Exhibit 1 [REDACTED] — Brooks Thomsonreuters (Dkt. 168.3)

Summary

Exhibit 1 (Redacted), Document 168-3, stamped Filed 03/06/23, in Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. It consists of pages of the remote video-recorded deposition of Douglas Kidder, taken Wednesday, September 28, 2022, marked CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY. In the transcript pages, questions from counsel for Plaintiffs ask whether CLEAR users would keep using CLEAR if it did not contain data about California residents, and the witness answers that the answer would be no because the data they are looking for would not be there. The pages end with the court reporter's certificate.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Documen t168-3 Filed 03/06/23. Page1lof8

EXHIBIT 1

(Redacted)
Case 3:21-py G1 HL8- EMS, £ eset 68-3 + ERE RHASI23n Bad@e OB

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

4 CAT BROOKS and RASHEED )

SHABAZZ, individually and on )

5 behalf of all others similarly ) CASE NO.
situated, ) 3:21-cv-1418-EMC
6 )
Plaintiffs, )
7 )
vs. )

THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, )

Defendant. )
10 )

11

12 ***HTGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY***
13

14 REMOTE VIDEO-RECORDED

15 DEPOSITION OF DOUGLAS KIDDER
16 Wednesday, September 28, 2022
17 9:03 a.m.- 12:04 p.m.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 REPORTED BY: SHART BOLTON, CSR 9291

25

Golkow Litigation Services

Page:

1

Case 3:21-py G1 HL8- EMS, £ ies meaty 68-3 + ERE RHASI23n Rages 08

1

10

11

12
13

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

REMOTE APPEARANCES :

For Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP

BY: AMY M. ZEMAN, ESQUIRE
BY: ANDRE M. MURA, ESQUIRE
BY: EZEKIEL S. WALD, ESQUIRE
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, California 94607
(510) 350-9700

amz@classlawgroup.com

For Defendant:

PERKINS COIE LLP

BY: HAYDEN SCHOTTLAENDER, ESQUIRE
500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 965-7724

hschottlaender@perkinscoie.com

Videographer:

HARLEY STIVERS

Golkow Litigation Services

Page:

2

Case 3:21-py G1 HL8- EMS, £ eset 68-3 + ERE RHASI23n Bageh ofS

1 a way to break it down. So let's try that and if you
2 still find it confusing we'll take another shot at it.
3 Is it your opinion that CLEAR users who
4 currently use CLEAR to locate information about
5 California residents would continue to do so even if
6 CLEAR did not contain data about California residents
7 just because the user interface was understandable?
8 MR. SCHOTTLAENDER: Objection to form.
9 THE WITNESS: If I'm hearing your question
10 correctly, I think you answer your own question by
11 stating that in your -- your conditions that people
12 are looking for data on Californians and you're asking
13 me if data on Californians was not available in CLEAR
14 would they continue to use CLEAR to look for data on
15 Californians. I think you've answered your question
16 correctly.
17 BY MS. ZEMAN:
18 Q What's the answer to the question?
1S) A So it would be no because it does not contain
20 data on Californians and they are looking for data on
21 Californians. However you want to define that search
22 and however you want to define the term "California."
23 QO So the fact that the user interface is
24 understandable would not overcome the defect of not

25 containing the sought-after information --

Golkow Litigation Services Page: 37
Case 3:21-py G1 L8-EMS, £ ies meaty 68-3 + ERE RHASI23n Bade, 08

1 and get accurate results in less time, correct?

2 A I -- I accept your representation. That
3 sounds like something they wrote.
4 Q It's actually quoted on page 7 of your report

5 if you'd like to look at that.

6 A I believe you. So -- I'm sorry, I'm assuming
7 that was a predicate to a question. I don't want to

8 just take unnecessary time.

9 Q Sure.

10 So that statement indicates that Thomson

11 Reuters' interface only has value if it has data to

12 search, correct?

13 A Again --

14 MR. SCHOTTLAENDER: Objection to form.
15 THE WITNESS: -- this comes back to the

18 function has no value if there's no data. The two go
19 together to create value.
20 BY MS. ZEMAN:

21 Q Is it your opinion that CLEAR users use CLEAR

22 to do things other than search for information about

23 individuals and businesses?
24 A You know, I don't think I'm the right person
25 to answer that question. The -- the case examples

Golkow Litigation Services Page: 42
Mreithy ont LdeHes ab oo at COP ey Ss" “Fy é 890M Phys

10

11

12

24

25

that I can think of all involve searching for
information about user individuals for businesses, but
I don't -- I don't know the full scope of what CLEAR
is used for.

Q Do you personally have any knowledge of CLEAR
uses other than searching for information about
individuals and businesses?

A No.

Q On page 5 of your report you state that
CLEAR, quote, provides access to data other than data

on individuals, end quote.

Are you referring to data about businesses?

A That's my understanding, yes. And I -- you

know, I may be -- have an incomplete view of what

Golkow Litigation Services Page: 43

Case 3:21-p GAH RAG F RSH meat 68-3n + EUR RHAGIZSR Vy BaIDh hs

1 A I don't have an answer for you. I don't

2 know. I haven't been asked to address that question.
3 Q Is it your opinion that determining damages
4 in this case would require analyzing how many searches
5 are actually tied to data about Californians?

6 A I think that you would need to establish a

7 link between revenues and the presence of -- of

8 Californians, however you want to define the term

9 "Californians," yes.

10 Q Could you look at page 5 of your report in
11 the very last sentence that just says one word on

12 page 5 and then continues on to page 6.

13 A Yes, you're looking at the sentence with
14 starting with "Determining" on page 5?

15 Q Correct.

16 A Okay.

17 What do you mean by that sentence?

Q
A

NO)
ul

Q Why do you think that's necessary?

Golkow Litigation Services Page:

77

Case 3:21-py G1 HL8- EMS, £ ieesH meaty 68-3 + ERE RHASI23 Bad@s, OFS

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, SHARI BOLTON, CSR No. 9291, hereby

4 certify:

5 That the foregoing proceedings were taken

6 before me at the time and place therein set forth, at
7 which time the witness was put under oath by me, that
8 the testimony of the witness, the questions

9 propounded, and all objections and statements made at
10 the time of the examination were recorded

11 stenographically by me and were thereafter
12 transcribed;
13 That a review of the transcript was not
14 requested; that the foregoing is a true and correct
15 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
16 I further certify that I am not a relative or
17 employee of any attorney of the parties; nor
18 financially interested in the action. I declare under
19 penalty of perjury under the laws of California, that

20 the foregoing is true and correct.

21

22 Dated:

23

24

25 SHARI BOLTON, CSR No. 9291

Golkow Litigation Services Page:

99

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.168.3.pdf

Size

2,108,028 bytes

SHA-256

ab674ea2263b17c783eb9fae17bad7d7ec1cb015bc31851b651131ea8997af90

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.168.3.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)