EXHIBIT "B"

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 1 of 28
JUSTIN CALL DEPOSITION

JANUARY 20, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 2 of 28
·1· · · · · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

· · · · · · · · · · · DISTRICT OF OREGON

·2

·3· LORI WAKEFIELD, on behalf of

· · themselves and a class of

·4· others similarly situated,

·5· · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · · · · · ·No. 3:15-cv-01857-BR

·6· V.

·7· VISALUS, INC., a Nevada

· · Corporation,

·8

· · · · ·Defendant.

·9

10

11

12· ********************************************************

13· · · · · · · · ·ORAL DEPOSITION OF JUSTIN CALL

14· · · · · · · · · · · ·VOLUME 1

15· ********************************************************

16

17· · · ·ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF JUSTIN CALL, produced as

18· a witness at the instance of the Plaintiff, taken in the

19· above-styled and -numbered cause on the 20th day of

20· January, 2017, A.D., beginning at 9:57 a.m., before

21· Brandy Cooper, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for

22· the State of Texas, in the offices of Esquire Deposition

23· Solutions, located at 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1000,

24· Dallas, Texas, in accordance with the Federal Rules of

25· Civil Procedure and the agreement hereinafter set forth.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 3 of 28
·1· · · · · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S

·2· FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

·3· · · ·STEWART R. POLLOCK

· · · · ·Edelson, PC

·4· · · ·123 Townsend Street, Suite 100

· · · · ·San Francisco, California· 94107

·5· · · ·(415) 212-9300

· · · · ·spollock@edelson.com

·6

· · FOR THE DEFENDANT:

·7

· · · · ·SARAH R. ANCHORS

·8· · · ·Quarles & Brady, LLP

· · · · ·One Renaissance Square

·9· · · ·Two North Central Avenue

· · · · ·Phoenix, Arizona· 85004-2391

10· · · ·(602) 229-5788

· · · · ·sarah.anchors@quarles.com

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 4 of 28
·1· · · · · · · · · ·P R O C E E D I N G S

·2· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Are there any stipulations

·3· or agreements for the record before we begin?

·4· · · · · · · · MS. ANCHORS:· No.

·5· · · · · · · · MR. POLLOCK:· I don't think so.

·6· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Will counsel please state

·7· their names and whom they represent for the record.

·8· · · · · · · · MR. POLLOCK:· Stewart Pollock on behalf of

·9· plaintiff.

10· · · · · · · · MS. ANCHORS:· Sarah Anchors on behalf of

11· defendant.

12· · · · · · · · · · · · JUSTIN CALL,

13· having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

14· · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION

15· BY MR. POLLOCK:

16· · · Q.· ·Good morning, sir.

17· · · A.· ·Morning.

18· · · Q.· ·Would you please state your full name for the

19· record?

20· · · A.· ·Justin Call.

21· · · Q.· ·And have you ever been deposed before?

22· · · A.· ·Yes.

23· · · Q.· ·All right.· When were you deposed, most

24· recently?

25· · · A.· ·I don't know the exact dates, but probably a

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 5 of 28
·1· there was a lot -- I don't know how detailed you want me

·2· to get, but that was the primary purpose.

·3· · · Q.· ·And that includes inbound and outbound?

·4· · · A.· ·At the time, we only had inbound.

·5· · · Q.· ·When was the -- is it called outreach support?

·6· Is that the outbound call center?

·7· · · A.· ·That was a terminology that they kind of came

·8· up with, yes.

·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· When was the outreach team created?

10· · · A.· ·Best of my recollection, somewhere, I would

11· think, beginning of 2012.· Somewhere in that range.

12· · · Q.· ·And the outreach team was terminated in January

13· 2016?

14· · · A.· ·If that's the information you have, I don't

15· recall exactly.

16· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Was it --

17· · · A.· ·I have no reason to dispute if you've got that

18· information.· I don't recall exactly.

19· · · Q.· ·Does that sound approximately right to you?

20· · · A.· ·Yeah, it sounds -- yeah, it sounds right.

21· · · Q.· ·Okay.

22· · · A.· ·If I were to guess, I would have thought it was

23· before then, like the end of 2015.

24· · · Q.· ·All right.· So in 2011, I understand that you

25· oversaw the call center which was inbound only at that

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 6 of 28
·1· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And that's a functionality within the

·2· Avaya system, correct?

·3· · · A.· ·No.· It's an addition.

·4· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So when you say "dialer," what do you

·5· mean by that?

·6· · · A.· ·It means instead of you having to push the

·7· buttons yourself, it can dial it for you.

·8· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And when did Visalus begin to use POM?

·9· · · A.· ·Boy, it took forever to get going.· I think it

10· was probably -- I just don't really -- it was probably

11· '14, I would think, maybe '13.· It took -- I'm thinking

12· it took -- might have been beginning of '14 by the time

13· it actually got going.· But I honestly don't recall it

14· if the -- yeah.

15· · · Q.· ·Okay.· What was the purpose of using POM?

16· · · A.· ·So you didn't have to dial the phone manually.

17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know when Visalus stopped using

18· POM?

19· · · A.· ·Just probably around the coincide of the time

20· we stopped doing outreach.

21· · · Q.· ·Okay.

22· · · A.· ·So somewhere end of whatever we decided -- end

23· of '15.· We may have even stopped using that beforehand.

24· · · Q.· ·Okay.· What sort of campaigns did Visalus use

25· POM for?

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 7 of 28
·1· · · Q.· ·You're probably not one of their top accounts

·2· at this point?

·3· · · A.· ·Good conclusion.· That's for sure.· At the time

·4· when we got it, we had 3 or 400.

·5· · · Q.· ·3 or 400 what?

·6· · · A.· ·Call center agents.

·7· · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 7 was marked.)

·8· · · Q.· ·(BY MR. POLLOCK)· This document is labeled

·9· Exhibit 7.· Again, this is a list of file names.· Are

10· you familiar with any of these file names?

11· · · A.· ·I mean, just in a general sense, I know what

12· CSV files are, but I'm not familiar with any of the

13· specific files.· I mean, I know what DNC generally

14· stands for -- unsubscribes, I can draw conclusion based

15· on logic and experience.

16· · · Q.· ·Okay.· What are your conclusions based on logic

17· experience and working at Visalus?

18· · · A.· ·Unsubscribes are people that probably

19· unsubscribe to something, and DNC would be somebody that

20· does not want to be called.

21· · · Q.· ·Okay.· You weren't involved in the process of

22· collecting or aggregating information about

23· unsubscribed --

24· · · A.· ·No.

25· · · Q.· ·-- accounts?· And that would be something that

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 8 of 28
·1· Visalus would compile from its own records, rather than

·2· going around and asking each individual promoter, right?

·3· · · A.· ·I mean, we have an opt in and a consent form

·4· for them when they join Visalus so we can contact them.

·5· And then we had a -- when we had a dialer that we were

·6· calling them, we had the opportunity for them to opt out

·7· of being called by the dialer -- or you know, by the

·8· outbound team.

·9· · · Q.· ·Okay.· And that would have been communicated

10· directly from a customer to Visalus rather than Visalus

11· needing to obtain that information from each promoter;

12· does that make sense?

13· · · A.· ·Well, I mean, I think you're asking the same

14· thing.· I mean, so if a -- if the end consumer, whether

15· customer or promoter, says don't call me anymore, then

16· we would -- we would capture that -- indicate that.

17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· That would all be one, sort of, common

18· file or database that Visalus would maintain?

19· · · · · · · · MS. ANCHORS:· Objection, foundation.

20· · · A.· ·I don't know.· I know from -- on a -- as I

21· already mentioned, there's -- on the dialer, there's a

22· database that shows people on the dialer that have said

23· they do not want to be called again.

24· · · Q.· ·(BY MR. POLLOCK)· Okay.

25· · · A.· ·And then that was on the dialer.· Doesn't mean,

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 9 of 28
·1· company one just, you know, announces that it came out

·2· three weeks ago or so.

·3· · · Q.· ·Okay.· I think we talked a little bit about

·4· consent records earlier.· Do you recall that?

·5· · · A.· ·Consent records?

·6· · · Q.· ·Let's just circle back.· So when promoters sign

·7· up to be promoters, they fill out a form, right, and

·8· that can either be a physical form or an online form; is

·9· that correct?

10· · · A.· ·Correct.· I mean, that's -- yeah.

11· · · Q.· ·And then the information from that includes, at

12· least in the online portal, then there's a tab that says

13· communication preference, right?

14· · · A.· ·Correct.

15· · · Q.· ·And that information then is for each

16· individual there, their communication preference --

17· · · A.· ·Yes.

18· · · Q.· ·-- is stored in a database maintained by

19· Visalus, correct?

20· · · A.· ·Yes.

21· · · Q.· ·So you could look at one of Visalus' databases

22· to figure out any specific individual's communication

23· preference, right?

24· · · A.· ·Correct.

25· · · · · · · · MR. POLLOCK:· Okay.· I have no further

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 10 of 28
SCOTT GIDLEY DEPOSITION

DECEMBER 12, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 11 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF OREGON

LORI WAKEFIELD, on behalf of

themselves and a class of

others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

 -v- No. 3:15-cv-01857-BR

VISALUS, INC., a Nevada

Corporation,

 Defendant.

____________________________/

PAGE 1 TO 219

 The deposition of SCOTT A. GIDLEY,

 Taken at 623 West Huron Street,

 Ann Arbor, Michigan,

 Commencing at 10:10 a.m.,

 Monday, December 12, 2016,

 Before Cheryl McDowell, CSR-2662, RPR.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 12 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 2

1 APPEARANCES:

2 MR. STEWART POLLOCK

3 Edelson PC

4 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100

5 San Francisco, California 94107

6 (415) 212-9300

7 spollock@edelson.com

8 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff.

9

10 MS. SARAH R. ANCHORS

11 Quarles & Brady LLP

12 One Renaissance Square

13 Two North Central Avenue

14 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391

15 (602) 229-5788

16 sarah.anchors@quarles.com

17 Appearing on behalf of the Defendant.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 13 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 5

1 Ann Arbor, Michigan

2 Monday, December 12, 2016

3 About 10:10 a.m.

4 (Laun Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, and 4 previously

5 marked and attached.)

6 SCOTT A. GIDLEY,

7 having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified

8 on his oath as follows:

9 EXAMINATION BY MR. POLLOCK:

10 Q. Good morning, sir. I introduced myself off the

11 record. My name is Stewart Pollock, and I represent

12 the plaintiff in this case.

13 Could you please state your full name for

14 the record?

15 A. Scott, S-C-O-T-T, Alan, A-L-A-N, Gidley, G as in

16 George, I-D as in David, L-E-Y.

17 Q. All right. Have you ever had your deposition taken

18 before?

19 A. I have been deposed, yes.

20 Q. How many times have you been deposed?

21 A. Once.

22 Q. In what case were you deposed?

23 MS. ANCHORS: You can answer the question.

24 THE WITNESS: Okay. It was Connelly versus

25 ViSalus.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 14 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 15

1 agents because of my knowledge of the company. I

2 would generally advise them as to how to handle

3 incoming calls specific. At that time if they were

4 having a problem with a phone call and were unsure of

5 how to proceed, I would advise them the best course of

6 action.

7 Q. So were you working in or closely with the call center

8 from August 2011 until approximately August 2012?

9 A. I was in the call center and technically I still am.

10 I do work in the Michigan office.

11 Q. Okay. You say technically you still are.

12 Is there a sense in which you're not still

13 in the call center?

14 A. I don't answer incoming phone calls any longer.

15 Q. You seem happy about that.

16 A. Someone needs to enforce the rules.

17 Q. And that's your job?

18 A. That is my job.

19 Q. In the call center, you've mentioned incoming calls.

20 Does the call center place outgoing calls?

21 A. Not any longer.

22 Q. When did that change?

23 A. January of 2016 we dissolved our outbound team.

24 Q. Why was the outbound team dissolved in January 2016?

25 MS. ANCHORS: Objection, foundation.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 15 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 16

1 BY MR. POLLOCK:

2 Q. You can answer.

3 MS. ANCHORS: You can answer to the extent

4 that you know.

5 THE WITNESS: The company downsized.

6 BY MR. POLLOCK:

7 Q. So that's more of an effect of dissolving the outbound

8 call center.

9 Do you know why the company downsized to

10 get rid of those call center employees?

11 MS. ANCHORS: Objection, foundation.

12 THE WITNESS: That's not in effect.

13 BY MR. POLLOCK:

14 Q. Okay. Do you know why the -- why ViSalus dissolved

15 the outbound call center and laid off or downsized

16 those employees?

17 A. It wasn't those employees specifically.

18 Q. What do you mean by that?

19 A. The company downsized and released, terminated

20 employees in multiple departments.

21 Q. Okay. And they terminated the entirety of the

22 outbound call center department, right?

23 MS. ANCHORS: Objection, form.

24 THE WITNESS: The last vestiges I'll say.

25 The company had gone through many downsizing

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 16 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 17

1 situations.

2 BY MR. POLLOCK:

3 Q. All right. Were any other departments terminated in

4 January 2016?

5 MS. ANCHORS: Objection, foundation.

6 THE WITNESS: Our social media department.

7 Multiple departments were affected.

8 BY MR. POLLOCK:

9 Q. Who made the decision to dissolve the outbound call

10 center in January 2016?

11 A. I don't know that answer. I can guess.

12 MS. ANCHORS: Please don't guess.

13 And I'm going to ask you to limit your

14 questions to what's in the 30(b)(6) topics. We're

15 getting pretty far out of range of those.

16 BY MR. POLLOCK:

17 Q. What's the highest level of education you've received?

18 A. I have a Bachelor's degree in biology.

19 Q. Where did you get your Bachelor's?

20 A. Illinois Wesleyan University.

21 Q. When did you get your Bachelor's?

22 A. 1991.

23 Q. Do you have any additional professional licenses or

24 certificates?

25 A. No.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 17 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 90

1 Q. Only some agents had access to it?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And just so the record is clear, when I say POM, I'm

4 referring to Progressive Outreach Manager?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. That's P-O-M?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You said that around October or December 2014

9 approximately, ViSalus started using POM to place

10 calls and report numbers, and you just described for

11 me the reporting side of that.

12 How was POM used to place calls?

13 A. It has a database of phone numbers to be dialed. So

14 depending on the actual campaign, those numbers would

15 have been imported.

16 Q. So the database of phone numbers, that's something

17 that an agent would upload?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So an agent --

20 A. Depending on the campaign.

21 Q. Yeah. Generally talking about, say, a winback

22 campaign, they might get -- they would get a list of

23 phone numbers uploaded into POM to be dialed?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Okay. And then between October or December 2014 and

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 18 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 91

1 January 2016, were there any changes to how ViSalus

2 conducted winback campaigns?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. What was the next change?

5 A. We stopped using the Progressive Outreach Manager at

6 the beginning of October in 2015.

7 Q. Why was that?

8 MS. ANCHORS: You can answer to the extent

9 that you know and it doesn't involve any

10 attorney-client privilege information.

11 THE WITNESS: We received a lawsuit

12 notification.

13 BY MR. POLLOCK:

14 Q. And in response to that lawsuit, ViSalus stopped using

15 POM in October 2015?

16 MS. ANCHORS: You can answer to the extent

17 you know and it doesn't involve any attorney-client

18 privilege information.

19 THE WITNESS: As far as I know.

20 MR. POLLOCK: All right. I think now would

21 be a good time to take a lunch break.

22 MS. ANCHORS: I think so, too.

23 (Off the record at 1:34 p.m.)

24 (Back on the record at 1:55 p.m.)

25 MR. POLLOCK: Back on the record.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 19 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 130

1 some sort of check that was done on them.

2 THE WITNESS: Paragraph twelve doesn't --

3 on Exhibit 6 doesn't indicate anything regarding cell

4 phones. It says phone, check phone numbers, slash,

5 emails for DNC.

6 MS. ANCHORS: Right, right. I understand

7 that.

8 I was asking in terms of when that sort

9 of check was done, was there -- as I understand

10 Mr. Pollock's question is was there a check similar to

11 that that was also done in terms of whether or not it

12 was a cell phone number.

13 THE WITNESS: And if it's not in Exhibit 6,

14 then the answer would be no.

15 But in terms of clarification of this

16 matter, there's no way for the company to know whether

17 a phone number that has been provided to us by a

18 customer or a promoter upon enrollment is a cell phone

19 number or a landline or a business number.

20 And if that is the situation, these are our

21 customers, and we can contact them. So there is no

22 reason to check as to whether a number being provided

23 is a cell phone number.

24 BY MR. POLLOCK:

25 Q. That's because you believe that your customers have

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 20 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 131

1 all consented to be called, is that right?

2 A. I don't believe it. They have. They're our

3 customers.

4 Q. Okay. But being a customer of ViSalus, that's how you

5 confirm that you have consent to place the calls?

6 MS. ANCHORS: Objection, form.

7 MR. POLLOCK: Sure.

8 BY MR. POLLOCK:

9 Q. How do you obtain consent prior to placing calls to

10 customers?

11 MS. ANCHORS: Objection, form.

12 THE WITNESS: In their Vi-Net on their

13 customer account, there is a communications tab where

14 they choose the method of contact from us. Upon

15 enrollment they have to agree to terms and conditions

16 before the order is actually placed. This is for both

17 customers and promoters.

18 And a part of those terms and conditions is

19 consent to be contacted. In order for them to revoke

20 consent, they need to tell us.

21 BY MR. POLLOCK:

22 Q. How do they need to tell you?

23 A. To contact us and say they don't want to be called

24 which is why number twelve of Exhibit 6 is referring

25 to an internal Do Not Call List.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 21 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 147

1 process?

2 A. Nothing replaced it. We stopped uploading these

3 documents into or at least applications into the

4 documents because they had sensitive information.

5 Q. Okay. So what was the sign-up process in 2012 after

6 that change?

7 A. Well, they could still fill out a Promoter Application

8 or enroll online. It's just that if they filled out a

9 Promoter Application, we wouldn't upload it to the

10 documents.

11 Q. Okay. So regardless of the time period of the

12 information contained in this form, the substance of

13 it would have been uploaded to Exigo, is that right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In the right-hand column it says: Communication

16 preferences, home phone number, mobile phone number,

17 and then mobile phone provider required for ViSalus

18 mobile updates, parens, SMS, closed parens.

19 Is that what you meant earlier when you

20 said that promoters have to give consent to ViSalus

21 before ViSalus contacts them?

22 A. Yes. This is essentially asking for their preferred

23 method of contact, again, because we do send

24 communications. If an order declines, we'll send that

25 via email or without making a phone call.

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 22 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 148

1 We have news and updates. It says check

2 one where they can get emails or phone calls about or

3 text messages about anything exciting that we want to

4 let them know about.

5 Q. Okay. Other than this box on the Promoter

6 Application, is there any other record that would

7 reflect ViSalus obtaining consent from customers to

8 receive communications via telephone?

9 A. They can --

10 MS. ANCHORS: You can answer.

11 THE WITNESS: They can manage their

12 communication preferences through their Vi-Net

13 account.

14 BY MR. POLLOCK:

15 Q. Would that include essentially the same form that's

16 shown here?

17 A. Essentially.

18 Q. Which is really just a blank for somebody to fill in

19 their phone number, right?

20 MS. ANCHORS: Objection, form.

21 MR. POLLOCK: Okay. That's fine.

22 BY MR. POLLOCK:

23 Q. In terms of where these records are maintained of the

24 Promoter Applications, those are maintained in Exigo,

25 right?

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 23 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 152

1 MS. ANCHORS: I'm going to object to the

2 extent that that calls for a legal conclusion since

3 he's not an attorney.

4 BY MR. POLLOCK:

5 Q. All right. How did you obtain and verify prior

6 express consent prior to placing telephone calls?

7 MS. ANCHORS: And I'm going to object to

8 the extent that it says verify. Object that it's an

9 unclear term in terms of what you mean, verify.

10 BY MR. POLLOCK:

11 Q. Okay. Do you know what verify means?

12 A. I do.

13 Q. What does it mean to you?

14 A. If somebody wants to verify my zip code before I make

15 my car payment, then by typing in my zip code, then

16 I'm verifying it.

17 Q. It's kind of like a double-check to make sure that

18 it's right.

19 Is that basically your understanding of

20 verification?

21 A. If you say so.

22 Q. I'm just describing what you've or I'm trying to

23 reiterate what you've described for me.

24 A. You know, if you verify, I mean, yeah, I guess.

25 Q. Okay. So if I asked the process and methodology

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 24 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 153

1 ViSalus used to obtain and verify prior express

2 consent prior to placing telephone calls, would you

3 understand what that -- what I'm asking about?

4 MS. ANCHORS: I'm still going to object to

5 form, again, because of the use of verify.

6 MR. POLLOCK: You can have a running

7 objection on verify.

8 MS. ANCHORS: And verified, it's a compound

9 question.

10 THE WITNESS: Okay. If someone provides

11 their phone number as their method of contact and

12 communication, they are essentially consenting to

13 receive phone calls.

14 Should they choose not to receive phone

15 calls, then we provided them with their Vi-Net account

16 where they can go in and remove their phone number or

17 should they choose on the communications tab to

18 withdraw consent.

19 BY MR. POLLOCK:

20 Q. Okay. So the process then consent is obtained is by

21 customers putting their phone number down on the

22 Promoter Application form, is that right, whether it's

23 online or a physical form?

24 A. Well, customers don't complete Promoter Applications.

25 Q. All right. The process by which ViSalus obtains

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 25 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 154

1 consent from promoters to contact them by telephone is

2 through promoters submitting Promoter Applications,

3 whether in print or online?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. And that's the sole manner in which consent is

6 obtained?

7 A. Do you have another method?

8 Q. Will you just answer my question?

9 A. It seems pretty straightforward that, you know, we

10 have an online application, we have a written

11 application and an online application, and if you

12 complete one or the other, you're consenting to be

13 contacted, and there is no other method for a promoter

14 to or for a person to become a promoter.

15 So between the two of them, then, yes, they

16 are consenting.

17 Q. How about for customers, how does ViSalus obtain

18 customer consent?

19 A. Customers have Customer Applications, and they still

20 have a similar enrollment process online.

21 Q. The form being similar?

22 A. Similar. The product offering is different.

23 Obviously they wouldn't have the Promoter Kits up at

24 the top.

25 Q. The information that the customer submits would be the

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 26 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 155

1 same?

2 A. Essentially. Well, we don't require their Social

3 Security number.

4 Q. As it relates to providing a telephone number, the

5 language would be the same?

6 A. Essentially, yes.

7 Q. And then your understanding is that that consent

8 remains valid until it is expressly revoked by

9 somebody changing it on Vi-Net, is that right?

10 MS. ANCHORS: Objection, form.

11 THE WITNESS: That's not the only way, no.

12 You can, you can revoke consent by expressing that

13 verbally to an agent. You can revoke consent through

14 an email. You can -- so there are other ways to

15 revoke consent.

16 BY MR. POLLOCK:

17 Q. Okay. So you can -- let's list them out. You can

18 revoke consent by changing your preferences on Vi-Net,

19 right? That's one?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you can also revoke consent by sending an email to

22 ViSalus saying you no longer want to receive phone

23 calls, right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You could communicate that over the telephone to

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 27 of 28
Wakefield v. ViSalus

Scott Gidley 12/12/2016

Page 156

1 ViSalus?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Is there anything else?

4 A. If you're rather vindictive, you could always change

5 your phone number.

6 Q. What if you added your number --

7 A. In Vi-Net you can, like, we have people who change

8 their email addresses to something that they think is

9 going to be insulting to us should we ever run across

10 it.

11 Q. All right.

12 A. But they have the opportunity. They have the option

13 to be able to choose whether or not they want to be

14 contacted, how they can be contacted, and then they

15 can update their own information in their own promoter

16 accounts or customer accounts.

17 Q. If somebody added their phone number to the National

18 Do Not Call Registry, would that constitute a

19 revocation of consent?

20 A. Not necessarily.

21 MS. ANCHORS: Objection, form or foundation

22 rather to the extent that you're not answering what is

23 a legal conclusion.

24 BY MR. POLLOCK:

25 Q. What was your answer?

Case 3:15-cv-01857-SI Document 296-2 Filed 05/10/19 Page 28 of 28