Court filing

Exhibit 6 [Redacted] — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 130-7, N.D. Cal. No. 3:21-cv-01418)

Summary

Exhibit 6 (Redacted) to Document 130-7, filed 11/09/22 in Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, includes a letter dated June 10, 2022 from Paul Godlewski about the Defendant's Deposition Errata for his deposition transcript of May 6, 2022 in Brooks et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corporation. He states that he reviewed the transcript and attaches a list of errata. The errata sheet lists page and line corrections, each marked Transcription error, such as changing Judge Tens' to Judge Chen's, a cell sheet to a sellsheet, and I do not train to I do not train customers. The last listed entry strikes a sentence naming a person who works for another person. The earlier pages carry only the filing header.

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

Filed November 9, 2022 in Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation; one of 443 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed	2022-11-09

Cite this document

“Exhibit 6 [Redacted] — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 130-7, N.D. Cal. No. 3:21-cv-01418).” U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Doc. 130-7, filed 2022-11-09. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-brooks-thomsonreuters-cand-374304/2022-11-09-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-130-7-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-130-7/, SHA-256 8e7ca5f65c320e635651ea19445b1a0bc63203028e96d890df92a6334b8d6672.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

EXHIBIT 6
(Redacted)
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 1 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 2 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 3 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 4 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 5 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 6 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 7 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 8 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 9 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 10 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 11 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 12 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 13 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 14 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 15 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 16 of 19

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 17 of 19

- 1 - 
June 10, 2022
Re:
Brooks et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, USDC Northern District of California 
- San Francisco Division Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC: Defendant’s Deposition 
Errata (Paul Godlewski Deposition Transcript dated May 6, 2022)
To whom it may concern: 
I, Paul Godlewski, have reviewed the transcript of my deposition in Brooks et al. v. 
Thomson Reuters Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, taken on May 6, 2022. Attached 
hereto is a list of errata identified in the deposition transcript.
___________________________ 
 
 
 
 
_______________
PAUL GODLEWSKI  
 
 
 
 
 
DATE
6/10/2022
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 18 of 19

- 2 -
Godlewski Deposition Errata Sheet 
Page : 
Line(s) 
Existing Testimony 
Corrected Testimony 
Reason 
30:21 
“Basic, and as I alluded 
to earlier in my. . .”  
“Basically, and as I 
alluded to earlier in my. . 
.”
Transcription error 
33:6 
“. . . we are faced with 
so that, yes, Thomson 
Reuters. . .”
“. . . they are faced with 
so that, yes, Thomson 
Reuters. . .”
Transcription error 
43:7 
“I’m sorry.” 
“I’m sorry, I can’t 
recall.”
Transcription error 
63:21, 63:25, 
64:10, 64:13-
14
“John Koske” / “John 
McKoske” 
“John Koski” 
Transcription error 
68:21 
“. . .access to that 
product as a marketer. . 
.”
“. . .access to that process 
as a marketer. . .” 
Transcription error 
71:22 
“. . .but I’d to look at 
in detail to answer 
specific. . .”  
“. . .but I’d like to look 
at in detail to answer 
specific. . .”  
Transcription error 
100:6
“Judge Tens’”
“Judge Chen’s”
Transcription error
126:19
“. . .a cell sheet of sorts. 
. .” 
“. . .a sellsheet of sorts. . 
.” 
Transcription error 
175:12
“. . .I do not train.” 
“. . .I do not train 
customers.”
Transcription error 
182:23-24
“Well, Brook Martin, 
but he works for Kevin 
Appold.” 
Strike sentence: 
“Well, Brook Martin, but 
he works for Kevin 
Appold.”
Transcription error 
with no known 
substitution.  
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 130-7     Filed 11/09/22     Page 19 of 19

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.130.7.pdf
Size: 1,785,848 bytes
SHA-256: 8e7ca5f65c320e635651ea19445b1a0bc63203028e96d890df92a6334b8d6672
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.130.7.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)