EXHIBIT 1

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-2 Filed 12/28/19 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-2 Filed 12/28/19 Page 2 of 6
Page 160

1 resale data.

2 She ignores trade-in data. She ignores

3 carrier data. She ignores proposed class

4 members who never resell or trade in their

5 phones.

6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 BY MR. McCARTY:

15 Q What data set would you use?

16 A I don't have an opinion on what data set

17 to use. That would be, that would require a lot of

18 analysis to even determine if there is an

19 appropriate data set because there are so many

20 different sources of information that would need to

21 be considered, and I have, I have not performed that

22 analysis.

23 Q Page 23 -- well, strike that.

24 On the bottom of 21, you state that I

25 understand that users who upgraded their iPhones to

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-2 Filed 12/28/19 Page 3 of 6
Page 170

1 BY MR. McCARTY:

2 Q Page 24, you say that Hastings' report --

3 I'll let you get there. This is just above

4 Section B.

5 You say: The Hastings report does

6 not express opinions that are supportable within a

7 reasonable degree of professional certainty. Which

8 profession are you referring to?

9 A So when I make this statement, I'm

10 referring to Dr. Hastings' opinions with, that she

11 expressed with respect to proposed class members

12 suffering a common harm, and I'm using a reasonable

13 degree of professional certainty broadly as it's

14 typically used in a legal, court-type context.

15 Q So it's a -- okay. But you're not saying

16 a reasonable degree of legal certainty, are you?

17 A I'm not making any legal conclusions.

18 Oftentimes in damages matters, experts are expected

19 to provide an opinion that is within a reasonable

20 degree of professional certainty, and it's my

21 opinion that Dr. Hastings fails to do that.

22 Her analysis is, it contains so many

23 fundamental flaws that you're unable to rely -- that

24 her opinion becomes speculative and unreliable.

25 Q Is there a particular error rate that

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-2 Filed 12/28/19 Page 4 of 6
Page 171

1 defines whether something is, I guess, supportable

2 within a reasonable degree of certainty or not?

3 A I'm unaware of a particular stated error

4 rate. I mean, there could be. It could vary by

5 jurisdiction, but I'm unaware of it.

6 Q Page 26 of your report, you state: I

7 understand that the measure of restitution for

8 plaintiffs' UCL claim is the difference between the

9 price plaintiff paid to Apple for their devices and

10 the value of the product they received in that the

11 measure of damages -- well, I'll stop there.

12 What is UCL?

13 A I'm referring to the unfair business

14 practices claim.

15 Q Where do you get the understanding that

16 you mention here that the measure of restitution in

17 a UCL claim is the difference between the price

18 plaintiffs paid and the value of the product they

19 received?

20 A So that is based on my discussions with

21 counsel. I'm not purporting to make any legal

22 conclusions.

23 Q You also discuss the measure of damages

24 for trespass to chattels claim?

25 A Yes.

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-2 Filed 12/28/19 Page 5 of 6
Page 213

1

2 C E R T I F I C A T E

3

4 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

5 :

6 COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA :

7

8

9 I, MAUREEN BRODERICK, Registered

10 Professional Reporter - Notary Public, within and

11 for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do hereby

12 certify that the proceedings, evidence, and

13 objections noted are contained fully and accurately

14 in the notes taken by me of the preceding

15 deposition, and that this copy is a correct

16 transcript of the same.

17

18

19

20

 ________________________

21

MAUREEN BRODERICK

22

Registered Professional

23

Reporter - Notary Public

24

25

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-2 Filed 12/28/19 Page 6 of 6