performed a lot of analyses in the
·6 initial Bansky effort prior to the regulatory portion."
·7· · · · · · · ·And so my question is what were those
·8 analyses?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Yeah.· And point of
10 clarification here, you know, were you asking whether to
11 name the analyses that were incorporated into the
12 remedies project, or are you asking him just what type
13 of analyses were performed in the original project
14 generally?
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· The names of the analyses
16 that were incorporated into the remedies project.
17· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Okay.· And to that question I
18 instruct the witness not to answer because answering
19 would invade the work product doctrine.
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
22 instruction?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·What data sources did Alphabet employees rely
25 upon for any financial analyses prepared for remedies
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 224
YVer1f
PDF Page 228
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 227 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3292
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
225
·1 Project Banksy?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction and object to
·3 the form.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you answer that
·5 question,
·6· · ·A.· ·No.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And are there any successor projects to Project
·8 Banksy?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
10 answer because that project invades the attorney/client
11 privilege and the work product doctrine.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And what is the name of the
13 successor project to Project Banksy?
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· And will you follow
16 that instruction,
17· · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · ·Q.· ·Is there a successor project to Project Banksy?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Will you follow
21 that instruction,
22· · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And, Ms. Elmer, is your
24 position on behalf of Alphabet that the existence of a
25 successor project to Project Banksy is properly
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 225
YVer1f
PDF Page 229
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 228 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3293
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
226
·1 protected by privilege?
·2· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· My position is that it's
·3 beyond the scope of the CID.
·4· · · · · · · ·And, you know, this whole exercise is
·5 borderline.· I think the CID for the most part, the
·6 topics that are set forth in it are not valid because
·7 they attempt to invade the attorney/client privilege and
·8 the work product doctrine.
·9· · · · · · · ·We're not going to go beyond the scope of
10 the CID to talk about more privileged projects and work
11 product projects.· We're just not going to do that, not
12 in the deposition here today.
13· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.·
14 will you follow Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer my
15 question?
16· · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · ·Q.· ·Let me now turn to Project Quantize, which is
18 part of specifications 1g and specification 2.
19· · · · · · · ·Who chose the name "Project Quantize" for
20 the projects?
21· · ·A.· ·I did.
22· · ·Q.· ·And if you could turn, please, to Exhibit 7,
23 which is the February 25th letter, on page 5 of the PDF.
24 Please let me know when you have that in front of you.
25· · ·A.· ·I do.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 226
YVer1f
PDF Page 230
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 229 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3294
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
227
·1· · ·Q.· ·What was the subject matter of Project
·2 Quantize?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And to the extent that you can
·4 answer the question without invading the privilege, you
·5 may do so,
otherwise, I instruct you not to
·6 answer.
·7· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· So I was seeking legal advice with
·8 respect to GDPR and its impact on our products.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And from whom were you
10 seeking legal advice?
11· · ·A.· ·From our in-house P counsel and our privacy
12 counsel.
13· · ·Q.· ·What do you mean when you say "P counsel"?
14· · ·A.· ·Product counsel.
15· · ·Q.· ·And what is the name of your product counsel?
16· · ·A.·
17· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And what is the name of the privacy
18 counsel you just referenced?
19· · ·A.· ·That's
and
20· · ·Q.· ·And were any product counsel involved with
21 Project Quantize?
22· · ·A.· ·No.
23· · ·Q.· ·Is the third bullet point that runs from page 5
24 to page 6 of Exhibit 7 a full and complete list of all
25 Google employees who are not in-house counsel who worked
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 227
YVer1f
PDF Page 231
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 230 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3295
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
228
·1 on Project Quantize?
·2· · ·A.· ·The actual team that worked on it was a very,
·3 very small subset of this list.· This is more of the
·4 audience that the legal advice went out to.
·5· · ·Q.· ·And who in this list was part of that very
·6 small subset that was part of the actual team that
·7 worked on Project Quantize?
·8· · ·A.· ·Me,
and
·9· · ·Q.· ·And what were your job responsibilities with
10 respect to Project Quantize?
11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I admonish the witness that he
12 be mindful not to invade the privilege with his answer.
13· · ·A.· ·To establish the goals of the project.
14· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And is there any more
15 information you can provide subject to Ms. Elmer's
16 instruction?
17· · ·A.· ·No.· That would speak to the legal advice I was
18 seeking.
19· · ·Q.· ·And what work did you perform with respect to
20 Project Quantize?
21· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
22· · ·A.· ·I established the team and the problem
23 statements.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And other than establishing
25 the team and the problem statements, is there any other
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 228
YVer1f
PDF Page 232
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 231 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3296
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
229
·1 information you can provide subject to Ms. Elmer's
·2 instructions with respect to the work you performed on
·3 Project Quantize?
·4· · ·A.· ·No.
·5· · ·Q.· ·In total how many meetings occurred at Alphabet
·6 for Project Quantize?
·7· · ·A.· ·Approximately eight.
·8· · ·Q.· ·And when did the first meeting occur for
·9 Project Quantize?
10· · ·A.· ·In October of 2020.
11· · ·Q.· ·And when did the last meeting occur for Project
12 Quantize?
13· · ·A.· ·February of 2021.
14· · ·Q.· ·And how many of those approximately eight
15 meetings were attended by Google's in-house counsel?
16· · ·A.· ·All of them.
17· · ·Q.· ·At any time did anyone at Alphabet discuss
18 Project Quantize with any third party other than outside
19 counsel employed by Alphabet?
20· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Object to the form, assumes
21 facts.
22· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· At any time did anyone at
23 Alphabet discuss Project Quantize with any third party?
24· · ·A.· ·No.
25· · ·Q.· ·How many employee hours in your reasonable
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 229
YVer1f
PDF Page 233
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 232 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3297
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
230
·1 estimate have been spent on Project Quantize?
·2· · ·A.· ·20.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Was Project Quantize undertaken in response to
·4 any investigations?
·5· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·6· · ·Q.· ·And what investigations was Project Quantize
·7 undertaken in response to?
·8· · ·A.· ·The U.K. ICO, the Irish DPC.
·9· · ·Q.· ·Any other investigations that Project Quantize
10 was undertaken in response to?
11· · ·A.· ·Those were the two primary.
12· · ·Q.· ·Was there any anticipated litigation that
13 Project Quantize was undertaken in response to?
14· · ·A.· ·Did you say anticipated litigation?
15· · ·Q.· ·Yes.
16· · ·A.· ·Can I have sidebar quickly?
17· · ·Q.· ·Sure.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Let's go off the record.
19· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
20 5:24 p.m.
21· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
22· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· On the record at
23 5:27 p.m.
24· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.·
25 was there any anticipated litigation that Project
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 230
YVer1f
PDF Page 234
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 233 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3298
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
231
·1 Quantize was undertaken in response to?
·2· · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Are there any other regulations other than GDPR
·4 that Project Quantize was undertaken in response to?
·5· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I object to this question
·6 as invading the attorney/client privilege and instruct
·7 the witness not to answer.
·8· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Will you follow
·9 Ms. Elmer's instruction?
10· · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · ·Q.· ·All right.· Were any presentations prepared by
12 Alphabet employees regarding Project Quantize?
13· · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · ·Q.· ·How many?
15· · ·A.· ·Two.
16· · ·Q.· ·And when were those presentations made?
17· · ·A.· ·The presentations were made in December of 2020
18 and then again with a larger group in January/February.
19· · ·Q.· ·In January and February of 2021.· Is that
20 right?
21· · ·A.· ·Yes, that's right.
22· · ·Q.· ·And who prepared the December 2020
23 presentation?
24· · ·A.· ·
.
25· · ·Q.· ·And who attended the December 2020
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 231
YVer1f
PDF Page 235
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 234 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3299
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
232
·1 presentation?
·2· · ·A.· ·Me,
That's it.
·4· · ·Q.· ·Who created the January or February 2021
·5 presentation as part of Project Quantize?
·6· · ·A.· ·It's the same presentation.
·7· · ·Q.· ·And who attended that presentation in January
·8 or February of 2021 about Project Quantize?
·9· · ·A.· ·So that would be the rest of the people you see
10 in bullet 3 on page 6 of Exhibit 7 in addition to legal
11 counsel.
12· · ·Q.· ·So the individuals who attended the Project
13 Quantize presentation in January or February of 2021
14 about Project Quantize are the Google in-house counsel
15 included in the second-to-last bullet point on page 5 of
16 Exhibit 7 and the Google employees included listed on
17 the final bullet point on page 5 running over to page 6
18 of Exhibit 7, correct?
19· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Let me be very clear.· The second bullet
20 point is in-house counsel; the third bullet point is the
21 employees.· And I believe all of them were involved in
22 the January and/or February presentation.
23· · ·Q.· ·Thank you.
24· · · · · · · ·Did Alphabet employees rely on any data
25 sources in preparing any analyses for Project Quantize?
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 232
YVer1f
PDF Page 236
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 235 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3300
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
233
·1· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· So to the extent that
·2 responding to this question would invade the privilege,
·3 I instruct the witness not to answer.· If there's a way
·4 to answer the question without invading the privilege,
·5 you may do so.
·6· · ·A.· ·I guess I can say the text of the general
·7 protection regulation was one data source, and beyond
·8 that, I can't speak further.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And the reason you cannot
10 speak further is because of Ms. Elmer's privilege
11 instruction.· Is that correct?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Did Alphabet consider making any pricing
14 changes to its ad tech products as a result of the work
15 done for Project Quantize?
16· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
17· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I choose not to answer per privilege.
18· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Okay.· Thank you.
19· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
20 upload into the Chat tab 12, please.
21· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
22 know when you have this in front of you.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Could the court reporter
24 please mark this as Alphabet Exhibit 12.
25· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 12 marked)
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 233
YVer1f
PDF Page 237
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 236 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3301
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
234
·1· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· This is a letter sent from;
·2 your counsel, Ms. Elmer, to me and the Antitrust
·3 Division on February 17th, 2022.· Let me know when it's
·4 in front of you.
·5· · ·A.· ·It's in front of me.
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I'm going to object to any
·7 questions regarding this particular document or any of
·8 the topics set forth in it as outside the scope of the
·9 CID.
10· · · · · · · ·So the witness' testimony will be in his
11 personal capacity and not as a 30(b)(6) witness.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· I'm going to ask you
13 narrowly,
only about, as you see in the
14 second full paragraph, "the future of 'display review'
15 and meeting that occurred in 2020."
16· · · · · · · ·So my questions with respect to that are
17 first was Project Sunday presented as part of that
18 future of display review that occurred in 2020?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
20 answer the question because the future of display review
21 is a privileged and work product project and this
22 question is beyond the scope of the CID.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· And will you
24 follow that instruction,
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 234
YVer1f
PDF Page 238
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 237 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3302
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
235
·1· · ·Q.· ·Was Project Monday presented as part of the
·2 future of display review?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Will you follow
·5 that instruction?
·6· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · ·Q.· ·Was Project Stonehenge presented as part of the
·8 future of display review?
·9· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
11 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer?
12· · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · ·Q.· ·Was Project SingleClick presented as part of
14 the 2020 future of display review?
15· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And will you follow
17 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer,
18· · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · ·Q.· ·Was Project Banksy remedies, the remedies
20 version of that, presented at the future of display
21 review in 2020?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
24 instruction not to answer,
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 235
YVer1f
PDF Page 239
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 238 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3303
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
236
·1· · ·Q.· ·And lastly, was Project Quantize presented at
·2 the 2020 future of display review?
·3· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same instruction.
·4· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· Will you follow
·5 Ms. Elmer's instruction not to answer my question,
·6
·7· · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's go off
·9 the record.
10· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
11 5:35 p.m.
12· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
13· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
14 5:45 p.m.
15· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.· Could the court
16 reporter please mark what has been put in the Chat as
17 Alphabet Exhibit 30 [sic].· This document is a document
18 that has been reproduced after a clawback from
19 Alphabet's counsel with additional redactions applied.
20 It is a document that begins with Bates
21 No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00205841, ending in Bates No. 5843.
22· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 13 marked)
23· · ·Q· · (By Mr. Nakamura)·
I would like
24 to direct your attention to the third page of this
25 document ending in Bates No. 5842.· Could you please let
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 236
YVer1f
PDF Page 240
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 239 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3304
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
237
·1 me know when you are there.
·2· · ·A.· ·I am there.
·3· · ·Q.· ·Looking at the first full bullet point on
·4 page 4 of this PDF, did Project Stonehenge involve
·5 Alphabet's consideration of
?
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I instruct the witness not
·8 to answer the question.· It's an improper question that
·9 attempts to invade the privilege, the work product
10 doctrine, and on that basis instruct the witness not to
11 answer.
12· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
13 instruction,
14· · ·A.· ·Yes.
15· · ·Q.· ·And was the
discussion
16 mentioned in this bullet point one that was done
17 separately from Project Stonehenge?
18· · ·A.· ·I don't know how to answer that with invading
19 the privilege.
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Ms. Elmer, are you
21 instructing
then not to answer my question?
22· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Let's take a break to discuss
23 an issue of privilege.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· Let's go off
25 the record.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 237
YVer1f
PDF Page 241
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 240 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3305
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
238
·1· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record at
·2 5:47 p.m.
·3· · · · · · · ·(Recess taken)
·4· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Back on the record at
·5 5:49 p.m.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And,
·7 question was was the
my
discussion
·8 mentioned in this bullet point on Exhibit 13, one, a
·9 discussion that was done separately from Project
10 Stonehenge?
11· · ·A.· ·I can't answer questions about what was part of
12 Stonehenge or not, as that would violate privilege.
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Brent, I think if you were to
14 ask the witness whether there were
15 discussions that were business discussions and not part
16 of a work product project, he might be able to answer
17 your question.
18· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· I will give
19 that a shot.
20· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Were there
discussions that were business discussions that
22 occurred that were not part of a work product project?
23· · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · ·Q.· ·And when did those discussions take place?
25· · ·A.· ·All the time for as long as I can personally
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 238
YVer1f
PDF Page 242
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 241 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3306
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
239
·1 remember and from what I've seen over the past five to
·2 ten years, quite regularly.
·3· · ·Q.· ·And was Alphabet's consideration of
?
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And I'm going to object to
·7 this question as exceeding the scope of the CID, but the
·8 witness may answer in his individual capacity.
·9· · ·A.· ·Yeah.· I'll go so far as to say yes.
10· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And was the consideration of
11
13· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Same scope objection, but he
14 may answer in his individual capacity.
15· · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And was
17 was Alphabet's consideration of
part of Project Stonehenge?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
20 answer the question because your question invades the
21 work product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
22· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Thank you.
23· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· Will you follow Ms. Elmer's
24 instruction?
25· · ·A.· ·Yes.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 239
YVer1f
PDF Page 243
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 242 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3307
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
240
·1· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And before we put this
·2 aside, I will register the Division's position that we
·3 believe that privilege has been waived over this
·4 document and the redactions that were made were not
·5 appropriate.· So with that,
you can put
·6 that aside.
·7· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· And we dispute that position,
·8 but that is not a discussion for this deposition.
·9· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· And -- I'm sorry.· Go ahead.
10· · ·A.· ·I just think it's -11· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:·
that's okay.
12· · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.
13· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
did you have
14 anything to add?
15· · ·A.· ·Well, I just think real briefly in a document
16 like this that starts to talk to smaller groups that are
17 cross-functional, there's -- it's very difficult to get
18 anything done in an organization this size without
19 talking to the cross-functional partners on any given
20 project.
21· · · · · · · ·So I just want -- like I know I had talked
22 about it at the VP level and the acknowledgments and
23 leadership as well, but it's also the case in these
24 types of projects and all the projects we've been
25 talking to, like you have to solicit all various
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 240
YVer1f
PDF Page 244
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 243 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3308
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
241
·1 functions to get any sort of progress on those.
·2· · · · · · · ·I get the feeling that a lot of the
·3 questions are around, you know, why were there so many
·4 people involved here.· And it's because like to get
·5 anything done -- like legal can't answer these
·6 questions.· These get pushed back to -- usually the
·7 starting point, legal says, Hey, there's something
·8 wrong.· And then I've got to go figure out how to solve
·9 that; and to do that, it's going to have implications
10 across the entire company.
11· · · · · · · ·So that's just a pattern that I don't
12 think we really discussed, but I hope that sheds some
13 light into why you see the cross-functional teams as the
14 working groups in all of these areas.
15· · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you,
I appreciate
16 that.
17· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Seumas, could you please
18 load into the Chat tab 31, please.
19· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
please let me
20 when you have that in front of you.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· While that is downloading
22 for you, I will note that this is an -- could the court
23 reporter please mark this as Exhibit 14 for Alphabet.
24· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 14 marked)
25· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· And this Exhibit 14 was a
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 241
YVer1f
PDF Page 245
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 244 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3309
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
242
·1 document that was clawed back by Alphabet's counsel
·2 during this deposition and reproduced to us with
·3 additional redactions applied.· This is a document that
·4 begins with Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-00660900 and ends in
·5 Bates No. 0904.
·6· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)·
I plan only to
·7 ask you about the first page.· Please let me know when
·8 you have reviewed that.
·9· · ·A.· ·Yes.· I reviewed it.
10· · ·Q.· ·The first question is did Alphabet consider
11
as part of Project Stonehenge?
12· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I instruct the witness not to
13 answer the question because your question invades the
14 work product doctrine and the attorney/client privilege.
15· · ·Q.· ·(By Mr. Nakamura)· All right.· And with respect
16 to
question on May 13, 2020, to your
17 knowledge, is there a PRG or one-page document that was
18 produced as part of
?
19· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· Go ahead,
I'm sorry.
20· · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Ms. Elmer, did you have
22 anything?
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· No, I didn't.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Okay.· Thank you.· And with
25 that, I will note, again, that the Division believes
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 242
YVer1f
PDF Page 246
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 245 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3310
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
243
·1 that this document has been inappropriately clawed back
·2 and that privilege has been waived and that I should
·3 have been able to examine
as the Alphabet
·4 representative on what has now been redacted.· But with
·5 that, I have no further questions on this document.
·6· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· We dispute your position, and
·7 we're not going to argue about it here on the
·8 deposition.
·9· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· Fair enough.
10· · · · · · · ·Seumas, could you please put in the Chat
11 tab 32.
12· · · · · · · ·While this is being uploaded, this is -13 if I can have the court reporter please mark this as
14 Alphabet Exhibit 15.
15· · · · · · · ·(Exhibit 15 marked)
16· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· This is a document that was
17 clawed back by Alphabet's counsel during this deposition
18 and had additional redactions applied.· It is a document
19 that begins in Bates No. GOOG-DOJ-AT-0030150, ending in
20 Bates No. 0159.
21· · · · · · · ·For the record, I'd like to point the
22 witness' attention to PDF page 4.· That is a page ending
23 in Bates No. 0152.· I will note that additional
24 redactions have been applied to several lines to a
25 bullet point that begins "Antitrust worked with
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 243
YVer1f
PDF Page 247
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 246 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3311
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
244
·1
and
to build up expertise on the team to
·2 effectively work on regulation and antitrust inquiries."
·3 The rest of that bullet point has now been redacted.
·4· · · · · · · ·I had planned to examine
·5 Alphabet's representative, on what has now been
·6 redacted, and the Division believes that those
·7 redactions are inappropriate as waiver has occurred and
·8 that the redactions were in the first instance
·9 inappropriate in any event with respect to work product
10 and attorney/client privilege.
11· · · · · · · ·With that and subject to anything
12 Ms. Elmer would like to add, I have no further questions
13 on this document.
14· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· We dispute your position with
15 respect to waiver for all of the reasons that we've set
16 forth in prior correspondence with you, particularly
17 given the tremendous scope of the document production
18 that's been made in this matter; but we're not going to
19 argue about it here with you at the deposition.
20· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· I appreciate that.· And
21 with that, I have no further questions subject,
22 Ms. Elmer, to any questions you might ask
23· · · · · · · ·MS. ELMER:· I do not have any questions.
24· · · · · · · ·MR. NAKAMURA:· All right.· With that, no
25 further questions.
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 244
YVer1f
PDF Page 248
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 247 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3312
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
245
·1· · · · · · · ·Thank you,
and thank you,
·2 Counsel, for staying so late.· Really appreciate it.
·3 And that's all I have.
·4· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· This concludes today's
·5 deposition given by
The time off the
·6 record is 5:59 p.m.
·7· · · · · · · ·(Proceedings concluded at 5:59 p.m.)
·8
·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 245
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 249 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3314
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
·1· · ·I,
February 28, 2022
247
have read the foregoing deposition
·2 and hereby affix my signature that same is true and
·3 correct, except as noted above.
·4
·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·___________________________
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
·6
·7 THE STATE OF _______________)
·8 COUNTY OF __________________)
·9· · ·Before me, ____________________________, on this day
10 personally appeared
known to me or proved
11 to me on the oath of _________________ or through
12 __________________________ (description of identity card
13 or other document) to be the person whose name is
14 subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
15 to me that he/she executed the same for the purpose and
16 consideration therein expressed.
17· · ·Given under my hand and seal of office on this _____
18 day of __________________, _______.
19
20· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·__________________________
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
21· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·THE STATE OF _____________
22 My Commission Expires: _________
23
24 _____No Changes Made· _____ Amendment Sheet(s) Attached
25
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 247
PDF Page 251
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 250 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3315
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
248
·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
· · · · · · ·ANTITRUST DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
·2
·3· · ·PURSUANT TO CIVIL INVESTIGATION DEMAND NO. 30762
·4
·5· · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
·6· · · · · · ·ORAL DEPOSITION OF
·7· · · · · · · · · · ·February 28, 2022
·8
·9· · ·I, Melinda Barre, Certified Shorthand Reporter in
10 and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the
11 following:
12· · ·That the witness,
was duly sworn by
13 the officer and that the transcript of the oral
14 deposition is a true record of the testimony given by
15 the witness;
16· · · That the original deposition was delivered to
17 Brent Nakamura.
18· · · That a copy of this certificate was served on all
19 parties and/or the witness shown herein
20 on _____________________.
21· · · I further certify that pursuant to FRCP Rule
22 30(f)(1), that the signature of the deponent:
23· · · ____ was requested by the deponent or a party before
24 the completion of the deposition and that the signature is
25 to be before any notary public and returned within 30 days
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 248
PDF Page 252
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 251 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3316
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
249
·1 from date of receipt of the transcript.· If returned,
·2 the attached Changes and Signature Page contains any
·3 changes and the reasons therefor:
·4· · · ____was not requested by the deponent or a
·5 party before the completion of the deposition.
·6· · · I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
·7 related to, nor employed by any of the parties or
·8 attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was
·9 taken, and further that I am not financially or
10 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
11· · · Certified to by me on this, the _______ day
12 of _______________, 2022.
13
14
15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
16· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Melinda Barre
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Texas CSR 2192
17· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Expiration:· 12/31/23
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 249
PDF Page 253
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 284-31 Filed 07/17/23 Page 252 of 279 PageID#
Civil Investigation Demand - No. 30762
3317
30(b)(6), Highly Confidential
February 28, 2022
250
·1 COUNTY OF HARRIS· · ·)
·2 STATE OF TEXAS· · · ·)
·3· · ·I hereby certify that the witness was notified on
·4 ________________ that the witness has 30 days or (____
·5 days per agreement of counsel) after being notified by
·6 the officer that the transcript is available for review
·7 by the witness and if there are changes in the form or
·8 substance to be made, then the witness shall sign a
·9 statement reciting such changes and the reasons given by
10 the witness for making them;
11· · · That the witness' signature was/was not returned as
12 of _______________.
13· · · Subscribed and sworn to on this, the _____ day of
14 __________________, 2022.
15
16
17
18
19· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Melinda Barre
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Texas CSR 2192
21· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Expiration:· 12/31/23
22
23
24
25
www.LexitasLegal.com/Premier
Lexitas
888-267-1200 Page 250