1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SETH D. HARRIS, Acting )

Secretary of Labor, United )

States Department of Labor, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 3:13-cv-728-HZ

)

vs. ) May 15, 2013

)

OAK GROVE CINEMAS, INC., an ) Portland, Oregon

Oregon domestic business )

corporation; BARRINGTON )

MANAGEMENT, LLC, an Oregon )

domestic limited liability )

company; BARRINGTON VENTURE, )

LLC, an Oregon domestic )

limited liability company; and )

DAVID EMAMI, an individual and )

in his official capacity, )

)

Defendants. )

------------------------------

HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Susan Brinkerhoff

Bruce L. Brown

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of the Solicitor

300 Fifth Avenue

Suite 1120

Seattle, WA 98104

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Richard C. Hunt

Edwin A. Harnden

Banu K. Ramachandran

Barran Liebman, LLP

601 S. W. Second Avenue

Suite 2300

Portland, OR 97204-3159

COURT REPORTER: Nancy M. Walker, CSR, RMR, CRR

United States District Courthouse

1000 S. W. Third Avenue, Room 301

Portland, OR 97204

(503) 326-8186

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 2 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE CLERK: Your Honor, we're here today on the

case of Harris versus Oak Grove Cinemas, et al., Civil

Case 3:13-CV-00728-HU, on a motion for preliminary

injunction, Docket No. 3.

Counsel, please state your appearances for the

record.

MR. BROWN: Good morning, Your Honor, Bruce Brown

and Susan Brinkerhoff for the Secretary. With us at

counsel table is Julieanna Elegant, who is the wage and

hour investigator.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. HARNDEN: Ed Harnden for defendant, along

with Richard Hunt and Banu Ramachandran.

THE COURT: Thank you.

So you're the plaintiffs in this case, and you're

asking me to issue a preliminary injunction, which means

that you would have the burden of proof, which also means

you get to go first. What do you want to tell me?

MR. BROWN: Well, thank you, Your Honor. Let me

start by saying that I'm going to address a few of the

more general legal issues that counsel raised, if it's

acceptable to the Court, and Ms. Brinkerhoff will address

the more specific issues relating to the test that we

have to meet for a preliminary injunction.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 3 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

We're also prepared to present additional factual

evidence if the Court is inclined to hear Ms. Elegant's

testimony. There's been a lot of talk about the

tape-recording. If the Court wants to hear the

tape-recording, we're prepared to play that for the

Court.

I'd like to start by just addressing a couple of

the general issues that they raised. I think they're

kind of peripheral, but we can, I hope, not spend a lot

of time on them by addressing them quickly and just kind

of getting them out of the way.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Is it okay if I talk from here or do you want me

at the podium?

THE COURT: You're fine.

MR. BROWN: Thank you.

First I wanted to just briefly address the First

Amendment issue that counsel raised in response to some

of the specific remedies that were put into the TRO that

we asked for in our preliminary injunction. And I would

just note that their entire argument on the First

Amendment issue is really based on either a misreading or

a mischaracterization of the recent NLRB case out of the

D.C. Circuit. That case is National Association of

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 4 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

Manufacturers v. NLRB, 2013 Westlaw 1876234. They

characterize the case in their briefing and their

argument to the Court as "The District of Columbia

Circuit recently vacated, on First Amendment grounds, a

National Labor Relations Board rule."

And if Your Honor has had an opportunity to read

the case, you'll know that that's simply a

mischaracterization. The case was not decided on the

First Amendment grounds at all. It was decided on the

Court's determination that the rule that was under

review, that the NRLB promulgated, was in conflict with

another section of the National Labor Relations Act. The

first holding is that the posting requirement, which was

at the heart of the dispute, in the Court's opinion they

concluded that the Board's rule violates Section 8(c) of

of the NLRA. All of the discussion about the First

Amendment is really peripheral to the holding to the

case, which is that it violated a section of the National

Labor Relations Act. It's not a First Amendment case at

all.

None of the cases cited either in the National

Association of Manufacturers decision or in respondent's

brief, none of the cases are in the same situation that

we are here, evidence of a violation of an Act, and we're

asking the Court to fashion a remedy to prevent

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 5 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

additional violations. It's not a rule-making matter.

It's not a case affecting 6 million employers as the NLRB

case was.

The other -- the second issue I'd like to just

briefly address, which I think is another kind of

distracting issue in respondent's briefing, is this issue

about whether or not the tape-recording was taken in

violation of Oregon state law. And, quite simply, it

doesn't matter, and I was a little surprised when I read

the argument.

Counsel is aware that there is a federal statute

that governs admissibility of evidence in federal

proceedings, and the federal statute makes a

tape-recording admissible as long as one party to the --

if the person taping it was a party to the conversation.

The case law is all clear that if it's admissible under

the federal statute, it doesn't matter whether it

violated a state law or not.

And I'll just refer the Court to one case,

Roberts v. Americable International, A-m-e-r-i-c-a-b-l-e,

883 F.Supp. 499, where the Court, in rejecting the motion

to suppress because the tape-recording in that case

clearly violated -- taking a tape-recording clearly

violated California's privacy act, in denying the motion

to suppress, the Court noted the Ninth Circuit has

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 6 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

consistently held that recordings of conversations are

admissible in federal court proceedings when obtained in

conformance with federal law, without regard to state

law. Similarly, it's a red herring issue about how this

recording was made and whether it was made in violation

of Oregon law or not.

The other issue I'd just like to briefly address

is most of the discussion in the response brief was about

the TRO, the procedure for how the TRO came about. If

the Court is interested in hearing some of what we

believe are the factual inconsistencies and inaccuracies,

we can address those. But really I think at this point,

what does it matter, right?

We're going to present evidence and argument, and

you're going to decide whether or not we have met the

standard for preliminary injunction. If you agree with

us that an injunction is warranted, then the TRO is

effectively dissolved because you're going to replace it

with a preliminary injunction. If you disagree with us

and don't think we've met the burden, then the TRO will

be dissolved. So it doesn't seem to be a good use of the

Court's time to spend a lot of time talking about how the

TRO itself came about as an issue.

Would the Court like to hear testimony or would

you prefer legal argument?

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 7 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

THE COURT: Well, let me tell you one of the

things that is tugging at me, and one is that the

tape-recording, as I recall, was taken back in September,

and then something occurred in April where the

allegations are that workers were being threatened with

physical harm as well as other forms of retaliation.

And so we're in May, and there is a question in

my mind as to why it took so long for you to get in here

if there is such urgency to what you are saying has

happened.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: We -- we did know about the

tape-recordings for some time, and we didn't like them

when we heard about them then. But it really wasn't

until we heard about the physical harm sometime after

April 9th that we realized that we probably needed to

step forward and seek an injunction. And we -- the

process began within the government as soon as we found

out about the physical harm threat.

THE COURT: It just takes the government a month

to put together a request for a temporary restraining

order?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: It was less than a month. I

think we filed our -- I believe the physical threat was

around April 9th, that conversation, and I believe we

filed our motion on April -- or May 1st or 2nd.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 8 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

THE COURT: Okay. Three weeks.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: So three weeks.

THE COURT: Okay. That explains it. I was just

curious. I was used to state court: Something happens

on Monday, and they're in court by Tuesday.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: But that we could work so fast.

THE COURT: So did you communicate with the other

side and say, "We have a problem. This is what the

problem is," and describe to them in detail what the

problem was?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: We described that we were in

possession of a recording that contained threats of

retaliation against employees.

THE COURT: What about the issue that occurred on

April the 9th?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: The physical harm? I don't

recall having a conversation about that threat.

THE COURT: Why?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Well, because by that time we

had decided that we were going to file the motion for the

TRO and the preliminary injunction. We did as soon

as --

THE COURT: Well, let me interrupt you. If you

are worried that workers might get harmed and you have

access to their lawyer, why aren't you on the phone

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 9 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

10

saying, "Hey, your guy or your defendants or your clients

are threatening physical harm. You need to talk to them

about that. That's a huge problem for us," right?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Yes.

THE COURT: So why didn't that conversation

occur?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Frankly, probably because we

were so caught up in drafting the motion.

THE COURT: Okay. What else do you want to tell

me?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Would you like to hear

Ms. Elegant's testimony?

THE COURT: Sure. She can come up and take the

stand.

THE CLERK: You can step around to the stairway.

Remain standing. Raise your right hand, please.

JULIEANNA ELEGANT

called as a witness in behalf of the Plaintiff, having

been first duly sworn, is examined and testifies as

follows:

THE CLERK: Please be seated. Please state your

name for the record and spell both your first and last

names.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 10 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

11

THE WITNESS: My name is Julieanna Elegant,

J-u-l-i-e-a-n-n-a, no space, and the last name is

Elegant, E-l-e-g-a-n-t.

THE COURT: You're probably better off

questioning her from behind your table over there because

the microphone is going to be better able to pick you up.

If you need to move around for any reason, hand papers,

things like that, please feel free to do so. But for

purposes of our record, it helps our court reporter if

you're right behind a microphone.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Okay. I will do that.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. BRINKERHOFF:

Q. Ms. Elegant, would you briefly summarize your

education for the Court?

A. I have a bachelor's degree in history, I have a

master's degree in international development, and I have

a law degree.

Q. And how are you presently employed?

A. I currently work for the U.S. Department of Labor,

with the Wage and Hour Division. I'm an investigator.

Q. Would you briefly summarize your duties as a wage and

hour investigator?

A. So I am -- my supervisors will determine which cases

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 11 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

12

are given to me. Once a case is given to me, I either

send a letter or draft a letter which talks about the

investigative process. Sometimes we do drop-ins.

Sometimes we send that letter ahead of time.

Then we -- with the letter, we will initiate the

investigation. The letter will detail what occurs in an

investigation. So usually we have an initial conference

with a managing or a member of the company or owner,

where we get additional information, explain the process.

We do a tour of an establishment. We will look at

records like payroll and time records. We'll interview

employees, both on site and off, both present and past.

And then that usually takes anywhere from a few

weeks to a few months, depending on a lot of variables.

And we will have a final conference to talk about the

findings, make sure that the owner is or the manager is

in compliance; and if any back wages are owed, we'll

present them at that time.

Q. And is the owner at the final conference?

A. Usually the owner is at the final conference, yes.

Q. In your role as a wage and hour investigator, have

you been involved in the investigation of David Emami and

the associated companies?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And that would include Oak Grove Cinemas?

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 12 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

13

A. Oak Grove Cinemas and Barrington Management, also

touched tangentially on Barrington Ventures.

Q. Okay. And what was your role in the investigation?

Was it the same as you just described when you described

what you do?

A. Yes. I was the lead investigator. So the steps that

I described would be the same steps that I did for that

particular investigation.

Q. When did you begin your investigation?

A. I believe it was August 30th of 2012.

Q. Did your investigation involve interviewing

Mr. Emami?

A. I did talk with Mr. Emami at -- so I had two initial

conferences, I guess you could call it. The first one

was with the manager of Oak Grove Cinemas. At the time

Mr. Emami and Mrs. Emami were out of the country. So

then I followed up with a second meeting when they came

back in the country. I believe that was September 7th.

It was early September.

Q. Was that the only time you spoke with Mr. Emami?

A. No. I had -- I spoke with him probably twice in

person and I think two or three times by phone.

Q. So can you give us an approximate amount of time you

spoke with him on each of those occasions?

A. In person -- I believe it was probably about two

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 13 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

14

hours for the first initial conference in person. And I

think it was a follow-up of about an hour, when we were

discussing child labor. And then by the phone, I would

say two or three conversations were probably between 10

to 30 minutes, depending on the conversation.

Q. Okay. And you spoke with employees, also?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. About how many employees did you speak with?

A. I spoke with about 35 present and past employees.

Q. Okay. What language did you use when you spoke with

Mr. Emami?

A. I spoke with him in English.

Q. Did you have any trouble understanding him?

A. No.

Q. And did he indicate to you that he had trouble

understanding you?

A. When we talked, it was -- if he had any questions or

any clarification, we would discuss, you know, "I didn't

understand what exactly you meant by this," and we would

discuss it more. So I believe that he understood just

fine.

Q. All right. And when you spoke with the employees,

what language did you use?

A. With some of the employees, I spoke English. With

other employees, I spoke Spanish.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 14 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

15

Q. Are you fluent in Spanish?

A. I am.

Q. And during the course of your investigation, did you

come into possession of any recordings?

A. Yes. Recordings were sent to me.

Q. Okay. Without talking about the content of the

recordings or who may have submitted those recordings to

you, can you tell us how you came into possession of

them?

A. They were sent to my work e-mail account. They were

attachments.

Q. Okay. And again, without identifying employees or

discussing, you know, the content of the recordings, what

did the recordings represent?

A. The recordings were a conversation that Mr. Emami was

having at a meeting, I believe. He was talking with

workers in English. There was some translation into

Spanish.

Q. Was it -- I'm using the word plural, "recordings,"

but was it just one meeting?

A. Yes, I believe so. It was many recordings because

they were short, maybe six-minute snippets or parts that

were -- it was sort of recorded in parts, if that makes

sense.

Q. Okay. And when was the meeting held?

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 15 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

16

A. That meeting was in mid September.

Q. When did you receive the recordings?

A. I received them in mid October.

Q. And was the person who gave you the recordings an

employee of the defendant's?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your understanding that the person was an

employee at the time the recordings were made?

A. Yes.

Q. And was it your understanding that the person who

made the recording was present at the meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. And was his presence known to Mr. Emami?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you listen to the recording?

A. I did.

Q. How many voices, if any, did you recognize?

A. I recognized one of the voices.

Q. And whose voice did you recognize?

A. Mr. Emami.

Q. And is there any doubt in your mind that the voice

you heard on the recording was Mr. Emami?

A. No.

Q. And what language was Mr. Emami speaking?

A. He was speaking English.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 16 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

17

Q. Did you have any trouble understanding what he was

saying?

A. So some of the recordings are a bit difficult to

understand, so there were some where I had to listen a

few times to make sure I understood. But I feel like

after I listened, if I needed to more than once, that I

did understand what he was saying.

Q. Do you recall signing a declaration concerning what

you heard on the recordings?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall that in the declaration there were

several sentences that you declare as being remarks of

Mr. Emami?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you paraphrase his remarks in the declaration or

are they verbatim or did you quote them?

A. Those remarks are verbatim.

Q. And to the best of your recollection, are the

remarks, as stated in your declaration, accurate quotes

of what Mr. Emami was saying at the meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. In your declaration you state that on

April 9th of this year you spoke to an employee of the

defendant's. Do you know the name of the individual you

spoke to?

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 17 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

18

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know if that person is still an employee

or is still an employee of the defendant or was on

April 9th?

A. Yes.

Q. And was that conversation that you had with the

person on April 9th of this year concerning events that

occurred during the course of that individual's

employment?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did that person tell you?

A. The person told me that they were concerned that they

had heard that threats had been made against a

complainant that initiated this process.

Q. Okay. And what kind of threat?

A. To -- what was said to me in Spanish was "golpear,"

which is to beat.

Q. To beat?

A. Yes.

Q. As in to beat up?

A. Right, exactly.

MR. HUNT: Objection. I think she's leading.

The answer was given, "to beat," and then counsel was

leading.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 18 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

19

Go ahead.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Pardon?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Okay.

BY MS. BRINKERHOFF: (continuing)

Q. So did you speak to anybody else about that threat?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did you speak -- who did you speak to about

the threat?

A. I spoke with quite a few people about that threat:

My supervisors, immediately after receiving it. I also

talked with one of the employees who was identified as

having heard that.

Q. And what did that person tell you?

A. So that person stated that he talked with Mr. Emami

and that Mr. Emami asked who was the person who made the

complaint. This individual said he didn't know. He then

asked if it was -- and identified two particular workers,

and the individual said he didn't know.

He also -- and then he said that he didn't -- he

wanted to know who was trying to bring problems to him,

he being Mr. Emami; and that if this person found out who

made the complaint, to let him know, because he would

send someone to -- to beat up this person. Again, this

person used the word "golpear." I asked him if he had

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 19 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

20

said the word in Spanish, and he said he made a motion

like a fist.

Q. You're stating that Mr. Emami wanted to know who made

the complaint. Are wage and hour investigations always

initiated by complaints?

A. No, they are not. There are some that are initiated

by complaints, and some are initiated as a directed

investigation.

Q. So as far as you know, does Mr. Emami have any reason

to believe that there was a complaint issued against him,

from anything that you or your colleagues might have

said?

A. We never disclose why we initiate an investigation.

Somebody can guess that it's a complaint. We always say

investigations are initiated either through a directed

initiated investigation or through a complaint. We do

not disclose what reason we are initiating an

investigation. And the investigation itself, once

initiated, is run the same way, so in that way we're

trying to steer the conversation away from that.

I never said to Mr. Emami that there was a

complaint. I would never do so.

Q. Okay. You stated in your declaration that the

employees mentioned in your declaration are not willing

to come forward at this time. What do you base that

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 20 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - D

21

conclusion on?

A. Well, the employees are very afraid of losing their

job. They said that.

MR. HUNT: Your Honor, this is just her

characterizer, her subjective evaluation. It's a

compound question because it involves all employees.

We're not talking about just one person. She's just

characterizing 35 people as all having the exact same

emotion.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: So I say that because they said,

"I am afraid." So that's, you know -- the conversations

I've had, that sentence has been said to me: "I'm

afraid. I'm afraid I'm going to lose my job." So

they're very reluctant to come forward.

BY MS. BRINKERHOFF: (continuing)

Q. You then go on in your declaration to state that the

employees have assured you that they will testify in this

matter. What would make them testify at some point?

A. Well, the employees that I've talked with are hoping

that this will be resolved without the necessity to

testify. They're hoping for a resolution. They're

hoping to be able to keep their jobs as well. If it

becomes necessary -- they have told me if down the road

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 21 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

22

it becomes necessary, they are willing to testify if it

cannot be resolved before then.

Q. Okay. And do you have an idea of how many employees

have indicated that they would testify at a hearing?

A. So of the ones that I have talked to about this, I

think about eight have indicated -- around eight have

indicated that they are willing to come forward and

testify.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: I have no more questions, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. HUNT:

Q. Could you tell me who within your department decides

whether to pursue an investigation? Is that you or

somebody else within your department?

A. No, it's -- well, I get the information from my

supervisor. I'm not sure if it's my direct supervisor or

the supervisor above him who makes that decision, but I

get the information from my direct supervisor.

Q. And have you completed your investigation in this

matter?

A. At this point, at this date?

Q. Yes.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 22 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

23

A. So the investigation has been turned in. What that

means is it's been given to my supervisor. So the

investigative part has been concluded. The investigation

is usually a two- or three-year period, which that ends

when we first enter.

Q. You spoke with the manager of Oak Grove Cinemas?

A. That's correct.

Q. Who was that individual?

A. So his first name is Colin. His last name starts

with an S. I honestly -- I don't want to guess at it.

So it is in there. I can get that for you.

Q. Did he cooperate in your investigation?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did Mr. Emami and his wife cooperate in the

investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it -- apparently it is the hope of the

employees, at least with whom you spoke, that they would

like to see this matter resolved?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is that the position of the Department, if you know?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: I'm going to object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Go ahead. Answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 23 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

24

BY MR. HUNT: (continuing)

Q. You talked about recordings. And as I heard your

testimony, I believe you said that they were in several

recordings. Is that correct?

A. Right.

Q. They were all made by the same person?

A. Right.

Q. Do you know whether they were all made at the same

time or whether they were made at different times?

A. The same time.

Q. How do you know that?

A. You can follow the conversation. There's even

sometimes some overlap. So what I believe is that they

were made into smaller amounts so they could be sent, if

that makes sense.

Q. Well, that's your belief. You don't know for sure?

A. Well, when they overlap, it becomes very apparent

that it's a continual conversation.

Q. And was Mr. Emami speaking with anyone?

A. Yes.

Q. And were there other voices that were on the tape?

A. So what you generally hear on the tape is Mr. Emami

will speak for a long time, as though speaking to a

group. And then somebody will translate what's being

said from English into Spanish.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 24 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

25

Q. Were there any questions that came back from the

employees?

A. No, I don't believe so.

Q. You don't know for sure?

A. I have to listen to the whole tape to be able to say

for sure.

Q. And was the person who was doing the translating, was

that person just summarizing his remarks or was he making

a -- he or she making a verbatim translation of the

remarks?

A. Summary.

Q. And the persons -- some of the persons that were

listening to his remarks, do you know if any of them --

whether their first language was English or not?

A. I don't know. I don't think so, but I don't know.

Q. Did you hear any words uttered in English by anyone

other than Mr. Emami?

A. No.

Q. And this tape came into your possession when?

A. It was sent October 10th of 2012.

Q. And at any point have you provided the defendants or

the defendants' counsel with a copy of the tape?

A. I have not.

Q. And did you provide this tape to somebody else at

your department?

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 25 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

26

A. Yes.

Q. How much time elapsed between October 10 and the time

when you provided it to others?

A. Probably a few days. We actually had a difficulty in

playing them. Our computer wouldn't play them. So it

took a while. I was working with my supervisor to try to

get it to a form where we could listen to it. So that

happened probably within a few days after receiving it.

And, you know, at that point my supervisor then had a

copy of that as well.

Q. And once you learned what was on the tape, why was it

that you didn't take action at that point?

A. So I informed my supervisor, and it went up the

chain.

Q. And I'm not clear what the word, at some point during

that tape -- well, do you remember what was said?

A. On the tape?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. What do you recall?

A. Excuse me.

So the tape is quite long, but in general

Mr. Emami is talking about the investigation. He's

talking to the employees and encouraging them --

Q. I didn't want a summary. Do you remember the exact

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 26 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

27

words that were uttered by Mr. Emami?

A. Not off the top --

Q. You'd need the tape?

A. -- of my head.

Q. There was -- in your declaration, there are some

portions of -- there are some statements that are

opposite bullet points. There are five bullet points in

your declaration, in paragraph 10.

A. Correct.

Q. Were those -- those were selected items that you took

from the tape?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in some instances did you, when you would -- when

you would refer to a particular statement, did you delete

portions of it? There seemed to be some dots between

certain portions of statements.

A. When there are dots, it indicates that there are

words there that are not included, that's correct.

Q. All right. Why didn't you include them?

A. So -- that decision was made by the solicitor's

office.

Q. There are also some comments in the tape that I would

characterize as editorial comments or characterizing

comments about statements, such as in brackets, there's a

comment, "intimidating" --

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 27 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

28

A. Intimidating?

Q. I'm sorry, "imitating the government." Beg your

pardon.

A. Correct.

Q. Now, did you put that phrase in there or did someone

else?

A. That was done at the solicitor's office.

Q. And there are other phrases that were also added,

correct, in brackets, "imitating worker"?

A. Correct.

Q. That was somebody's characterization of what was

being said; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So how long is the tape? Is it a total of 30

minutes?

A. It's more than 30 minutes.

Q. Is it an hour?

A. I think it's around 50 minutes. I'm not -- I'm not

positive about that.

Q. So would you agree with me that the -- the five items

that are taken here were just selective bits and pieces

of the tape?

A. That's correct.

Q. And were they -- were the pieces that were selected,

were they selected to -- to show that Mr. Emami was

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 28 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

29

misbehaving or saying something that wasn't appropriate?

A. They were selected by the solicitor's office.

Q. Do you know what --

A. But in the tape, those are words that he said, and

those are things that were conveyed to workers.

Q. Do you know what was said by Mr. Emami before the

tape began?

A. Before the tape began?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. And you're confident that without exception, of the

five -- or how many tapes were there?

A. There were about 10 recordings.

Q. And is it your testimony that without exception,

there was never a break between any of the 10 or so

recordings?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. But you're not certain?

A. I'm not a hundred percent certain, no.

Q. So what you put in your declaration, of course, you

didn't hear that?

A. Excuse me?

Q. You didn't hear -- you personally weren't a party to

these events?

A. That's correct.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 29 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

30

Q. These are tapes, and they were selectively quoted, or

in some instances bits and pieces of a sentence were

quoted, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then there were characterizations that were added

to some of the items that were quoted by the solicitor.

A. That's correct.

Q. And did -- so you -- the person who was translating

was not translating all 50 minutes?

A. They were translating during the entire period;

verbatim, no.

Q. And was there more than one translator?

A. No. It was one individual.

Q. Do you know who the translator was?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Objection, Your Honor. That's

informant's privilege.

MR. HUNT: I'm just asking if she knows who the

translator -- I've not asked who it was. I've asked

whether she knows who it is.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. HUNT: (continuing)

Q. There is a statement in your declaration that -- that

on or around April 9 you spoke to an individual, an

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 30 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

31

employee, who reported to you that Mr. Emami continues to

ask his workers if they are talking with you.

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Is that against the law, to ask an employee whether

they're speaking with an investigator?

A. No.

Q. And then you gave some testimony about the word

"beat" was used by this individual.

A. Yes.

Q. What specifically did the individual state to you?

A. The word -- the conversation was in Spanish, and the

word that was used was "golpear."

Q. Which -- what does that mean?

A. It can mean to beat, to beat up, to hit.

Q. Well, which -- which was it? Or did the person

explain? Did you follow up to find out whether Mr. Emami

was going to hit the person or beat up the person or beat

the person?

A. No. At the time I did not.

Q. And did you -- in your declaration, anyway, you

didn't make any suggestion or statement that Mr. Emami

was going to direct that someone else beat up the

individual, correct?

A. No, I did not.

Q. So which was it? Did the person say -- use the word

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 31 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

32

"beat" or "beat up"? Or did the person say that

Mr. Emami had told -- or the individual had heard that

Mr. Emami was going to direct that someone else would

beat up the person?

A. That Mr. Emami was going to direct somebody -- he was

going to send someone to do that.

Q. But you didn't mention that in your declaration?

A. I did not correctly clarify that, that's correct.

Q. So your declaration isn't accurate in that respect?

A. In that respect, it is not.

Q. You also testified that the employees that you

interviewed are worried.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did they use that word? Did they say -- did

each of them say, "I'm worried"?

A. No. The word would be "preocupado," and that's not

the word that they would use.

Usually it would be "Tengo miedo," "I'm afraid."

Usually that's followed by things like "that I would lose

my job."

Q. But you didn't put in your declaration that they were

afraid or that they were afraid they would would lose

their job, correct?

A. No, I did not. I was not quoting them directly.

Q. So the use of the word "worried" is just your

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 32 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

33

characterization as what you heard from some of them?

A. Correct.

Q. And I gather you didn't hear it from all 35 -- from

all of the persons that you interviewed?

A. I have not talked with all 35 individuals about

whether or not they are afraid that they will keep their

job.

Q. Did anyone that you spoke with use the word

"worried"?

A. I am not sure.

Q. Now, did any -- any of the persons that you

interviewed state that they were threatened?

A. That they were threatened?

Q. Yes. Did they use that word, by Mr. Emami?

A. Directly, no.

Q. It was more that they were telling you that they were

worried or afraid, not that they had been directly

threatened by Mr. Emami?

A. Threatened that they would lose their job? "If you

talk to the government, you will not work for me," that's

a direct threat.

Q. I want to know whether any of them said that they

felt that they were threatened by Mr. Emami.

A. So Mr. Emami -- yes, they said that they were

directly threatened by Mr. Emami that they would lose

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 33 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

34

their job.

Q. Okay. Somebody said that they were directly

threatened? They used those words, they were directly

threatened that they would lose their jobs?

A. They would say, "He told me if I talked to them and

told them that I worked additional hours, I would lose my

job. He told me if I received money, that I would

not -- I would not have a job." That would be what they

would say. They wouldn't use the word "threatened." It

would be like "He told me."

Q. They didn't all say that, all of the --

A. Every single person did not say that, no. Some of

the individuals said that, yes.

Q. Did some of the people speak -- make favorable

remarks about Mr. Emami?

A. No.

Q. Did -- did anyone suggest -- so no one said anything

positive about him, that you interviewed?

A. No.

Q. Did any of them -- you don't have any evidence that

any of them were in fact beat, do you?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any evidence that any of them were

terminated because they had been interviewed by you?

A. No.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 34 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

35

Q. Did you speak with the person that made the initial

complaint?

A. Yes.

Q. And --

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. HUNT: (continuing)

Q. More than once, did you speak with that individual?

A. Yes.

Q. And was that individual -- were these comments about

"beat" or "beat up" directed at that individual or

someone else, if you know?

A. To someone else.

Q. Well, the statement was made to somebody else?

A. The statement was made to someone else.

Q. And what was -- and was the statement made that the

person who was hearing it would be beat up? Or was the

statement that some other person would be beat or beat

up?

A. So the statement, as I said before, was to an

individual; and if that person knew who the complainant

was, then the complainant would be beaten up.

Q. You mentioned -- well, did you ever question

Mr. Emami about these matters?

A. About which matters?

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 35 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

36

Q. The ones you just testified to.

A. No, I did not.

Q. Why not?

A. At that point he was represented by an attorney. In

our investigation, we'll work directly with the owner or

manager. If somebody is represented by an attorney, then

it is expected that we would go through an attorney.

Q. Did you ever go through an attorney to interview him

regarding the --

A. Well, at that point my case had been turned in. So

at that point I notified our attorneys of the matter. So

at that point I was also no longer speaking with the

attorneys.

Q. How many individuals that you interviewed said that

David, their boss, said directly to them that if they

were paid money, they would lose their job, if any?

A. Directly, I think three or four.

Q. And those persons are still working?

A. Some of them.

Q. Do you know whether some of them have voluntarily

quit?

A. Some of them have left.

Q. And you don't know why?

A. I've been told for some, reasons why some of them

have left, yes. Some of them have found jobs in other

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 36 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - X

37

places.

Q. Do you know whether they've found higher-paying jobs?

A. I did not ask.

Q. There was a -- I think there was mention in your

testimony about a clenched fist or a -- do you know

what -- do you know anything more about that, other than

somebody reported that Mr. Emami had his fist clenched?

A. So the sentence was -- that was reported to me was

that if Mr. Emami found out who made the complaint, he

would send somebody, and his fist was raised. So that's

what --

Q. Do you know whether David, the boss, would ever put

his fist on his hand just to make a point, saying, "We've

got to get this done by noon" or "We've got to get this

work done"?

A. I don't know.

Q. How many persons told you -- employees said they

feared losing their jobs?

A. I believe I said about three to four.

Q. And did you interpret, then -- I'll withdraw that.

MR. HUNT: That's all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Do you have any redirect?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: I do.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 37 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - ReD

38

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. BRINKERHOFF:

Q. First of all, opposing counsel, as they characterized

it, the editorial bracketed material, do you agree that

those phrases were appropriately contextual?

A. I do.

Q. And how do you know that?

A. As he's talking, he changes his voice. So let's say

he's talking like this. And then he'll talk -- and then

he'll -- he'll change the tone of his voice to show that

he's taking on another character.

Q. You've testified that Mr. Emami continues to ask his

employees if they are talking to you.

A. Yes.

Q. So is it your understanding that those questions by

Mr. Emami are asked, you know, during coffee breaks or at

the water fountain, just casual questions?

A. No.

Q. How -- what is your understanding of the tenor of

those questions?

A. Well, the questions are usually, are they talking to

me, and often tells them what they shouldn't say. "Tell

them you only work 40 hours a week." So it's not just,

"Hey, is the investigation still ongoing?" It's more of

an instructive.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 38 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - ReX

39

Q. Okay. And is it your understanding that the

employees are feeling kind of badgered by Mr. Emami?

MR. HUNT: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. BRINKERHOFF: (continuing)

Q. Okay. So I recall from your testimony, from your

testimony this morning, you had two conversations about

somebody -- Mr. Emami beating somebody up. Is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the second conversation, which was the more

recent conversation, that was where you found out that he

was going to send somebody.

A. Yes.

Q. And that conversation was held after you signed your

declaration; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: You can step down.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. HUNT:

Q. Do you have a file on this matter, an investigative

file?

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 39 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Elegant - ReX

40

A. Yes.

Q. Where is it? Do you have it or does somebody else

have it?

A. It's been given to the solicitor's office.

THE COURT: You can step down.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Do you have anything else?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: I was going to talk about the

preliminary injunction analysis.

THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: I think the Department has met

its burden to show that a preliminary injunction is

warranted here. First, the Department is likely to

succeed on the merits because it's got evidentiary proof

that Mr. Emami has made threatening remarks to his

employees. We have the tape-recordings that, you know,

the provenance of those were testified to by what I feel

is a credible reliable witness, Ms. Elegant, who also

testified to the remarks that employees made to her about

the physical threats.

And those employees stuck their necks out to talk

to her about these things because they don't know what

Mr. Emami might do or what might happen to them or

whether the Department can protect them or not. So the

fact that they took on that risk, to me, makes them even

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 40 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

more credible.

And it doesn't really matter how many employees

Mr. Emami might have threatened or tried to coerce or

coach, any of those things. Even just one person is a

violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Second, unless the Court immediately restrains

Mr. Emami from making the threats against his employees

and continuing to make threats against them, the

Department is going to suffer irreparable harm, because

it will be constrained in its future investigations.

Employers will think that they can get away with

retaliating against their employees or threatening their

employees, because they'll know that nothing will happen

to them. And employees will be reluctant to come forward

to the Department because they have no guarantee that

they're going to be protected.

Then the balance of equities tilts in the

Department's favor. As we said in our brief and

defendants even admitted, the defendants really have no

legitimate interest in threatening their employees.

Their interest is the self-interest, and it's to cow

their employees into not cooperating with the Secretary's

investigation.

But in contrast, the Secretary's interest in the

defendant is the defendant's immediate compliance with

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 41 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

the Fair Labor Standards Act and also with giving the

employees assurance that they are going to be protected

by their government.

So the differences in the parties' interest is

very stark, and there's just no doubt that it weighs

heavily in the Secretary's favor.

Fourth, an injunction will be in the public

interest. And the relief that we seek and sought was

designed to send a message to employers that they are not

going to be -- they will be held accountable for any acts

of retaliation against employees who engage in protected

activities under the FLSA. And the public interest will

not be served if Mr. Emami is not restrained by this

Court from his ongoing retaliatory conduct and threats.

And I'd like to mention that there is a line of

cases that state -- that hold that when a statute

provides for equitable relief, that we really don't have

to go through that four-stage or four-step analysis that

I just went through. But we chose to do that. All we

have to do, under those holdings, is show that the

defendant made -- did something that was in violation of

the statute, which we have done. But we've decided we

ought to go through with this analysis, because we just

wanted to show that either way we would prevail.

So in closing, we just want to emphasize that our

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 42 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

goal here, our mission is twofold. First of all, we want

to protect the employees of Mr. Emami from any sort of

coercion regarding the wage and hour investigation and

the Department's enforcement action. And, second, we

want to send a very clear signal to employers who are

within the jurisdiction of this Court that they are going

to be held accountable if they engage in the kind of

conduct that Mr. Emami engaged in and that they cannot

interfere with the Secretary's mandate to protect

employees.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Mr. Hunt.

MR. HUNT: Your Honor, first -- well, we in our

papers raised a number of procedural issues and due

process issues and First Amendment issues, and I'm not

going to go over all of them, but it's important to note

that the defendants to this day have still not been

served. Their lawyers have been sent some of the papers,

but not all of the papers.

The temporary restraining order --

THE COURT: I'm sorry. When you say they haven't

been served, they haven't been served a copy of the

Complaint?

MR. HUNT: They haven't been served a copy of

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 43 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

anything.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HUNT: Not the Complaint or summons. They

simply haven't been served, which is a rather fundamental

procedural event that should have occurred in this case

and did not.

In the temporary restraining order, in our view

it didn't assert specific facts that would warrant having

granted the order. It cited conclusions and statements

from a declaration, but there were no declarations from

any of the employees who had firsthand knowledge of the

events.

Counsel for the defendants didn't really have an

opportunity to appear and argue these points at the

temporary restraining order because as far as we know,

there was no hearing. If I'm wrong on that, correct me,

Your Honor, but we're not aware of any hearing or

opportunity to be heard. We learned of the temporary

restraining order being entered the day after Your Honor

signed it, because no attorney had appeared on behalf of

Mr. Emami.

Part of the problem with the temporary

restraining order is that the Department -- it seemed to

go from the investigator to the solicitor. And somewhere

along the line, things just sort of moved along without

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 44 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

reflection on complying with the rules. And then after

the order was entered, somehow a contact was made with

the Bloomberg BNA service, and this got reported in

the -- essentially in the national press. And the report

included comments from a spokesperson from the

Department, stating that the Department obtained a

tape-recording of a meeting in which Emami threatened to

fire his workers if they cooperated with wage and hour

investigators. And then it went on to say that a worker

also reported a threat of physical violence was made at

another time.

So all of this is reported in the press. The

defendants don't have an opportunity to conduct any

discovery or appear through counsel. And it's hard to

sort of unring that bell.

We believe that the order that was issued, the

temporary restraining order, and what the Department is

now seeking in the form of a preliminary injunction has a

number of defects. We think it's overly broad. It's

vague in some respects. It makes -- it gives the

writer -- would presumably give the Department the right

to seek contempt proceedings against Mr. Emami if the

Department felt that Mr. Emami believed that -- that

somebody was going to testify or participate or cooperate

in the investigation.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 45 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

So those words are not in the statute. And it

would give the Department a -- quite a range of latitude

to seek contempt if they concluded that in their minds

there was a belief by Mr. Emami that somebody was doing

something.

The --

THE COURT: I'm sorry. I lost you on that last

point. What you're -- I mean, in every restraining order

an individual is restrained from doing something. And of

course if that individual does something they're not

supposed to be doing, the other side gets to bring that

matter before the Court; and the Court will decide

whether or not somebody is in violation of the order. I

don't see the problem with that.

MR. HUNT: Well, the wording, though, wasn't --

it was dependent upon not the individual, Mr. Emami,

doing these things, but a conclusion by the Department

that he may have believed that somebody was doing

something. It's sort of a fine point. But the wording

"believe" isn't in the statute.

THE COURT: That's fine, and I don't -- I don't

disagree with you that the order itself can use some

work.

Go ahead.

MR. HUNT: And on that score, counsel -- general

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 46 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

business counsel for the defendants here attempted to

talk about the order or learn what the form of order was

going to be in advance and got nowhere in that respect.

There wasn't any dialogue or communication.

So we have eight months of time passed when we

think that -- that to the defendants' perception, anyway,

they're cooperating in the investigation, they're hoping

for a resolution, and then -- then this -- they're

notified that there's going to be a TRO complaint sought

and a complaint filed, but they're not told exactly when

it's going to happen. And then they ultimately learn

that there's not going to be a hearing and that there's

not going to be sharing of papers that the Department

intended to file with the counsel for the defendant.

So needless to say, you -- you were presented

with one side of the -- one version of facts, not both

sides.

THE COURT: Yeah, that doesn't trouble me so much

either. That's the nature of temporary restraining

orders.

But I will say I am troubled that there were

conversations going on for months, and this was not

specifically discussed with you, with opposing counsel.

It should have been. They should have called you and

said, "We have a problem with your client. This is what

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 47 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

it is. You need to talk to your client and fix this

problem. If it's happening, you need to fix it." That

conversation didn't happen, and I think it should have.

MR. HUNT: And it's happened, but in the form of

formal papers. But yes, we agree, Your Honor, that if

those issues had been brought, lawyers for the defendants

would say, "Do not engage in any behavior that even

approaches what has been reported to us. There's no

upside for it, to you, in doing that."

And that's our position today. We don't -- we

don't want our client to be in trouble. We don't want

contempt proceedings to be brought. But we don't think a

preliminary injunction is the way to -- is necessary,

given what the procedural background is leading up to

this matter.

There was a -- there was a tolling agreement that

was discussed. And if you read the tolling agreement, it

has some language that said that the -- ultimately the

Department may or the Secretary may bring legal

proceedings. And in exchange for that, the Secretary

agrees to withhold immediate filing of any legal

proceedings. And then buried in another paragraph, if

you read the fine print, there's mention of a 30-day

notice. But now they're contending that the fine print,

we should have noted that it just related to claims for

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 48 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

wages and penalties and didn't apply to efforts to obtain

a temporary restraining order.

Back then, when they're discussing back and forth

this tolling agreement, it would have been nice to hear

about this tape that they had. The tolling agreement

conversation occurred I think in February of this year.

The tape was in their possession since October of 2012.

THE COURT: And again, on that issue I understand

what happened. They have this tape. They're concerned

about it. They're hanging on to it. And then they get

report that there's threats of violence. That changes

everything. Not to excuse them for not communicating

with you about it, but it changes everything. And I

actually agree with them that the tolling agreement was

not designed for and did not capture this event. It

wasn't what it was for.

Go ahead.

MR. HUNT: Well, and we agree that the law

provides that threats are unlawful. But the issue is

whether they have proof of that. And what we have in the

declaration is secondhand, thirdhand information,

selective quotes, omitted -- statements taken out of

context, statements characterized. We don't have -- we

don't know what the translation was. We don't know

whether the persons that were hearing these comments even

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 49 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

understood them or whether there was a fair

characterization of the comments.

In our view, reliance upon an illegally recorded

conversation is -- doesn't weigh in favor of the

Government. They may cite to some authorities that

suggest that they can use it. But the fact that they

held onto it and decided when they were going to use it

doesn't assist them in obtaining a preliminary injunction

here.

It's our position that there is no emergency here

because there hasn't been any report that I'm aware of

since April, even crediting the investigator's

declaration on that. Time has passed. There hasn't been

any emergency that would warrant a preliminary

injunction. And there's no -- there's no proof that

there's going to be some harm occurring in the future.

On the -- just on the basic prongs of the --

needed for a preliminary injunction, it's our position

that the Department cannot show irreparable harm because

eight months have elapsed, and even from April another

three weeks or more.

They can't show that they're going to succeed on

the merits because they're relying solely upon the

Elegant declaration. We don't know whether the

employees -- there's a subset of employees, some of whom

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 50 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

may never have expressed that they were going to file a

complaint or wish to testify. We don't know -- we can't

sort out that issue.

This business about the employees being worried

is a characterization, as admitted in the testimony

today. And so the basis upon which they're seeking the

preliminary injunction today in our view is vague,

conclusory, and not based upon any -- any direct

evidence.

With regard to the balancing of the hardship

issue, if a preliminary injunction is ordered, then

Mr. Emami is going to be at risk for being cited for

contempt. He really can't speak to his employees unless

he reads the script that is part of the temporary

restraining order; and it's our position that that

compelled statement shouldn't be required of him, that he

ought to be able to run his business and not be looking

over his shoulder, wondering if he's saying something

that will be claimed to have been improper later on.

We think that the persons that were being

interviewed had a right to know whether or not they could

speak not only with our client, but with the

investigator. And because of the nature of the

investigation and somebody from the federal government

quizzing them, it would be, in our view, appropriate to

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 51 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

have language that states that a person can decline to

talk or can talk with both the Department and also with

the defendants.

We note that Your Honor did change their

temporary restraining order in one respect; namely, that

you added that defendants' attorneys could talk directly

with the employees, even though the defendants could not,

about the nature of the investigation. But that, to us,

creates ethical issues under the Oregon bar rules, and we

would have concern that we were potentially violating

ORCP 4.2.

We believe the order is overly broad, but I don't

need to speak to that at this time, Your Honor. If Your

Honor is going to enter some form of order, then we have

some ideas about how it should be phrased; and we would

either be prepared to discuss those directly with the

Court today or with counsel.

THE COURT: By the way, have you talked to your

client about this problem and the allegations set forth

in the request for a temporary restraining order and

request for preliminary injunction?

MR. HUNT: Yes.

THE COURT: And have you told your client that he

has to comply with the FLSA and its requirements of

non-retaliation; and if not, that he's in big trouble?

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 52 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

MR. HUNT: Yes.

THE COURT: You've had that conversation?

MR. HUNT: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

What do you want to tell me?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Well, first of all, I want to

clarify something that actually just occurred to me while

sitting here.

I actually had a conversation with Andrew Schpak

of your law firm back in February. I did tell him at

that time that we had evidence that his -- that his

client was, you know, retaliating or threatening his

employees. So it's not like that was not disclosed at an

earlier date, because it was.

THE COURT: And actually, I wasn't even concerned

about that. It's at the point you're making a decision

that you're going to go seek a temporary restraining

order. As I understand it, the triggering event was the

April 9 -- when you learned about this conversation on or

about April the 9th.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Right.

THE COURT: You're professionals. You call the

other side and you say, "We've got a problem. This is

how we're going to deal with it." And you didn't do

that.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 53 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

MS. BRINKERHOFF: And part of that is because we

wanted to make an impression, not just -- and this kind

of goes to the Secretary's mandate. We want to make an

impression not just on Mr. Emami, but on the employment

community at large that, you know, when you do something,

the Department of Labor isn't going to sit back and just

twiddle its thumbs and let you get away with it.

Something serious is going to happen to you, which is

what we tried to do in this case.

THE COURT: What does that have to do with

letting the lawyer on the other side know? Nothing,

right? You let the other side know. That's how we live

here. We let the other side -- we communicate with each

other about what's going on because you're professionals.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Right, yes.

THE COURT: And I don't care if the communication

was "Look, we got a message that your guy was threatening

physical harm. We're going after a TRO." I'm okay with

that. But you call them and let them know this is what

happened. And in the meantime, that puts them in a

position where they go talk to their client and say, "If

you did this, you've got to knock it off." Because

ultimately what we want is the behavior stopped.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Yes.

THE COURT: And if it's going on, the behavior

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 54 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

doesn't stop between April the 9th and to the time you

get a TRO.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: I have a note to myself here

that we notified defendants' counsel, which may have been

Mr. Wagner, who is the business counsel for the

defendants, on April 26th that we had a problem.

So that was not three or four weeks. That was

whatever, 10 days or something, or 15 days. It wasn't

quite as bad as --

THE COURT: What did you tell him?

MS. BRINKERHOFF: I don't remember.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: So we understand that at some

point we are going to have to turn these tapes -- you

know, we're going to have to disclose the tapes. We just

did not want to do it up until this point, because we

wanted to make sure that Mr. Emami wasn't going to use

those tapes to threaten his employees even further. So

we were waiting for some sort of injunction from the

Court to make sure that they would -- that their rights

would be protected, as much as they could be.

And then I also just want to point out that I

don't think that we have heard anything from defendants

that they have actually denied making any sort of threats

or that they denied making the statements in the

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 55 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

declaration.

And then finally, I just want to say that we are

willing to, you know, listen to the Court or your

thoughts on what the -- what the statement should be that

Mr. Emami reads or the wording of the injunction. We

just want to make sure that his employees are protected.

MR. HARNDEN: If I could add one comment -- it's

a little dangerous for me to stand up at the end, Your

Honor. But the point is they don't even give the

attorneys the tape to say, "This is what was going on."

The witness said the only person on the tape was

Mr. Emami. So to say, "Well, we didn't want to get

anyone in trouble" I think misses the point. They didn't

give us anything, including what common sense would have

told them to give us.

And then to come in without service on our client

and say, "We want an injunction," without having done any

of this seems a major stretch. And this is not the time

for the Department to say, "Oh, we want to make a big

statement to the employers of Oregon." This is a case

about Mr. Emami.

It is not fair to not serve someone, to not give

their counsel the tapes that they have had for months,

and then to come in and ask for an injunction. I think

it's just grossly unfair to any defendant.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 56 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

THE COURT: Thank you.

I'm going to step off the bench for a few

minutes. There are some notes I want to take down, and

then I will be back. I will be back in 10 minutes.

(A recess is then taken.)

THE CLERK: Remain seated. Come to order.

THE COURT: I have reviewed the four parts under

the Winter case in determining whether or not a

preliminary injunction should order -- should issue. And

in this case the first thing I looked at is whether or

not the plaintiffs have proven that they are likely to

succeed on the merits, and I find that they have proven

that. I'm convinced that the tape shows that the

defendant made remarks and later made threatening remarks

to physical safety. He's made remarks that were intended

to intimidate his workers and the complainants in this

case, even though he doesn't know exactly who they are.

Secondly, I'm also convinced that the plaintiffs

have shown that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm

in this case. The workers, as they suggest, need to know

that they are protected. The behavior needs to stop.

And, therefore, they have shown that one.

There also is the question on the balance of the

equities that also favors the plaintiffs in this case,

and I also believe an injunction is in the public

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 57 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

interest. I am therefore ordering that a preliminary

injunction should issue in this case.

I am not convinced that the way it was crafted as

part of the temporary restraining order is the

appropriate language or format for us as we go forward

with the preliminary injunction.

What I want to have happen is I want there to be

a draft of the preliminary injunction order which adopts

the language of the Fair Labor Standards Act. And I

suggest that it be made in the form of a poster that can

be posted in the workplace and that a copy be served on

Mr. Emami by defense counsel. They can review that with

him. Although that won't be part of the order, I'm sure

that they will take care of that.

I don't know how big the workplace is. I don't

know how many posters ought to be posted, and I don't

know the specific language, other than it should

generically say the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits

retaliation. Then you can look at the specific language

that's used in the Fair Labor Standards Act that

basically tells the defendant that he needs to obey the

law.

I expect you two -- that is, the plaintiffs and

the defendants -- to be able to work that language out

and also to be able to work out how many and how big the

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 58 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59

posters ought to be and where they ought to be posted.

Questions from plaintiff?

MR. BROWN: I think we understand the Court's --

we'll work to draft the language.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Questions from defense?

MR. HUNT: No, Your Honor. We'll work with them

to come up with language that reflects the statute.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: I do have a question.

So what we are going to draft will replace that

one section in the TRO, and the other provisions will

stand as they've been drafted?

THE COURT: No. The TRO is over as of today. It

dissolves because I'm issuing a preliminary injunction.

The preliminary injunction says you win. Draft a poster

that's consistent with the requirements of the Fair Labor

Standards Act, and that's what will be posted throughout

the workplace or places. I don't know. Again, I'm not

familiar with what exactly that encompasses.

But the portions, for example, that were

requiring the defendant to read to his workforce what's

in that, I'm not requiring him to do that. I'm requiring

him to put up the posters. They can can be in Spanish

and in English and should be, because I understand the

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 59 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60

workforce is -- at least many of them are Spanish

speaking. So it should be in both languages.

MR. BROWN: Your Honor, what about the provision

in the TRO that prohibited Mr. Emami from talking with

his workers directly?

THE COURT: I mean, he's got to be able to talk

to his workers to conduct his business, I assume.

MS. BRINKERHOFF: Right, but the provision -- I'm

sorry. Go ahead.

MR. BROWN: The provision just spoke to

prohibiting him from talking to his workers, except

through counsel and counsel's employees, about the

substance of the investigation itself.

THE COURT: Again, you can draft language that

reflects the spirit of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

What you're trying to make sure is he's not trying to

intimidate them, not trying to in some way prohibit them

from pursuing their rights under the Fair Labor Standards

Act. To the extent that you want to put language that

reflects that in the poster, I'm okay with that.

So he can't do anything that interferes with

their rights and ability to pursue their claims under the

Fair Labor Standards Act.

Thank you.

MR. HARNDEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 60 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

MR. BROWN: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(Proceedings concluded.)

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 61 of 71
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62

--oOo--

I certify, by signing below, that the

foregoing is a correct transcript of the record

of proceedings in the above-titled cause. A

transcript without an original signature,

conformed signature or digitally signed signature

is not certified.

/s/ Nancy M. Walker 5-22-13

______________________________ _______________

NANCY M. WALKER, CSR, RMR, CRR DATE

Official Court Reporter

Oregon CSR No. 90-0091

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 62 of 71
/

/s [1] - 62:11

1

10 [7] - 14:4, 26:2,

27:8, 29:13, 29:15,

55:8, 57:4

1000 [1] - 2:11

10th [1] - 25:20

1120 [1] - 2:4

15 [2] - 1:6, 55:8

1876234 [1] - 5:1

1st [1] - 8:25

2

2012 [3] - 13:10,

25:20, 49:7

2013 [2] - 1:6, 5:1

2300 [1] - 2:8

26th [1] - 55:6

2nd [1] - 8:25

3

3 [1] - 3:5

30 [3] - 14:5, 28:14,

28:16

30-day [1] - 48:23

300 [1] - 2:4

301 [1] - 2:11

30th [1] - 13:10

326-8186 [1] - 2:12

35 [4] - 14:9, 21:8,

33:3, 33:5

3:13-CV-00728-HU [1]

- 3:4

3:13-cv-728-HZ [1] -

1:5

4

4.2 [1] - 52:11

40 [1] - 38:23

499 [1] - 6:21

5

5-22-13 [1] - 62:11

50 [2] - 28:18, 30:9

503 [1] - 2:12

6

6 [1] - 6:2

601 [1] - 2:8

7

7th [1] - 13:18

8

8(c [1] - 5:15

883 [1] - 6:21

9

9 [2] - 30:25, 53:19

90-0091 [1] - 62:13

97204 [1] - 2:11

97204-3159 [1] - 2:9

98104 [1] - 2:5

9th [8] - 8:15, 8:24,

9:15, 17:23, 18:4,

18:7, 53:20, 55:1

A

ability [1] - 60:22

able [7] - 11:6, 21:24,

25:5, 51:17, 58:24,

58:25, 60:6

above-titled [1] - 62:5

acceptable [1] - 3:23

access [1] - 9:25

account [1] - 15:10

accountable [2] -

42:10, 43:7

accurate [2] - 17:19,

32:9

act [1] - 6:24

Act [12] - 5:12, 5:19,

5:24, 41:5, 42:1,

58:9, 58:18, 58:20,

59:18, 60:15, 60:19,

60:23

Acting [1] - 1:3

action [2] - 26:12,

43:4

activities [1] - 42:12

acts [1] - 42:10

add [1] - 56:7

added [3] - 28:8, 30:5,

52:6

additional [4] - 4:1,

6:1, 12:9, 34:6

address [6] - 3:21,

3:23, 4:18, 6:5, 7:7,

7:12

addressing [2] - 4:7,

4:10

admissibility [1] -

6:12

admissible [3] - 6:14,

6:16, 7:2

admitted [2] - 41:19,

51:5

adopts [1] - 58:8

advance [1] - 47:3

affecting [1] - 6:2

afraid [9] - 21:2,

21:13, 21:15, 32:18,

32:22, 33:6, 33:17

agree [6] - 7:16,

28:20, 38:4, 48:5,

49:14, 49:18

agreement [5] - 48:16,

48:17, 49:4, 49:5,

49:14

agrees [1] - 48:21

ahead [11] - 12:4,

19:1, 19:3, 21:11,

23:24, 30:21, 40:10,

46:24, 49:17, 55:12,

60:9

al [1] - 3:3

allegations [2] - 8:5,

52:19

Amendment [7] -

4:19, 4:23, 5:4, 5:9,

5:17, 5:19, 43:16

Americable [1] - 6:20

AMERICABLE [1] -

6:20

amount [1] - 13:23

amounts [1] - 24:14

analysis [3] - 40:9,

42:18, 42:23

Andrew [1] - 53:9

answer [2] - 18:23,

23:24

anyway [2] - 31:20,

47:6

apparent [1] - 24:17

appear [2] - 44:14,

45:14

appearances [1] - 3:6

APPEARANCES [1] -

2:1

appeared [1] - 44:20

apply [1] - 49:1

approaches [1] - 48:8

appropriate [3] - 29:1,

51:25, 58:5

appropriately [1] -

38:5

approximate [1] -

13:23

April [15] - 8:4, 8:15,

8:24, 8:25, 9:15,

17:23, 18:4, 18:7,

30:25, 50:12, 50:20,

53:19, 53:20, 55:1,

55:6

argue [1] - 44:14

argument [5] - 4:22,

5:3, 6:10, 7:14, 7:25

assert [1] - 44:8

assist [1] - 50:8

associated [1] - 12:23

Association [2] - 4:25,

5:22

assume [1] - 60:7

assurance [1] - 42:2

assured [1] - 21:19

attachments [1] -

15:11

attempted [1] - 47:1

attorney [5] - 36:4,

36:6, 36:7, 36:8,

44:20

attorneys [4] - 36:11,

36:13, 52:6, 56:10

August [1] - 13:10

authorities [1] - 50:5

Avenue [3] - 2:4, 2:8,

2:11

aware [3] - 6:11,

44:17, 50:11

B

bachelor's [1] - 11:17

background [1] -

48:14

bad [1] - 55:9

badgered [1] - 39:2

balance [2] - 41:17,

57:23

balancing [1] - 51:10

Banu [2] - 2:7, 3:14

bar [1] - 52:9

Barran [1] - 2:7

BARRINGTON [2] -

1:8, 1:9

Barrington [2] - 13:1,

13:2

base [1] - 20:25

based [2] - 4:23, 51:8

basic [1] - 50:17

basis [1] - 51:6

beat [20] - 18:17,

18:18, 18:20, 18:23,

19:24, 31:8, 31:14,

31:17, 31:22, 32:1,

32:4, 34:21, 35:11,

35:17, 35:18

beaten [1] - 35:22

beating [1] - 39:9

becomes [3] - 21:25,

22:1, 24:17

BEFORE [1] - 1:20

beg [1] - 28:2

began [3] - 8:17, 29:7,

29:8

begin [1] - 13:9

1

behalf [2] - 10:19,

44:20

behavior [4] - 48:7,

54:23, 54:25, 57:21

behind [2] - 11:5,

11:10

belief [2] - 24:16, 46:4

bell [1] - 45:15

below [1] - 62:3

bench [1] - 57:2

best [1] - 17:18

better [2] - 11:4, 11:6

between [5] - 14:4,

26:2, 27:15, 29:15,

55:1

big [4] - 52:25, 56:19,

58:15, 58:25

bit [1] - 17:3

bits [2] - 28:21, 30:2

Bloomberg [1] - 45:3

BNA [1] - 45:3

Board [1] - 5:5

Board's [1] - 5:15

boss [2] - 36:15, 37:12

bracketed [1] - 38:4

brackets [2] - 27:24,

28:9

break [1] - 29:15

breaks [1] - 38:16

brief [3] - 5:23, 7:8,

41:18

briefing [2] - 5:2, 6:6

briefly [5] - 4:18, 6:5,

7:7, 11:15, 11:23

bring [3] - 19:21,

46:11, 48:19

BRINKERHOFF [36] -

8:11, 8:22, 9:2, 9:6,

9:11, 9:16, 9:19,

10:4, 10:7, 10:11,

11:11, 11:14, 19:2,

19:4, 19:5, 21:17,

22:9, 23:22, 30:15,

35:5, 37:24, 38:2,

39:6, 39:19, 40:8,

40:11, 53:6, 53:21,

54:1, 54:15, 54:24,

55:3, 55:11, 55:13,

59:10, 60:8

Brinkerhoff [3] - 2:2,

3:9, 3:23

broad [2] - 45:19,

52:12

brought [2] - 48:6,

48:12

BROWN [8] - 3:8,

3:20, 4:13, 4:17,

59:3, 60:3, 60:10,

61:1

Brown [2] - 2:2, 3:8

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 63 of 71
Bruce [2] - 2:2, 3:8

bullet [2] - 27:7

burden [3] - 3:18,

7:20, 40:12

buried [1] - 48:22

business [6] - 1:7,

47:1, 51:4, 51:17,

55:5, 60:7

BY [10] - 11:14, 19:5,

21:17, 22:14, 24:1,

30:23, 35:7, 38:2,

39:6, 39:23

C

California's [1] - 6:24

cannot [3] - 22:2,

43:8, 50:19

capacity [1] - 1:11

capture [1] - 49:15

care [2] - 54:16, 58:14

case [25] - 3:3, 3:16,

4:24, 4:25, 5:2, 5:7,

5:8, 5:18, 5:19, 6:2,

6:3, 6:16, 6:19, 6:22,

12:1, 36:10, 44:5,

54:9, 56:20, 57:8,

57:10, 57:17, 57:20,

57:24, 58:2

Case [1] - 3:4

cases [4] - 5:21, 5:23,

11:25, 42:16

casual [1] - 38:17

caught [1] - 10:8

certain [3] - 27:16,

29:18, 29:19

certified [1] - 62:8

certify [1] - 62:3

chain [1] - 26:14

change [2] - 38:10,

52:4

changes [3] - 38:8,

49:11, 49:13

character [1] - 38:11

characterization [4] -

28:11, 33:1, 50:2,

51:5

characterizations [1] -

30:5

characterize [2] - 5:2,

27:23

characterized [2] -

38:3, 49:23

characterizer [1] -

21:5

characterizing [2] -

21:8, 27:23

child [1] - 14:3

chose [1] - 42:19

CINEMAS [1] - 1:7

Cinemas [5] - 3:3,

12:25, 13:1, 13:15,

23:6

Circuit [3] - 4:25, 5:4,

6:25

cite [1] - 50:5

cited [3] - 5:21, 44:9,

51:12

Civil [1] - 3:3

claimed [1] - 51:19

claims [2] - 48:25,

60:22

clarification [1] -

14:18

clarify [2] - 32:8, 53:7

clear [3] - 6:16, 26:15,

43:5

clearly [2] - 6:23

clenched [2] - 37:5,

37:7

CLERK [4] - 3:2,

10:15, 10:23, 57:6

client [9] - 47:25, 48:1,

48:11, 51:22, 52:19,

52:23, 53:12, 54:21,

56:16

clients [1] - 10:1

closing [1] - 42:25

coach [1] - 41:4

coerce [1] - 41:3

coercion [1] - 43:3

coffee [1] - 38:16

Colin [1] - 23:9

colleagues [1] - 20:11

Columbia [1] - 5:3

comment [2] - 27:25,

56:7

comments [7] - 27:22,

27:23, 27:24, 35:10,

45:5, 49:25, 50:2

common [1] - 56:14

communicate [2] -

9:7, 54:13

communicating [1] -

49:12

communication [2] -

47:4, 54:16

community [1] - 54:5

companies [1] - 12:23

company [3] - 1:9,

1:10, 12:8

compelled [1] - 51:16

complainant [3] -

18:14, 35:21, 35:22

complainants [1] -

57:16

Complaint [2] - 43:24,

44:3

complaint [12] - 19:17,

19:23, 20:4, 20:10,

20:14, 20:16, 20:22,

35:2, 37:9, 47:9,

47:10, 51:2

complaints [2] - 20:5,

20:7

completed [1] - 22:22

compliance [2] -

12:17, 41:25

comply [1] - 52:24

complying [1] - 45:1

compound [1] - 21:6

computer[1] - 26:5

concern [1] - 52:10

concerned [3] - 18:12,

49:9, 53:15

concerning [2] - 17:8,

18:7

concluded [4] - 5:15,

23:3, 46:3, 61:4

conclusion [2] - 21:1,

46:17

conclusions [1] - 44:9

conclusory [1] - 51:8

conduct [4] - 42:14,

43:8, 45:13, 60:7

conference [5] - 12:7,

12:15, 12:19, 12:20,

14:1

conferences [1] -

13:14

confident [1] - 29:11

conflict [1] - 5:11

conformance [1] - 7:3

conformed [1] - 62:7

consistent [1] - 59:17

consistently [1] - 7:1

constrained [1] -

41:10

contact [1] - 45:2

contained [1] - 9:12

contempt [4] - 45:22,

46:3, 48:12, 51:13

contending [1] - 48:24

content [2] - 15:6,

15:13

context [1] - 49:23

contextual [1] - 38:5

continual [1] - 24:18

continues [2] - 31:1,

38:12

continuing [7] - 19:5,

21:17, 24:1, 30:23,

35:7, 39:6, 41:8

contrast [1] - 41:24

conversation [20] -

6:15, 8:24, 9:17,

10:5, 14:5, 15:15,

18:6, 20:20, 24:12,

24:18, 31:11, 39:12,

39:13, 39:16, 48:3,

49:6, 50:4, 53:2,

53:9, 53:19

conversations [5] -

7:1, 14:4, 21:13,

39:8, 47:22

conveyed [1] - 29:5

convinced [3] - 57:13,

57:18, 58:3

cooperate [3] - 23:12,

23:14, 45:24

cooperated [1] - 45:8

cooperating [2] -

41:22, 47:7

copy [5] - 25:22,

26:10, 43:23, 43:25,

58:11

corporation [1] - 1:8

correct [26] - 23:7,

23:20, 24:4, 27:9,

27:12, 27:18, 28:4,

28:9, 28:10, 28:12,

28:13, 28:23, 29:25,

30:3, 30:4, 30:7,

31:3, 31:23, 32:8,

32:23, 33:2, 39:10,

39:17, 39:18, 44:16,

62:4

correctly [1] - 32:8

counsel [20] - 3:6,

3:10, 3:22, 4:19,

6:11, 18:23, 25:22,

38:3, 44:13, 45:14,

46:25, 47:1, 47:14,

47:23, 52:17, 55:4,

55:5, 56:23, 58:12,

60:12

counsel's [1] - 60:12

country [2] - 13:16,

13:18

couple [1] - 4:7

course [4] - 15:3,

18:8, 29:20, 46:10

COURT [58] - 1:1,

1:21, 2:10, 3:12,

3:15, 4:12, 4:16, 8:1,

8:19, 9:1, 9:3, 9:7,

9:14, 9:18, 9:23,

10:5, 10:9, 10:13,

11:4, 18:25, 19:3,

21:10, 22:11, 23:23,

30:20, 35:6, 37:22,

39:4, 39:20, 40:5,

40:7, 40:10, 43:12,

43:22, 44:2, 46:7,

46:21, 47:18, 49:8,

52:18, 52:23, 53:2,

53:4, 53:15, 53:22,

54:10, 54:16, 54:25,

55:10, 55:12, 57:1,

57:7, 59:5, 59:9,

2

59:14, 60:6, 60:14,

61:2

Court [21] - 3:23, 4:2,

4:4, 4:6, 5:3, 5:25,

6:19, 6:21, 6:25,

7:10, 7:24, 11:16,

41:6, 42:14, 43:6,

46:12, 52:17, 55:20,

56:3, 62:13

court [4] - 7:2, 9:4,

9:5, 11:9

Court's [4] - 5:10,

5:14, 7:22, 59:3

Courthouse [1] - 2:10

cow [1] - 41:21

crafted [1] - 58:3

creates [1] - 52:9

credible [2] - 40:18,

41:1

crediting [1] - 50:12

cross [1] - 22:11

CROSS [1] - 22:13

CROSSEXAMINATION [1] -

22:13

cross-examine [1] -

22:11

CRR [2] - 2:10, 62:12

CSR [3] - 2:10, 62:12,

62:13

curious [1] - 9:4

D

D.C [1] - 4:25

dangerous [1] - 56:8

DATE [1] - 62:12

date [2] - 22:24, 53:14

DAVID [1] - 1:11

David [3] - 12:22,

36:15, 37:12

days [4] - 26:4, 26:8,

55:8

deal [1] - 53:24

decide [2] - 7:15,

46:12

decided [5] - 5:8, 5:9,

9:20, 42:22, 50:7

decides [1] - 22:15

decision [4] - 5:22,

22:20, 27:20, 53:16

declaration [22] -

17:8, 17:11, 17:15,

17:19, 17:22, 20:23,

20:24, 21:18, 27:5,

27:8, 29:20, 30:24,

31:20, 32:7, 32:9,

32:21, 39:17, 44:10,

49:21, 50:13, 50:24,

56:1

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 64 of 71
declarations [1] -

44:10

declare [1] - 17:12

decline [1] - 52:1

defects [1] - 45:19

defendant [9] - 3:13,

18:3, 41:25, 42:21,

47:14, 56:25, 57:14,

58:21, 59:22

defendant's [3] - 16:5,

17:24, 41:25

DEFENDANTS [1] -

2:6

Defendants [1] - 1:12

defendants [14] -

10:1, 25:21, 41:19,

43:18, 44:13, 45:13,

47:1, 48:6, 52:3,

52:7, 55:6, 55:23,

58:24

defendants' [4] -

25:22, 47:6, 52:6,

55:4

defense [2] - 58:12,

59:6

degree [3] - 11:17,

11:18, 11:19

delete [1] - 27:14

denied [2] - 55:24,

55:25

denying [1] - 6:24

department [3] -

22:15, 22:17, 25:25

Department [23] - 1:4,

2:3, 11:21, 23:21,

40:11, 40:13, 40:24,

41:9, 41:15, 44:23,

45:6, 45:17, 45:21,

45:23, 46:2, 46:17,

47:13, 48:19, 50:19,

52:2, 54:6, 56:19

Department's [2] -

41:18, 43:4

dependent [1] - 46:16

describe [1] - 9:9

described [4] - 9:11,

13:4, 13:7

designed [2] - 42:9,

49:15

detail [2] - 9:9, 12:6

determination [1] -

5:10

determine [1] - 11:25

determining [1] - 57:8

development [1] -

11:18

dialogue [1] - 47:4

differences [1] - 42:4

different [1] - 24:9

difficult [1] - 17:3

difficulty [1] - 26:4

digitally [1] - 62:7

DIRECT [1] - 11:13

direct [7] - 22:19,

22:21, 31:22, 32:3,

32:5, 33:21, 51:8

directed [3] - 20:7,

20:15, 35:11

directly [12] - 32:24,

33:15, 33:17, 33:25,

34:2, 34:3, 36:5,

36:15, 36:17, 52:6,

52:16, 60:5

disagree [2] - 7:19,

46:22

disclose [3] - 20:13,

20:17, 55:15

disclosed [1] - 53:13

discovery [1] - 45:14

discuss [3] - 14:18,

14:20, 52:16

discussed [2] - 47:23,

48:17

discussing [3] - 14:3,

15:13, 49:3

discussion [2] - 5:16,

7:8

dispute [1] - 5:14

dissolved [2] - 7:18,

7:21

dissolves [1] - 59:15

distracting [1] - 6:6

District [2] - 2:10, 5:3

DISTRICT [3] - 1:1,

1:2, 1:21

Division [1] - 11:22

Docket [1] - 3:5

domestic [3] - 1:7,

1:9, 1:10

done [5] - 28:7, 37:14,

37:15, 42:22, 56:17

dots [2] - 27:15, 27:17

doubt [2] - 16:21, 42:5

down [4] - 21:25,

39:20, 40:5, 57:3

draft [6] - 12:2, 58:8,

59:4, 59:11, 59:16,

60:14

drafted [1] - 59:13

drafting [1] - 10:8

drop [1] - 12:3

drop-ins [1] - 12:3

due [1] - 43:15

duly [1] - 10:20

during [5] - 15:3, 18:8,

26:15, 30:10, 38:16

duties [1] - 11:23

E

E-l-e-g-a-n-t [1] - 11:3

e-mail [1] - 15:10

early [1] - 13:19

Ed [1] - 3:13

editorial [2] - 27:23,

38:4

education [1] - 11:16

Edwin [1] - 2:6

effectively [1] - 7:18

efforts [1] - 49:1

eight [4] - 22:6, 47:5,

50:20

either [7] - 4:23, 5:21,

12:1, 20:15, 42:24,

47:19, 52:16

elapsed [2] - 26:2,

50:20

Elegant [6] - 3:10,

11:1, 11:3, 11:15,

40:18, 50:24

ELEGANT [1] - 10:18

Elegant's [2] - 4:2,

10:12

EMAMI [1] - 1:11

Emami [68] - 12:22,

13:12, 13:13, 13:16,

13:20, 14:11, 15:15,

16:13, 16:20, 16:22,

16:24, 17:13, 17:20,

19:15, 19:16, 19:22,

20:3, 20:9, 20:21,

23:14, 24:19, 24:22,

25:17, 26:23, 27:1,

28:25, 29:6, 31:1,

31:16, 31:21, 32:2,

32:3, 32:5, 33:14,

33:18, 33:23, 33:24,

33:25, 34:15, 35:24,

37:7, 37:9, 38:12,

38:16, 39:2, 39:9,

40:15, 40:23, 41:3,

41:7, 42:13, 43:2,

43:8, 44:21, 45:7,

45:22, 45:23, 46:4,

46:16, 51:12, 54:4,

55:17, 56:5, 56:12,

56:21, 58:12, 60:4

emergency [2] -

50:10, 50:14

emotion [1] - 21:9

emphasize [1] - 42:25

employed [1] - 11:20

employee [7] - 16:5,

16:8, 17:23, 18:2,

18:3, 31:1, 31:4

employees [47] - 9:13,

12:12, 14:6, 14:8,

14:9, 14:22, 14:24,

14:25, 15:12, 19:12,

20:24, 21:2, 21:6,

21:19, 21:21, 22:3,

23:18, 25:2, 26:24,

32:11, 37:17, 38:13,

39:2, 40:16, 40:19,

40:21, 41:2, 41:7,

41:12, 41:13, 41:14,

41:20, 41:22, 42:2,

42:11, 43:2, 43:10,

44:11, 50:25, 51:4,

51:13, 52:7, 53:13,

55:18, 56:6, 60:12

employers [5] - 6:2,

41:11, 42:9, 43:5,

56:20

employment [2] -

18:9, 54:4

encompasses [1] -

59:20

encouraging [1] -

26:24

end [1] - 56:8

ends [1] - 23:4

enforcement [1] - 43:4

engage [3] - 42:11,

43:7, 48:7

engaged [1] - 43:8

English [8] - 14:12,

14:24, 15:17, 16:25,

24:25, 25:14, 25:16,

59:25

enter [2] - 23:5, 52:14

entered [2] - 44:19,

45:2

entire [2] - 4:22, 30:10

equitable [1] - 42:17

equities [2] - 41:17,

57:24

essentially [1] - 45:4

establishment [1] -

12:10

et [1] - 3:3

ethical [1] - 52:9

evaluation [1] - 21:5

event [3] - 44:5, 49:15,

53:18

events [3] - 18:7,

29:24, 44:12

evidence [8] - 4:2,

5:24, 6:12, 7:14,

34:20, 34:23, 51:9,

53:11

evidentiary [1] - 40:14

exact [2] - 21:8, 26:25

exactly [5] - 14:19,

18:21, 47:10, 57:17,

59:20

EXAMINATION [4] -

11:13, 22:13, 38:1,

3

39:22

examine [1] - 22:11

examined [1] - 10:20

example [1] - 59:21

except [1] - 60:11

exception [2] - 29:11,

29:14

exchange [1] - 48:20

excuse [3] - 26:21,

29:22, 49:12

expect [1] - 58:23

expected [1] - 36:7

explain [2] - 12:9,

31:16

explains [1] - 9:3

expressed [1] - 51:1

extent [1] - 60:19

F

F.Supp [1] - 6:21

fact [3] - 34:21, 40:25,

50:6

facts [2] - 44:8, 47:16

factual [2] - 4:1, 7:11

fair [2] - 50:1, 56:22

Fair [9] - 41:5, 42:1,

58:9, 58:18, 58:20,

59:17, 60:15, 60:18,

60:23

familiar [1] - 59:20

far [2] - 20:9, 44:15

fashion [1] - 5:25

fast [1] - 9:6

favor [3] - 41:18, 42:6,

50:4

favorable [1] - 34:14

favors [1] - 57:24

feared [1] - 37:18

February [2] - 49:6,

53:10

federal [7] - 6:11,

6:12, 6:13, 6:17, 7:2,

7:3, 51:24

felt [2] - 33:23, 45:23

few [8] - 3:21, 12:13,

12:14, 17:5, 19:10,

26:4, 26:8, 57:2

Fifth [1] - 2:4

file [5] - 9:20, 39:24,

39:25, 47:14, 51:1

filed [3] - 8:23, 8:25,

47:10

filing [1] - 48:21

final [3] - 12:15, 12:19,

12:20

finally [1] - 56:2

findings [1] - 12:16

fine [6] - 4:16, 14:21,

46:19, 46:21, 48:23,

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 65 of 71
48:24

fire [1] - 45:8

firm [1] - 53:10

first [16] - 3:19, 4:18,

5:13, 10:20, 10:24,

13:14, 14:1, 23:5,

23:9, 25:14, 38:3,

40:13, 43:1, 43:14,

53:6, 57:10

First [7] - 4:18, 4:22,

5:4, 5:9, 5:16, 5:19,

43:16

firsthand [1] - 44:11

fist [5] - 20:2, 37:5,

37:7, 37:10, 37:13

five [3] - 27:7, 28:20,

29:12

fix [2] - 48:1, 48:2

FLSA [2] - 42:12,

52:24

fluent [1] - 15:1

follow [3] - 14:2,

24:12, 31:16

follow-up [1] - 14:2

followed [2] - 13:17,

32:19

follows [1] - 10:21

FOR [4] - 1:2, 1:18,

2:2, 2:6

foregoing [1] - 62:4

form [6] - 26:7, 45:18,

47:2, 48:4, 52:14,

58:10

formal [1] - 48:5

format [1] - 58:5

forms [1] - 8:6

forth [2] - 49:3, 52:19

forward [6] - 8:16,

20:25, 21:16, 22:7,

41:14, 58:5

fountain [1] - 38:17

four [6] - 36:17, 37:19,

42:18, 55:7, 57:7

four-stage [1] - 42:18

four-step [1] - 42:18

fourth [1] - 42:7

frankly [1] - 10:7

free [1] - 11:8

fundamental [1] - 44:4

future [2] - 41:10,

50:16

G

gather [1] - 33:3

general [4] - 3:22, 4:8,

26:22, 46:25

generally [1] - 24:22

generically [1] - 58:18

given [6] - 12:1, 18:23,

23:2, 40:4, 48:14

goal [1] - 43:1

golpear [3] - 18:16,

19:25, 31:12

Government [1] - 50:5

government [6] - 8:17,

8:19, 28:2, 33:20,

42:3, 51:24

governs [1] - 6:12

granted [1] - 44:9

grossly [1] - 56:25

grounds [2] - 5:4, 5:9

group [1] - 24:24

Grove [5] - 3:3, 12:25,

13:1, 13:15, 23:6

GROVE [1] - 1:7

guarantee [1] - 41:15

guess [3] - 13:14,

20:14, 23:10

guy [2] - 10:1, 54:17

H

hand [3] - 10:16, 11:7,

37:13

hanging [1] - 49:10

hard [1] - 45:14

hardship [1] - 51:10

harm [10] - 8:6, 8:14,

8:18, 9:16, 10:2,

41:9, 50:16, 50:19,

54:18, 57:19

harmed [1] - 9:24

Harnden [2] - 2:6,

3:13

HARNDEN [3] - 3:13,

56:7, 60:25

HARRIS [1] - 1:3

Harris [1] - 3:3

head [1] - 27:4

hear [10] - 4:2, 4:4,

7:24, 10:11, 24:22,

25:16, 29:21, 29:23,

33:3, 49:4

heard [11] - 8:13, 8:14,

16:22, 17:9, 18:13,

19:13, 24:2, 32:2,

33:1, 44:18, 55:23

hearing [7] - 7:10,

22:4, 35:17, 44:16,

44:17, 47:12, 49:25

HEARING [1] - 1:18

heart [1] - 5:14

heavily [1] - 42:6

held [6] - 7:1, 15:25,

39:16, 42:10, 43:7,

50:7

helps [1] - 11:9

HERNANDEZ [1] -

1:20

herring [1] - 7:4

higher [1] - 37:2

higher-paying [1] -

37:2

history [1] - 11:17

hit [2] - 31:14, 31:17

hold [1] - 42:16

holding [2] - 5:13,

5:17

holdings [1] - 42:20

honestly [1] - 23:10

Honor [22] - 3:2, 3:8,

3:20, 4:13, 5:6, 21:4,

22:10, 30:15, 35:5,

37:21, 39:3, 43:14,

44:17, 44:19, 48:5,

52:4, 52:13, 52:14,

56:9, 59:7, 60:3,

60:25

HONORABLE [1] -

1:20

hope [2] - 4:9, 23:17

hoping [4] - 21:21,

21:23, 21:24, 47:7

Hour [1] - 11:22

hour [8] - 3:11, 11:24,

12:21, 14:2, 20:4,

28:17, 43:3, 45:8

hours [3] - 14:1, 34:6,

38:23

huge [1] - 10:3

hundred [1] - 29:19

HUNT [21] - 18:22,

21:4, 22:14, 24:1,

30:17, 30:23, 35:7,

37:21, 39:3, 39:23,

43:14, 43:25, 44:3,

46:15, 46:25, 48:4,

49:18, 52:22, 53:1,

53:3, 59:7

Hunt [2] - 2:6, 3:14

hunt [1] - 43:13

I

idea [1] - 22:3

ideas [1] - 52:15

identified [2] - 19:12,

19:18

identifying [1] - 15:12

illegally [1] - 50:3

imitating [2] - 28:2,

28:9

immediate [2] - 41:25,

48:21

immediately [2] -

19:11, 41:6

important [1] - 43:17

impression [2] - 54:2,

54:4

improper [1] - 51:19

IN [1] - 1:1

inaccuracies [1] -

7:11

INC [1] - 1:7

inclined [1] - 4:2

include [2] - 12:25,

27:19

included [2] - 27:18,

45:5

including [1] - 56:14

inconsistencies [1] -

7:11

indicate [1] - 14:15

indicated [3] - 22:4,

22:6, 22:7

indicates [1] - 27:17

individual [18] - 1:11,

17:24, 19:17, 19:19,

23:8, 30:13, 30:25,

31:8, 31:10, 31:23,

32:2, 35:8, 35:10,

35:11, 35:21, 46:9,

46:10, 46:16

individual's [1] - 18:8

individuals [3] - 33:5,

34:13, 36:14

informant's [1] - 30:16

information [4] - 12:9,

22:18, 22:21, 49:21

informed [1] - 26:13

initial [4] - 12:7, 13:13,

14:1, 35:1

initiate [2] - 12:5,

20:13

initiated [7] - 18:14,

20:5, 20:6, 20:7,

20:15, 20:16, 20:19

initiating [1] - 20:17

injunction [31] - 3:5,

3:17, 3:25, 4:21,

7:16, 7:17, 7:19,

8:16, 9:21, 40:9,

40:12, 42:7, 45:18,

48:13, 50:8, 50:15,

50:18, 51:7, 51:11,

52:21, 55:19, 56:5,

56:17, 56:24, 57:9,

57:25, 58:2, 58:6,

58:8, 59:15, 59:16

INJUNCTION [1] -

1:18

instances [2] - 27:13,

30:2

instructive [1] - 38:25

intended [2] - 47:14,

57:15

interest [8] - 41:20,

41:21, 41:24, 42:4,

42:8, 42:12, 58:1

4

interested [1] - 7:10

interfere [1] - 43:9

interferes [1] - 60:21

international [1] -

11:18

International [1] -

6:20

interpret [1] - 37:20

interrupt [1] - 9:23

interview [2] - 12:11,

36:8

interviewed [7] -

32:12, 33:4, 33:12,

34:18, 34:24, 36:14,

51:21

interviewing [1] -

13:11

intimidate [2] - 57:16,

60:17

intimidating [2] -

27:25, 28:1

investigation [29] -

12:6, 12:7, 12:22,

13:3, 13:8, 13:9,

13:11, 15:3, 20:8,

20:13, 20:16, 20:18,

22:16, 22:22, 23:1,

23:3, 23:12, 23:15,

26:23, 36:5, 38:24,

41:23, 43:3, 45:25,

47:7, 51:24, 52:8,

60:13

investigations [3] -

20:4, 20:15, 41:10

investigative [3] -

12:3, 23:3, 39:24

investigator[8] - 3:11,

11:22, 11:24, 12:21,

13:6, 31:5, 44:24,

51:23

investigator's [1] -

50:12

investigators [1] -

45:9

involve [1] - 13:11

involved [1] - 12:22

involves [1] - 21:6

irreparable [3] - 41:9,

50:19, 57:19

issue [16] - 3:17, 4:19,

4:23, 6:4, 6:6, 7:4,

7:7, 7:23, 9:14, 49:8,

49:19, 51:3, 51:11,

57:9, 58:2

issued [2] - 20:10,

45:16

issues [8] - 3:22, 3:24,

4:8, 43:15, 43:16,

48:6, 52:9

issuing [1] - 59:15

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 66 of 71
items [3] - 27:10,

28:20, 30:6

itself [4] - 7:23, 20:18,

46:22, 60:13

J

job [10] - 21:3, 21:15,

32:20, 32:23, 33:7,

33:19, 34:1, 34:7,

34:8, 36:16

jobs [5] - 21:24, 34:4,

36:25, 37:2, 37:18

JUDGE [1] - 1:21

JULIEANNA [2] -

10:18, 11:2

Julieanna [2] - 3:10,

11:1

jurisdiction [1] - 43:6

K

keep [2] - 21:24, 33:6

kind [7] - 4:9, 4:10,

6:5, 18:15, 39:2,

43:7, 54:2

knock [1] - 54:22

knowledge [1] - 44:11

known [1] - 16:13

knows [2] - 30:17,

30:19

L

labor [1] - 14:3

Labor [17] - 1:3, 1:4,

2:3, 5:5, 5:12, 5:19,

11:21, 41:5, 42:1,

54:6, 58:9, 58:18,

58:20, 59:17, 60:15,

60:18, 60:23

language [15] - 14:10,

14:23, 16:24, 25:14,

48:18, 52:1, 58:5,

58:9, 58:17, 58:19,

58:24, 59:4, 59:8,

60:14, 60:19

languages [1] - 60:2

large [1] - 54:5

last [4] - 10:24, 11:2,

23:9, 46:7

latitude [1] - 46:2

law [11] - 6:8, 6:16,

6:18, 7:3, 7:4, 7:6,

11:19, 31:4, 49:18,

53:10, 58:22

lawyer [2] - 9:25,

54:11

lawyers [2] - 43:19,

48:6

lead [1] - 13:6

leading [3] - 18:22,

18:24, 48:14

learn [2] - 47:2, 47:11

learned [3] - 26:11,

44:18, 53:19

least [2] - 23:18, 60:1

left [2] - 36:22, 36:25

legal [4] - 3:22, 7:25,

48:19, 48:21

legitimate [1] - 41:20

less [1] - 8:22

letter [5] - 12:2, 12:4,

12:5, 12:6

letting [1] - 54:11

liability [2] - 1:9, 1:10

Liebman [1] - 2:7

likelihood [1] - 57:19

likely [2] - 40:13,

57:11

limited [2] - 1:9, 1:10

line [2] - 42:15, 44:25

listen [5] - 16:15, 17:4,

25:5, 26:7, 56:3

listened [1] - 17:6

listening [1] - 25:13

live [1] - 54:12

LLC [2] - 1:8, 1:10

LLP [1] - 2:7

look [2] - 12:10, 58:19

Look [1] - 54:17

looked [1] - 57:10

looking [1] - 51:17

lose [8] - 21:15, 32:19,

32:22, 33:19, 33:25,

34:4, 34:6, 36:16

losing [2] - 21:2,

37:18

lost [1] - 46:7

M

mail [1] - 15:10

major [1] - 56:18

Management [1] -

13:1

MANAGEMENT [1] -

1:8

manager [4] - 12:16,

13:15, 23:6, 36:6

managing [1] - 12:8

mandate [2] - 43:9,

54:3

Manufacturers [2] -

5:1, 5:22

MARCO [1] - 1:20

master's [1] - 11:18

material [1] - 38:4

matter [12] - 6:1, 6:9,

6:17, 7:13, 21:20,

22:23, 23:19, 36:11,

39:24, 41:2, 46:12,

48:15

matters [2] - 35:24,

35:25

mean [4] - 31:13,

31:14, 46:8, 60:6

means [3] - 3:17, 3:18,

23:2

meant [1] - 14:19

meantime [1] - 54:20

meet [1] - 3:25

meeting [8] - 13:17,

15:16, 15:20, 15:25,

16:1, 16:11, 17:20,

45:7

member [1] - 12:8

mention [4] - 32:7,

37:4, 42:15, 48:23

mentioned [2] - 20:24,

35:23

merits [3] - 40:14,

50:23, 57:12

message [2] - 42:9,

54:17

met [3] - 7:15, 7:20,

40:11

microphone [2] -

11:6, 11:10

mid [2] - 16:1, 16:3

miedo [1] - 32:18

might [5] - 9:24,

20:11, 40:23, 41:3

million [1] - 6:2

mind [2] - 8:8, 16:21

minds [1] - 46:3

minute [1] - 15:22

minutes [7] - 14:5,

28:15, 28:16, 28:18,

30:9, 57:3, 57:4

misbehaving [1] -

29:1

mischaracterization

[2] - 4:24, 5:8

misreading [1] - 4:23

misses [1] - 56:13

mission [1] - 43:1

Monday [1] - 9:5

money [2] - 34:7,

36:16

month [2] - 8:19, 8:22

months [5] - 12:14,

47:5, 47:22, 50:20,

56:23

morning [2] - 3:8, 39:8

most [1] - 7:8

MOTION [1] - 1:18

motion [7] - 3:4, 6:21,

6:24, 8:25, 9:20,

10:8, 20:1

move [1] - 11:7

moved [1] - 44:25

MR [32] - 3:8, 3:13,

3:20, 4:13, 4:17,

18:22, 21:4, 22:14,

24:1, 30:17, 30:23,

35:7, 37:21, 39:3,

39:23, 43:14, 43:25,

44:3, 46:15, 46:25,

48:4, 49:18, 52:22,

53:1, 53:3, 56:7,

59:3, 59:7, 60:3,

60:10, 60:25, 61:1

MS [36] - 8:11, 8:22,

9:2, 9:6, 9:11, 9:16,

9:19, 10:4, 10:7,

10:11, 11:11, 11:14,

19:2, 19:4, 19:5,

21:17, 22:9, 23:22,

30:15, 35:5, 37:24,

38:2, 39:6, 39:19,

40:8, 40:11, 53:6,

53:21, 54:1, 54:15,

54:24, 55:3, 55:11,

55:13, 59:10, 60:8

N

name [6] - 10:24, 11:1,

11:2, 17:24, 23:9

namely [1] - 52:5

names [1] - 10:25

nancy [1] - 2:10

Nancy [1] - 62:11

NANCY [1] - 62:12

national [1] - 45:4

National [5] - 4:25,

5:5, 5:12, 5:18, 5:21

nature [3] - 47:19,

51:23, 52:8

necessary [3] - 21:25,

22:1, 48:13

necessity [1] - 21:22

necks [1] - 40:21

need [7] - 10:2, 11:7,

27:3, 48:1, 48:2,

52:13, 57:20

needed [3] - 8:15,

17:6, 50:18

needless [1] - 47:15

needs [2] - 57:21,

58:21

never [5] - 20:13,

20:21, 20:22, 29:15,

51:1

nice [1] - 49:4

Ninth [1] - 6:25

NLRA [1] - 5:16

NLRB [3] - 4:24, 5:1,

6:2

5

non [1] - 52:25

non-retaliation [1] -

52:25

none [2] - 5:21, 5:23

noon [1] - 37:14

note [4] - 4:22, 43:17,

52:4, 55:3

noted [2] - 6:25, 48:25

notes [1] - 57:3

nothing [2] - 41:13,

54:11

notice [1] - 48:24

notified [3] - 36:11,

47:9, 55:4

nowhere [1] - 47:3

NRLB [1] - 5:11

number [2] - 43:15,

45:19

O

OAK [1] - 1:7

Oak [5] - 3:3, 12:25,

13:1, 13:15, 23:6

obey [1] - 58:21

object [1] - 23:22

objection [7] - 18:22,

18:25, 21:10, 30:15,

30:20, 35:5, 39:3

obtain [1] - 49:1

obtained [2] - 7:2,

45:6

obtaining [1] - 50:8

occasions [1] - 13:24

occur [1] - 10:6

occurred [6] - 8:4,

9:14, 18:8, 44:5,

49:6, 53:7

occurring [1] - 50:16

occurs [1] - 12:6

October [4] - 16:3,

25:20, 26:2, 49:7

OF [2] - 1:2, 1:19

office [4] - 27:21,

28:7, 29:2, 40:4

Office [1] - 2:3

Official [1] - 62:13

official [1] - 1:11

often [1] - 38:22

omitted [1] - 49:22

ON [1] - 1:18

once [5] - 12:1, 17:6,

20:18, 26:11, 35:8

one [19] - 6:14, 6:19,

8:1, 8:2, 13:14,

15:20, 16:18, 19:12,

21:7, 30:12, 30:13,

34:17, 41:4, 47:16,

52:5, 56:7, 57:22,

59:12

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 67 of 71
ones [2] - 22:5, 36:1

ongoing [2] - 38:24,

42:14

oOo [1] - 62:1

opinion [1] - 5:14

opportunity [4] - 5:6,

44:14, 44:18, 45:13

opposing [2] - 38:3,

47:23

opposite [1] - 27:7

OR [2] - 2:9, 2:11

ORCP [1] - 52:11

order [27] - 8:21,

43:21, 44:7, 44:9,

44:15, 44:19, 44:23,

45:2, 45:16, 45:17,

46:8, 46:13, 46:22,

47:2, 49:2, 51:15,

52:5, 52:12, 52:14,

52:20, 53:18, 57:6,

57:9, 58:4, 58:8,

58:13

ordered [1] - 51:11

ordering [1] - 58:1

orders [1] - 47:20

OREGON [1] - 1:2

Oregon [9] - 1:7, 1:7,

1:8, 1:10, 6:8, 7:6,

52:9, 56:20, 62:13

original [1] - 62:6

ought [5] - 42:23,

51:17, 58:16, 59:1

overlap [2] - 24:13,

24:17

overly [2] - 45:19,

52:12

overruled [6] - 18:25,

21:10, 23:23, 30:20,

35:6, 39:4

owed [1] - 12:17

owner [5] - 12:8,

12:16, 12:19, 12:20,

36:5

P

paid [1] - 36:16

papers [6] - 11:7,

43:15, 43:19, 43:20,

47:13, 48:5

paragraph [2] - 27:8,

48:22

paraphrase [1] - 17:15

pardon [2] - 19:2, 28:3

part [6] - 23:3, 44:22,

51:14, 54:1, 58:4,

58:13

participate [1] - 45:24

particular[3] - 13:8,

19:18, 27:14

parties' [1] - 42:4

parts [3] - 15:22,

15:23, 57:7

party [3] - 6:14, 6:15,

29:23

passed [2] - 47:5,

50:13

past [2] - 12:12, 14:9

paying [1] - 37:2

payroll [1] - 12:11

penalties [1] - 49:1

people [3] - 19:10,

21:8, 34:14

percent [1] - 29:19

perception [1] - 47:6

period [2] - 23:4,

30:10

peripheral [2] - 4:9,

5:17

person [37] - 6:15,

13:22, 13:25, 14:1,

16:4, 16:7, 16:10,

18:2, 18:7, 18:11,

18:12, 19:14, 19:15,

19:16, 19:22, 19:24,

19:25, 21:7, 24:6,

25:7, 25:8, 30:8,

31:15, 31:17, 31:18,

31:25, 32:1, 32:4,

34:12, 35:1, 35:17,

35:18, 35:21, 41:4,

52:1, 56:11

personally [1] - 29:23

persons [8] - 25:12,

33:4, 33:11, 36:18,

37:17, 49:25, 51:20

phone [3] - 9:25,

13:22, 14:3

phrase [1] - 28:5

phrased [1] - 52:15

phrases [2] - 28:8,

38:5

physical [10] - 8:6,

8:14, 8:18, 8:23,

9:16, 10:2, 40:20,

45:10, 54:18, 57:15

pick [1] - 11:6

pieces [3] - 28:21,

28:24, 30:2

places [2] - 37:1,

59:19

plaintiff [1] - 59:2

Plaintiff [2] - 1:5,

10:19

PLAINTIFF [1] - 2:2

plaintiffs [5] - 3:16,

57:11, 57:18, 57:24,

58:23

play [2] - 4:5, 26:5

playing [1] - 26:5

plural [1] - 15:19

podium [1] - 4:15

point [20] - 7:12,

21:20, 22:24, 25:21,

26:9, 26:12, 26:15,

36:4, 36:10, 36:11,

36:12, 37:13, 46:8,

46:19, 53:16, 55:14,

55:16, 55:22, 56:9,

56:13

points [3] - 27:7,

44:14

portions [4] - 27:6,

27:15, 27:16, 59:21

Portland [3] - 1:7, 2:9,

2:11

position [6] - 23:21,

48:10, 50:10, 50:18,

51:15, 54:21

positive [2] - 28:19,

34:18

possession [5] - 9:12,

15:4, 15:8, 25:19,

49:7

posted [4] - 58:11,

58:16, 59:1, 59:18

poster [3] - 58:10,

59:16, 60:20

posters [3] - 58:16,

59:1, 59:24

posting [1] - 5:13

potentially [1] - 52:10

prefer [1] - 7:25

preliminary [23] - 3:4,

3:17, 3:25, 4:21,

7:16, 7:19, 9:21,

40:9, 40:12, 45:18,

48:13, 50:8, 50:14,

50:18, 51:7, 51:11,

52:21, 57:9, 58:1,

58:6, 58:8, 59:15,

59:16

PRELIMINARY [1] -

1:18

preocupado [1] -

32:16

prepared [3] - 4:1, 4:5,

52:16

presence [1] - 16:13

present [6] - 4:1, 7:14,

12:12, 12:18, 14:9,

16:11

presented [1] - 47:15

presently [1] - 11:20

press [2] - 45:4, 45:12

presumably [1] -

45:21

prevail [1] - 42:24

prevent [1] - 5:25

print [2] - 48:23, 48:24

privacy [1] - 6:24

privilege [1] - 30:16

problem [11] - 9:8,

9:9, 9:10, 10:3,

44:22, 46:14, 47:25,

48:2, 52:19, 53:23,

55:6

problems [1] - 19:21

procedural [3] -

43:15, 44:5, 48:14

procedure [1] - 7:9

PROCEEDINGS [1] -

1:19

proceedings [8] -

6:13, 7:2, 45:22,

48:12, 48:20, 48:22,

61:4, 62:5

process [5] - 8:17,

12:3, 12:9, 18:14,

43:16

professionals [2] -

53:22, 54:14

prohibit [1] - 60:17

prohibited [1] - 60:4

prohibiting [1] - 60:11

prohibits [1] - 58:18

promulgated [1] -

5:11

prongs [1] - 50:17

proof [4] - 3:18, 40:14,

49:20, 50:15

protect [3] - 40:24,

43:2, 43:9

protected [6] - 41:16,

42:2, 42:11, 55:21,

56:6, 57:21

proven [2] - 57:11,

57:12

provenance [1] -

40:17

provide [1] - 25:24

provided [2] - 25:21,

26:3

provides [2] - 42:17,

49:19

provision [3] - 60:3,

60:8, 60:10

provisions [1] - 59:12

public [3] - 42:7,

42:12, 57:25

purposes [1] - 11:9

pursue [2] - 22:16,

60:22

pursuing [1] - 60:18

put [8] - 4:20, 8:20,

28:5, 29:20, 32:21,

37:12, 59:24, 60:19

puts [1] - 54:20

6

Q

questioning [1] - 11:5

questions [10] - 14:17,

22:9, 25:1, 38:15,

38:17, 38:20, 38:21,

39:19, 59:2, 59:6

quickly [1] - 4:10

quit [1] - 36:21

quite [5] - 6:8, 19:10,

26:22, 46:2, 55:9

quizzing [1] - 51:25

quote [1] - 17:16

quoted [3] - 30:1,

30:3, 30:6

quotes [2] - 17:19,

49:22

quoting [1] - 32:24

R

raise [1] - 10:16

raised [5] - 3:22, 4:8,

4:19, 37:10, 43:15

Ramachandran [2] -

2:7, 3:14

range [1] - 46:2

rather [1] - 44:4

read [5] - 5:6, 6:9,

48:17, 48:23, 59:22

reads [2] - 51:14, 56:5

realized [1] - 8:15

really [9] - 4:23, 5:17,

7:12, 8:13, 41:2,

41:19, 42:17, 44:13,

51:13

reason [3] - 11:7,

20:9, 20:17

reasons [1] - 36:24

receive [1] - 16:2

received [2] - 16:3,

34:7

receiving [2] - 19:11,

26:8

recent [2] - 4:24,

39:13

recently [1] - 5:4

recess [1] - 57:5

recognize [2] - 16:17,

16:19

recognized [1] - 16:18

recollection [1] -

17:18

record [4] - 3:7, 10:24,

11:9, 62:4

recorded [2] - 15:23,

50:3

recording [13] - 4:4,

4:5, 6:7, 6:14, 6:22,

6:23, 7:5, 8:3, 9:12,

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 68 of 71
16:11, 16:15, 16:22,

45:7

recordings [21] - 7:1,

8:12, 15:4, 15:5,

15:7, 15:13, 15:14,

15:15, 15:19, 15:21,

16:2, 16:4, 16:8,

17:3, 17:9, 24:2,

24:4, 29:13, 29:16,

40:16

records [2] - 12:11

RECROSS [1] - 39:22

RECROSSEXAMINATION [1] -

39:22

red [1] - 7:4

redirect [1] - 37:23

REDIRECT [1] - 38:1

refer [2] - 6:19, 27:14

reflection [1] - 45:1

reflects [3] - 59:8,

60:15, 60:20

regard [2] - 7:3, 51:10

regarding [2] - 36:9,

43:3

rejecting [1] - 6:21

related [1] - 48:25

relating [1] - 3:24

Relations [3] - 5:5,

5:12, 5:19

reliable [1] - 40:18

reliance [1] - 50:3

relief [2] - 42:8, 42:17

reluctant [2] - 21:16,

41:14

relying [1] - 50:23

remain [2] - 10:16,

57:6

remarks [13] - 17:12,

17:15, 17:17, 17:19,

25:8, 25:10, 25:13,

34:15, 40:15, 40:19,

57:14, 57:15

remedies [1] - 4:20

remedy [1] - 5:25

remember [3] - 26:16,

26:25, 55:11

replace [2] - 7:18,

59:11

report [3] - 45:4,

49:11, 50:11

reported [7] - 31:1,

37:7, 37:8, 45:3,

45:10, 45:12, 48:8

REPORTER [1] - 2:10

reporter[1] - 11:9

Reporter [1] - 62:13

represent [1] - 15:14

represented [2] - 36:4,

36:6

request [3] - 8:20,

52:20, 52:21

required [1] - 51:16

requirement [1] - 5:13

requirements [2] -

52:24, 59:17

requiring [3] - 59:22,

59:23

resolution [2] - 21:23,

47:8

resolved [3] - 21:22,

22:2, 23:19

respect [4] - 32:9,

32:10, 47:3, 52:5

respects [1] - 45:20

respondent's [2] -

5:22, 6:6

response [2] - 4:19,

7:8

restrained [2] - 42:13,

46:9

restraining [15] - 8:20,

43:21, 44:7, 44:15,

44:19, 44:23, 45:17,

46:8, 47:19, 49:2,

51:15, 52:5, 52:20,

53:17, 58:4

restrains [1] - 41:6

retaliating [2] - 41:12,

53:12

retaliation [5] - 8:6,

9:13, 42:11, 52:25,

58:19

retaliatory [1] - 42:14

review [2] - 5:11,

58:12

reviewed [1] - 57:7

Richard [2] - 2:6, 3:14

rights [3] - 55:20,

60:18, 60:22

risk [2] - 40:25, 51:12

RMR [2] - 2:10, 62:12

road [1] - 21:25

Roberts [1] - 6:20

role [2] - 12:21, 13:3

Room [1] - 2:11

rule [4] - 5:5, 5:10,

5:15, 6:1

rule-making [1] - 6:1

rules [2] - 45:1, 52:9

run [2] - 20:19, 51:17

S

safety [1] - 57:15

Schpak [1] - 53:9

score [1] - 46:25

script [1] - 51:14

seated [2] - 10:23,

57:6

Seattle [1] - 2:5

second [5] - 6:4,

13:17, 39:12, 41:6,

43:4

Second [1] - 2:8

secondhand [1] -

49:21

secondly [1] - 57:18

Secretary [4] - 1:3,

3:9, 48:19, 48:20

Secretary's [5] -

41:22, 41:24, 42:6,

43:9, 54:3

section [3] - 5:12,

5:18, 59:12

Section [1] - 5:15

see [2] - 23:19, 46:14

seek [5] - 8:16, 42:8,

45:22, 46:3, 53:17

seeking [2] - 45:18,

51:6

seem [1] - 7:21

selected [4] - 27:10,

28:24, 28:25, 29:2

selective [2] - 28:21,

49:22

selectively [1] - 30:1

self [1] - 41:21

self-interest [1] -

41:21

send [8] - 12:2, 12:4,

19:24, 32:6, 37:10,

39:14, 42:9, 43:5

sense [3] - 15:24,

24:15, 56:14

sent [5] - 15:5, 15:10,

24:14, 25:20, 43:19

sentence [3] - 21:14,

30:2, 37:8

sentences [1] - 17:12

September [4] - 8:3,

13:18, 13:19, 16:1

serious [1] - 54:8

serve [1] - 56:22

served [7] - 42:13,

43:19, 43:23, 43:25,

44:4, 58:11

service [2] - 45:3,

56:16

set [1] - 52:19

SETH [1] - 1:3

several [2] - 17:12,

24:3

sharing [1] - 47:13

short [1] - 15:22

shoulder[1] - 51:18

show [7] - 28:25,

38:10, 40:12, 42:20,

42:24, 50:19, 50:22

shown [2] - 57:19,

57:22

shows [1] - 57:13

side [7] - 9:8, 46:11,

47:16, 53:23, 54:11,

54:12, 54:13

sides [1] - 47:17

signal [1] - 43:5

signature [3] - 62:6,

62:7

signed [3] - 39:16,

44:20, 62:7

signing [2] - 17:8,

62:3

similarly [1] - 7:4

simply [3] - 5:7, 6:8,

44:4

single [1] - 34:12

sit [1] - 54:6

site [1] - 12:12

sitting [1] - 53:8

situation [1] - 5:23

six [1] - 15:22

six-minute [1] - 15:22

smaller [1] - 24:14

snippets [1] - 15:22

solely [1] - 50:23

solicitor[2] - 30:6,

44:24

Solicitor [1] - 2:3

solicitor's [4] - 27:20,

28:7, 29:2, 40:4

someone [9] - 19:24,

28:5, 31:22, 32:3,

32:6, 35:12, 35:13,

35:15, 56:22

sometime [1] - 8:14

sometimes [3] - 12:3,

12:4, 24:13

somewhere [1] -

44:24

soon [2] - 8:17, 9:21

sorry [4] - 28:2, 43:22,

46:7, 60:9

sort [8] - 15:23, 43:2,

44:25, 45:15, 46:19,

51:3, 55:19, 55:24

sought [2] - 42:8, 47:9

space [1] - 11:2

Spanish [9] - 14:25,

15:1, 15:18, 18:16,

20:1, 24:25, 31:11,

59:24, 60:1

speaking [7] - 16:24,

16:25, 24:19, 24:23,

31:5, 36:12, 60:2

specific [5] - 3:24,

4:20, 44:8, 58:17,

58:19

specifically [2] -

31:10, 47:23

7

spell [1] - 10:24

spend [2] - 4:9, 7:22

spirit [1] - 60:15

spokesperson [1] -

45:5

stage [1] - 42:18

stairway [1] - 10:15

stand [3] - 10:14,

56:8, 59:13

standard [1] - 7:16

Standards [9] - 41:5,

42:1, 58:9, 58:18,

58:20, 59:18, 60:15,

60:18, 60:23

standing [1] - 10:16

stark [1] - 42:5

start [2] - 3:21, 4:7

starts [1] - 23:9

state [11] - 3:6, 6:8,

6:18, 7:3, 9:4, 10:23,

17:22, 21:18, 31:10,

33:12, 42:16

statement [11] - 27:14,

30:24, 31:21, 35:14,

35:15, 35:16, 35:18,

35:20, 51:16, 56:4,

56:20

statements [7] - 27:6,

27:16, 27:24, 44:9,

49:22, 49:23, 55:25

states [1] - 52:1

STATES [2] - 1:1, 1:21

States [2] - 1:4, 2:10

stating [2] - 20:3, 45:6

statute [8] - 6:11,

6:13, 6:17, 42:16,

42:22, 46:1, 46:20,

59:8

steer [1] - 20:20

step [6] - 8:16, 10:15,

39:20, 40:5, 42:18,

57:2

steps [2] - 13:6, 13:7

still [5] - 18:2, 18:3,

36:18, 38:24, 43:18

stop [2] - 55:1, 57:21

stopped [1] - 54:23

stretch [1] - 56:18

stuck [1] - 40:21

subjective [1] - 21:5

submitted [1] - 15:7

subset [1] - 50:25

substance [1] - 60:13

succeed [3] - 40:14,

50:22, 57:12

suffer [1] - 41:9

suggest [4] - 34:17,

50:6, 57:20, 58:10

suggestion [1] - 31:21

Suite [2] - 2:4, 2:8

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 69 of 71
summarize [2] -

11:15, 11:23

summarizing [1] -

25:8

summary [2] - 25:11,

26:25

summons [1] - 44:3

supervisor [8] - 22:19,

22:20, 22:21, 23:2,

26:6, 26:9, 26:13

supervisors [2] -

11:25, 19:11

supposed [1] - 46:11

suppress [2] - 6:22,

6:25

surprised [1] - 6:9

Susan [2] - 2:2, 3:9

sworn [1] - 10:20

T

table [2] - 3:10, 11:5

talks [1] - 12:2

tangentially [1] - 13:2

tape [34] - 4:4, 4:5,

6:7, 6:14, 6:22, 6:23,

8:3, 8:12, 24:21,

24:22, 25:5, 25:19,

25:22, 25:24, 26:11,

26:16, 26:17, 26:22,

27:3, 27:11, 27:22,

28:14, 28:22, 29:4,

29:7, 29:8, 40:16,

45:7, 49:5, 49:7,

49:9, 56:10, 56:11,

57:13

tape-recording [8] -

4:4, 4:5, 6:7, 6:14,

6:22, 6:23, 8:3, 45:7

tape-recordings [2] -

8:12, 40:16

tapes [6] - 29:12, 30:1,

55:14, 55:15, 55:18,

56:23

taping [1] - 6:15

temporary [14] - 8:20,

43:21, 44:7, 44:15,

44:18, 44:22, 45:17,

47:19, 49:2, 51:14,

52:5, 52:20, 53:17,

58:4

Tengo [1] - 32:18

tenor [1] - 38:19

terminated [1] - 34:24

test [1] - 3:24

testified [5] - 32:11,

36:1, 38:12, 40:17,

40:19

testifies [1] - 10:20

testify [8] - 21:19,

21:20, 21:23, 22:1,

22:4, 22:8, 45:24,

51:2

testimony [10] - 4:3,

7:24, 10:12, 24:3,

29:14, 31:7, 37:5,

39:7, 39:8, 51:5

THE [70] - 1:1, 1:2,

1:20, 2:2, 2:6, 3:2,

3:12, 3:15, 4:12,

4:16, 8:1, 8:19, 9:1,

9:3, 9:7, 9:14, 9:18,

9:23, 10:5, 10:9,

10:13, 10:15, 10:23,

11:1, 11:4, 18:25,

19:3, 21:10, 21:12,

22:11, 23:23, 23:25,

30:20, 30:22, 35:6,

37:22, 39:4, 39:5,

39:20, 40:5, 40:6,

40:7, 40:10, 43:12,

43:22, 44:2, 46:7,

46:21, 47:18, 49:8,

52:18, 52:23, 53:2,

53:4, 53:15, 53:22,

54:10, 54:16, 54:25,

55:10, 55:12, 57:1,

57:6, 57:7, 59:5,

59:9, 59:14, 60:6,

60:14, 61:2

therefore [2] - 57:22,

58:1

they've [2] - 37:2,

59:13

Third [1] - 2:11

thirdhand [1] - 49:21

thoughts [1] - 56:4

threat [9] - 8:18, 8:23,

9:17, 18:15, 19:6,

19:9, 19:10, 33:21,

45:10

threaten [1] - 55:18

threatened [12] - 8:5,

33:12, 33:13, 33:18,

33:19, 33:23, 33:25,

34:3, 34:4, 34:9,

41:3, 45:7

threatening [7] - 10:2,

40:15, 41:12, 41:20,

53:12, 54:17, 57:14

threats [9] - 9:12,

18:13, 40:20, 41:7,

41:8, 42:14, 49:11,

49:19, 55:24

three [9] - 9:1, 9:2,

13:22, 14:4, 23:4,

36:17, 37:19, 50:21,

55:7

three-year [1] - 23:4

throughout [1] - 59:18

thumbs [1] - 54:7

tilts [1] - 41:17

titled [1] - 62:5

today [6] - 3:2, 48:10,

51:6, 51:7, 52:17,

59:14

together[1] - 8:20

tolling [5] - 48:16,

48:17, 49:4, 49:5,

49:14

tone [1] - 38:10

took [4] - 8:8, 26:6,

27:10, 40:25

top [1] - 27:2

total [1] - 28:14

touched [1] - 13:2

tour [1] - 12:10

transcript [2] - 62:4,

62:6

TRANSCRIPT [1] -

1:19

translate [1] - 24:24

translating [4] - 25:7,

30:8, 30:9, 30:10

translation [3] - 15:17,

25:9, 49:24

translator[3] - 30:12,

30:14, 30:18

tried [2] - 41:3, 54:9

triggering [1] - 53:18

TRO [13] - 4:20, 7:9,

7:17, 7:20, 7:23,

9:21, 47:9, 54:18,

55:2, 59:12, 59:14,

60:4

trouble [7] - 14:13,

14:15, 17:1, 47:18,

48:11, 52:25, 56:13

troubled [1] - 47:21

try [1] - 26:6

trying [5] - 19:21,

20:20, 60:16, 60:17

Tuesday [1] - 9:5

tugging [1] - 8:2

turn [1] - 55:14

turned [2] - 23:1,

36:10

twice [1] - 13:21

twiddle [1] - 54:7

two [8] - 13:13, 13:22,

13:25, 14:4, 19:18,

23:4, 39:8, 58:23

twofold [1] - 43:1

U

U.S [2] - 2:3, 11:21

ultimately [3] - 47:11,

48:18, 54:23

under [8] - 5:10, 6:16,

42:12, 42:20, 52:9,

57:7, 60:18, 60:22

understood [3] -

14:20, 17:5, 50:1

unfair[1] - 56:25

UNITED [2] - 1:1, 1:21

United [2] - 1:3, 2:10

unlawful [1] - 49:19

unless [2] - 41:6,

51:13

unring [1] - 45:15

up [24] - 10:8, 10:13,

11:6, 13:17, 14:2,

18:20, 19:24, 26:13,

31:14, 31:16, 31:17,

31:22, 32:1, 32:4,

35:11, 35:17, 35:19,

35:22, 39:9, 48:14,

55:16, 56:8, 59:8,

59:24

upside [1] - 48:9

urgency [1] - 8:9

uttered [2] - 25:16,

27:1

V

vacated [1] - 5:4

vague [2] - 45:20, 51:7

variables [1] - 12:14

VENTURE [1] - 1:9

Ventures [1] - 13:2

verbatim [4] - 17:16,

17:17, 25:9, 30:11

version [1] - 47:16

versus [1] - 3:3

view [4] - 44:7, 50:3,

51:7, 51:25

violated [4] - 5:18,

6:18, 6:23, 6:24

violates [1] - 5:15

violating [1] - 52:10

violation [6] - 5:24,

6:8, 7:5, 41:5, 42:21,

46:13

violations [1] - 6:1

violence [2] - 45:10,

49:11

voice [4] - 16:19,

16:21, 38:8, 38:10

voices [3] - 16:17,

16:18, 24:21

voluntarily [1] - 36:20

vs [1] - 1:6

W

WA [1] - 2:5

wage [6] - 3:10, 11:23,

12:21, 20:4, 43:3,

8

45:8

Wage [1] - 11:22

wages [2] - 12:17,

49:1

Wagner [1] - 55:5

waiting [1] - 55:19

WALKER [1] - 62:12

Walker [2] - 2:10,

62:11

wants [1] - 4:4

warrant [2] - 44:8,

50:14

warranted [2] - 7:17,

40:13

water [1] - 38:17

week [1] - 38:23

weeks [5] - 9:1, 9:2,

12:14, 50:21, 55:7

weigh [1] - 50:4

weighs [1] - 42:5

Westlaw [1] - 5:1

whole [1] - 25:5

wife [1] - 23:14

willing [4] - 20:24,

22:1, 22:7, 56:3

win [1] - 59:16

Winter[1] - 57:8

wish [1] - 51:2

withdraw [1] - 37:20

withhold [1] - 48:21

witness [3] - 10:19,

40:18, 56:11

WITNESS [6] - 11:1,

21:12, 23:25, 30:22,

39:5, 40:6

wondering [1] - 51:18

word [15] - 15:19,

19:25, 20:1, 26:15,

31:7, 31:11, 31:12,

31:25, 32:14, 32:16,

32:17, 32:25, 33:8,

33:14, 34:9

wording [3] - 46:15,

46:19, 56:5

words [6] - 25:16,

27:1, 27:18, 29:4,

34:3, 46:1

worker [2] - 28:9, 45:9

workers [12] - 8:5,

9:24, 15:17, 19:18,

29:5, 31:2, 45:8,

57:16, 57:20, 60:5,

60:7, 60:11

workforce [2] - 59:22,

60:1

workplace [3] - 58:11,

58:15, 59:19

worried [7] - 9:24,

32:12, 32:15, 32:25,

33:9, 33:17, 51:4

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 70 of 71
9

writer [1] - 45:21

Y

year [4] - 17:23, 18:7,

23:4, 49:6

Case 3:13-cv-00728-HZ Document 13 Filed 05/31/13 Page 71 of 71