EXHIBIT 67 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 1 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

4

 ______________________________

5 WAYMO LLC, )

6 Plaintiff, )

7 vs. ) Case No.

8 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

9 OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO )

10 TRUCKING LLC, )

11 Defendants. )

 ______________________________)

12

13 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

14

15 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SCOTT BOEHMKE

16 San Francisco, California

17 Monday, April 17, 2017

18 Volume I

19

20

21 Reported by:

22 SUZANNE F. GUDELJ, CSR No. 5111

23 Job No. 2596382

24

25 PAGES 1 - 79

Page 1

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 2 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

4

5 ______________________________

6 WAYMO LLC, )

7 Plaintiff, )

8 vs. ) Case No.

9 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

10 OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO )

11 TRUCKING LLC, )

12 Defendants. )

13 ______________________________)

14

15 Videotaped Deposition of SCOTT BOEHMKE,

16 Volume I, taken on behalf of Plaintiff Waymo

17 LLC, at the Law Offices of Quinn Emanuel

18 Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, 50 California Street,

19 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California,

20 beginning at 2:08 p.m. and ending at 4:01 p.m.

21 a.m., on Monday, April 17, 2017, before SUZANNE

22 F. GUDELJ, Certified Shorthand Reporter No.

23 5111.

24

25

Page 2

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 3 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 was in the office in one of -- you know, people

2 wanted us to talk lasers.

3 Q Who were those people?

4 A I don't know -- know exactly who it was.

5 There were various people that knew he was into 02:13:44

6 lasers, and that was my responsibility.

7 Q Who were the various people?

8 A Like I said, I don't remember who or how

9 this got set up.

10 Q So he just appeared in your office, and you 02:13:57

11 guys started talking about LiDAR technology?

12 A I -- I didn't know the circumstances around

13 which he was there.

14 Q So you can't identify a single person that

15 prompted the discussion between you and Mr. 02:14:10

16 Levandowski; is that accurate?

17 MR. KIM: Objection. Misstates character

18 -- testimony.

19 THE WITNESS: I don't recall who arranged

20 the setup. 02:14:21

21 BY MR. JAFFE:

22 Q My question was a little different. Can

23 you identify a single person that prompted you and

24 Mr. Levandowski to have that first LiDAR discussion?

25 A Not right now, no. 02:14:37

Page 11

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 4 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 Q Okay. So you started talking with Mr.

2 Levandowski about LiDAR sensors for Uber's

3 self-driving cars in April of 2016, correct?

4 A Yes.

5 Q And you were interested in talking to him 02:14:52

6 because he was going to provide custom LiDAR

7 technology for Uber, right?

8 MR. KIM: Objection. Vague.

9 THE WITNESS: Could you be more specific?

10 MR. JAFFE: So Mr. Kim, I don't know if 02:15:06

11 you've read Judge Alsup's standing order recently,

12 but he has very specific guidance about the type of

13 objections, and so at this point, I would just

14 suggest to you that what you're doing is a little

15 bit farther out of bounds than what has been done in 02:15:23

16 this case so far. But --

17 MR. KIM: So I'll --

18 MR. JAFFE: So putting that aside --

19 MR. KIM: I've read Judge Alsup's standing

20 order, and I disagree with that characterization. 02:15:33

21 My objection was just as to the improper form of the

22 question. It's also consistent with the objections

23 we made in depositions taken by yourself and

24 Mr. Perlson for both Mr. Levandowski and also others

25 in this case. 02:15:52

Page 12

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 5 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 BY MR. JAFFE:

2 Q Mr. Boehmke, you were interested in talking

3 with Mr. Levandowski because he was going to provide

4 Uber with custom LiDAR technology, right?

5 A He was going to provide a sensor for our 02:16:06

6 cars.

7 Q What kind of a sensor?

8 A A laser sensor -- LiDAR sensor.

9 Q A custom LiDAR sensor?

10 A Correct. 02:16:17

11 Q So again, you'd agree with me, then, that

12 you were interested in talking with Mr. Levandowski

13 because he was going to provide a custom LiDAR

14 solution for Uber, right?

15 A Yes. 02:16:27

16 Q And this was three months, or actually

17 February, March, two and a half to three months

18 since he left at the time Google, right?

19 MR. KIM: Objection to the extent it calls

20 for speculation. 02:16:37

21 THE WITNESS: I don't know when he left

22 Google.

23 BY MR. JAFFE:

24 Q Did you ask him?

25 A No. 02:16:41

Page 13

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 6 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 right?

2 A Yes.

3 Q He didn't come to you with any sort of

4 technology proposal; is that right?

5 A Yes. 02:17:54

6 Q Okay. So you communicated these

7 requirements to Mr. Levandowski. What happened

8 next?

9 A So I met with him on -- in the end of

10 April. I went out to the Otto facility in the 02:18:07

11 beginning of May and furthered discussions with

12 others at Otto.

13 Q Who were these others?

14 A Most primarily Daniel Gruver.

15 Q Anyone else? 02:18:23

16 A There were a number of other minor players

17 that I was introduced to. Didn't have as many

18 technical conversations with them.

19 Q What are their names?

20 A There was a Rattner. The names escape me. 02:18:34

21 Q So the only two people that you can

22 remember speaking with at Otto were Mr. Levandowski,

23 Mr. Gruver and a Mr. Rattner; is that right?

24 A And there was a Nancy who let me in the

25 door. 02:18:55

Page 15

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 7 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 Q Great.

2 MR. JAFFE: I'm going to mark as Exhibit 51

3 a document Bates labeled UBER00008569. Oh, sorry,

4 this is going to be a different -- I'll mark my one

5 52, then. 02:19:12

6 (Deposition Exhibit 52 marked by the court

7 reporter.)

8 BY MR. JAFFE:

9 Q Mr. Boehmke, have you seen what I've marked

10 as Exhibit 52 before? 02:19:46

11 A I believe I have.

12 Q Why were you sending Mr. Levandowski an

13 email entitled "Simulation" in April of 2016?

14 A This was one of the configurations that he

15 and I had discussed on the 27th. It was based on a 02:20:01

16 simulation I had done in December of 2015, and so I

17 gave him a output from that simulation.

18 Q Okay. What is Mr. Levandowski's job at

19 Uber right now?

20 A He's leading the self-driving car effort. 02:20:33

21 Q Including LiDAR?

22 A It's under his purview.

23 Q So he's in charge of Uber's LiDAR

24 development efforts, right?

25 A I don't report directly to him, but the 02:20:45

Page 16

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 8 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 chain of command would go to him.

2 Q So "yes"?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Okay. Does -- do you work on any other

5 projects other than Fuji right now? 02:20:58

6 A Yes.

7 Q What are the other projects you work on?

8 A 

9

10 Q Any other LiDAR projects? 02:21:08

11 A 

12

13 Q 

14 A 

15 02:21:25

16

17 MR. KIM: At this point, I'm going on

18 designate the entire transcript Attorneys' Eyes Only

19 subject to the protective order in this case.

20 MR. JAFFE: Okay. 02:21:42

21 BY MR. JAFFE:

22 Q All right. We'll come back to that.

23 

24

25 A 02:21:55

Page 17

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 9 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

2 Q 

3

4

5 MR. KIM: Objection to the extent it calls 02:22:08

6 for speculation.

7 THE WITNESS: Fuji solves one of many

8 problems.

9 BY MR. JAFFE:

10 Q What does that mean? 02:22:16

11 A There are -- there are several ways to

12 solve the self-driving sensor problem. Fuji attacks

13 it from one direction. 

14

15 Q 02:22:32

16 A 

17 Q 

18

19 A 

20 Q Okay. 02:22:42

21

22 A Like I said, Fuji solves a particular

23 solution. There are other aspects where LiDAR can

24 also be helpful.

25 Q What is the particular -- particular 02:22:57

Page 18

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 10 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 solution that Fuji solves?

2 A 

3

4 Q 

5 02:23:13

6 A --

7 (Reporter clarification.)

8 

9

10 Q Does Uber have any custom LiDAR technology 02:23:26

11 related to ?

12 MR. KIM: Objection. Vague.

13 THE WITNESS: We have demonstrated 

14 yes.

15 BY MR. JAFFE: 02:23:42

16 Q What's the name of the 

17 A It's in-house.

18 Q What's the name of it?

19 A I don't have -- don't have a project name.

20 Q When was the first time that it was 02:23:49

21 demonstrated?

22 A 

23 Q Okay. So you said you don't have a project

24 name. When you want to refer to this to your -- to

25 your colleagues, what -- how do you do it? 02:24:06

Page 19

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 11 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 A I don't know. I don't know. I don't have

2 a name for it. I don't -- I refer to it as a --

3 it's 

4 Q you said?

5 A Mm-hmm. 02:24:39

6 Q Does it use ?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Who designed it?

9 A It was demonstrated by myself and a

10 coworker, Jim Gasbarro. 02:24:49

11 Q So going back to this timeline, you met Mr.

12 Levandowski in April. You started working on a

13 custom LiDAR solution where he would implement it

14 for Uber based on your specifications; is that

15 right? 02:25:10

16 A Yes.

17 Q Okay. At what point did you understand

18 that Uber was in potential discussions to acquire

19 Otto?

20 A I don't recall the timeline. 02:25:21

21 Q Can you give me any sort of bounding time?

22 Was it -- were you surprised -- well, let me start

23 over. Is that all right?

24 A That's fine.

25 Q When he heard about the acquisition, did it 02:25:33

Page 20

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 12 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 surprise you?

2 A No, it made sense.

3 Q I'm not asking if it made sense. Sorry, my

4 question was a little bit unclear.

5 When you heard about the acquisition, were 02:25:43

6 you surprised because you hadn't found out about it

7 before it was publicly announced?

8 A No.

9 Q Did you know about it in June?

10 A I don't recall. 02:25:54

11 Q What about May?

12 A I couldn't tell you the date we acquired

13 them. I don't recall.

14 Q Sure. I'm asking something a little bit

15 different, which is: When is your first 02:26:01

16 recollection of having an understanding that Uber

17 was in potential discussions to acquire Otto?

18 MR. KIM: Objection. Asked and answered.

19 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

20 BY MR. JAFFE: 02:26:13

21 Q Okay. Are you aware that Uber has claimed

22 in this case that it was having discussions with Mr.

23 Levandowski and Otto about a potential acquisition

24 as early as January 2016?

25 MR. KIM: Objection. Assumes facts not in 02:26:36

Page 21

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 13 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 

2 Right?

3 A That's what it says.

4 Q So Mr. Haslim is proposing transitioning to

5 this Fuji project in October -- on October 26th, 02:54:04

6 2016, right?

7 A Yes.

8 Q So you hadn't really started transitioning

9 to Fuji before this email, right?

10 A This email was days after his meeting with 02:54:16

11 us in Pittsburgh, yes.

12 Q When you say "us," who are you referring

13 to?

14 A The meetings with Eric and myself.

15 Q And your testimony is that Mr. Levandowski 02:54:27

16 was not at that meeting, right?

17 A No.

18 Q He didn't come into that meeting at all?

19 A No.

20 Q Okay. Now, later in his email he talks 02:54:36

21 about an optical cavity. Do you see that?

22 A Mm-hmm.

23 Q And it talks about the transmit elements --

24 and I'm paraphrasing here -- are 

25 02:54:50

Page 43

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 14 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 .

2 Do you know what that refers to?

3 A Yes.

4 Q What does it refer to?

5 A So they were 02:54:57

6

7

8 Q And it -- there's a reference here to a

9

10 02:55:14

11 Do you see that?

12 A Mm-hmm.

13 Q What does that refer that?

14 A That was the 

15 02:55:21

16 Q And why are -- what's the point of 

17

18 A 

19

20 02:55:36

21

22

23

24 Q Okay. I see. So we're talking about a

25 here; is that right? 02:55:49

Page 44

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 15 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 A Yes.

2 Q Okay. So in October, Otto was working on

3

4 A No. This was an optical cavity for V1.

5 Q I see. 02:56:04

6

7 A There was 

8 Q 

9

10 02:56:19

11

12 MR. KIM: Objection. Vague.

13 THE WITNESS: 

14

15 BY MR. JAFFE: 02:56:30

16 Q Who came up with that design?

17 A That would have been the West Coast team.

18 Q Mr. Levandowski?

19 A No, Mr. Haslim.

20 Q Mr. Levandowski wasn't involved in the 02:56:44

21 in V1?

22 MR. KIM: Objection. Calls for

23 speculation.

24 THE WITNESS: I have no way of knowing his

25 involvement. 02:56:53

Page 45

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 16 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 BY MR. JAFFE:

2 Q What about Mr. Gruver, 

3 in V1?

4 MR. KIM: Same objection.

5 THE WITNESS: My interface technically was 02:56:59

6 with Mr. Haslim.

7 BY MR. JAFFE:

8 Q So that doesn't answer my question.

9 Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I'm just going to

10 ask it again. 02:57:13

11 Was Mr. Gruver involved in 

12 in V1?

13 MR. KIM: Objection. Vague and to the

14 extent it calls for speculation.

15 THE WITNESS: So I don't know who did the 02:57:21

16 design. I'm saying that I was working with the two

17 of them. I don't know who did the optical design.

18 BY MR. JAFFE:

19 Q I see. So you don't know who came up with

20 the in V1, true? 02:57:32

21 MR. KIM: Objection. Calls for

22 speculation.

23 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

24 BY MR. JAFFE:

25 Q Okay. All you know is it was someone in 02:57:39

Page 46

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 17 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 MR. KIM: Objection. Lacks foundation.

2 Calls for speculation.

3 THE WITNESS: I don't --

4 MR. KIM: Also asked and answered.

5 THE WITNESS: I don't recall him commenting 03:20:02

6 on that.

7 BY MR. JAFFE:

8 Q I want to go back to your declaration,

9 which is Exhibit 50, and then I want to look at

10 paragraph 13. 03:20:38

11 A Okay.

12 Q So you say here in your declaration that

13 you, quote:

14 "Envisioned 

15 to 03:20:57

16 enable the use of a simple lens design."

17 Do you see that?

18 A Mm-hmm.

19 Q And you cite as evidence for that what is

20 Exhibit G to your declaration, right? 03:21:08

21 A Right.

22 Q And that's in that pile next to you with

23 the exhibits, so if you could just look at

24 Exhibit G.

25 Where does it say in Exhibit G that you 03:21:52

Page 57

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 18 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 were envisioning 

2

3 A It does not say that in this document.

4 Q Okay.

5 A This document was to demonstrate 03:22:11

6 positioning that were the

7 lines shown in the graphs.

8 Q What lines?

9 A These lines (indicating).

10 Q And after you came up with what's in 03:22:34

11 Exhibit G, what did you -- what did you do with this

12 information?

13 A So this information was the plan B which

14 was not pursued after going through commercial

15 third-party efforts with 03:22:50

16 Q And plan A was 

17 A Mm-hmm.

18 Q Plan B was -- did it have a name other than

19 plan B?

20 A It turned into Fuji. 03:22:59

21 Q And then what was plan C?

22 A Plan C was the 

23 Q Okay. Was there a plan D?

24 A Not by name.

25 Q What does that mean, "not by name"? 03:23:09

Page 58

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 19 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 A There were other configurations that we

2 were discussing, but they were not in that document

3 where I spelled out A, B and C.

4 Q So going back to Exhibit G of your

5 declaration -- 03:23:31

6 A Mm-hmm.

7 Q -- where does it say in this document that

8 -- where the -- 

9

10 A Each of the lines was a straight board. 03:23:44

11 Q Where does it say that?

12 A It's a spreadsheet. It doesn't say it.

13 Q Right. So there actually is no information

14 in here that says: Hey, we should put 

15 , right? 03:23:58

16 MR. KIM: Objection. Mischaracterizes the

17 evidence.

18 THE WITNESS: The diagram in the

19 declaration on the previous page shows 

20 as they would have been 03:24:07

21 in this board. This board -- this spreadsheet shows

22 how many boards would be required given a particular

23 pitch and a certain desire for a number of beams.

24 BY MR. JAFFE:

25 Q You came up with Exhibit G in February, 03:24:22

Page 59

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 20 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 right?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And this doesn't have any sort of notation

4 or information at all to note that each of these

5 points would be on a single circuit board, right? 03:24:38

6 A The document does not say that.

7 Q Okay. Now, let's go to the other document

8 we were referring to, which I think is Exhibit C to

9 your declaration.

10 So why don't you first go to page 12, 03:25:21

11 please.

12 A 12. Okay.

13 Q Do you see that there's some beam spacings

14 depicted here?

15 A Yes. 03:25:34

16 Q They're all -- looking at the left-hand

17 side, the one under VLP-16, all those dots are in a

18 row just like we looked at Exhibit G, right?

19 MR. KIM: Objection. Mischaracterizes

20 evidence. 03:25:45

21 THE WITNESS: The VLP-16 is 

22

23 BY MR. JAFFE:

24 Q And that looks like, just like what we were

25 looking at in Exhibit G, right? 03:25:55

Page 60

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 21 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 Q Okay. So we referred to What --

2 how far into the process did Uber and Otto get with

3

4 A 

5 03:57:48

6 Q Why not?

7 A We turned.

8 Q So you were building it, and then you

9 pivoted to Fuji; is that right?

10 A Yes. 03:58:00

11 Q And then you totally ceased development on

12

13 A That's my understanding, yes.

14 Q So a hundred percent of the LiDAR, custom

15 LiDAR resources went from to Fuji? 03:58:09

16 A I can not say a hundred percent. I don't

17 know. My understanding is that we moved on to Fuji.

18 Q All right. Were any of the components in

19 Fuji derivative of components that were originally

20 designed for 03:58:24

21 MR. KIM: Objection. Vague.

22 THE WITNESS: Components. 

23

24

25 BY MR. JAFFE: 03:58:40

Page 74

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 22 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 Q What about the transmit board design?

2 A That would be ridiculous. A transmit board

3 for the fiber laser is entirely different.

4 Q We talked about the design of the 

5 and that it's a ; is that 03:58:57

6 right?

7 A The was It had behind it

8

9 Q I see. So there would be 

10 03:59:13

11 is that right?

12 A Yes.

13 Q And your testimony is 

14 is that right?

15 A no. 03:59:28

16 Q So it didn't answer my question. My

17 question --

18 A To my knowledge, 

19

20 Q Okay. Thank you. 03:59:38

21 Is there anything else relevant to your

22 declaration, or as you understand it, the

23 allegations in this case, that we haven't discussed

24 today?

25 A We've overlooked a document provided to 03:59:54

Page 75

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 23 of 24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1 Otto where we called out the interest in putting

2

3 Q Where is that?

4 A It's document H.

5 Q Is that the one you referred to earlier? 04:00:06

6 A Yes.

7 MR. JAFFE: Okay. I have no further

8 questions, although I'm going to reserve our rights

9 with regard to any late document production and

10 inspection of the -related device. 04:00:18

11 MR. KIM: Okay. Short redirect.

12

13 EXAMINATION

14 BY MR. KIM:

15 Q Mr. Boehmke, you just referred to 04:00:30

16 Exhibit H. Is that the document that you asked to

17 see earlier in your deposition?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And why did you want to refer to that

20 exhibit? 04:00:39

21 A This exhibit on page 10 clearly shows 

22 something that I

23 was called out for in the -- one of the documents

24 saying that we had never mentioned we were going to

25 do that, and it's clearly spelled out in plan B. 04:00:55

Page 76

Veritext Legal Solutions

866 299-5127

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 248-4 Filed 04/21/17 Page 24 of 24