Case 2:20-cv-08729-SB-MRW Document 297-3 Filed 01/06/23 Page 1 of 9 Page ID
`#:14091
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`#:14091
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-08729-SB-MRW Document 297-3 Filed 01/06/23 Page 2 of 9 Page ID
`#:14092
`
`· · · · · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`· · · · · · · ·CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`·
`· · ------------------------------x
`· · PINKERTON TOBACCO CO., LP,· · :
`· · SWEDISH MATCH NORTH AMERICA· ·:
`· · LLC, and NYZ AB,· · · · · · · :
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :
`· · · · · · · Plaintiffs,· · · · ·:
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :
`· · · · · · · v.· · · · · · · · · :· Case No.:
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :· 2:20-CV-08729-SB-MRWx
`· · KRETEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.· · :
`· · and DRYFT SCIENCES, LLC,· · · :
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · :
`· · · · · · · Defendants.· · · · ·:
`· · ------------------------------x
`
`·
`
`·
`
`· · Videotaped Deposition of:
`
`· · · · · · · · · · JOHN C. JAROSZ,
`
`· · · · ·Taken on Tuesday, September 27, 2022, at 9:15
`
`· · a.m. at the offices Finnegan Henderson Farabow
`
`· · Garrett & Dunner LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW,
`
`· · Washington, D.C., before Teague Gibson, a Notary
`
`· · Public.
`
`·
`
`·
`
`· · · · · · · · · · ·*· ·*· ·*· ·*· ·*
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`·
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-08729-SB-MRW Document 297-3 Filed 01/06/23 Page 3 of 9 Page ID
`#:14093
`
`·1· I obtained this understanding from counsel, but I
`
`·2· would first look at what's cited in footnote 138.
`
`·3· · · ·Q· · Understand.· Thank you.· So on this March
`
`·4· 2018 date, that's when Kretek's alleged
`
`·5· misappropriation began according to your analysis;
`
`·6· is that right?
`
`·7· · · ·A· · I'm not drawing that conclusion.· That
`
`·8· might be right.· That's probably a legal matter.
`
`·9· But I understand as of March 2018 Kretek knew or had
`
`10· reason to know of the likely trade secret
`
`11· misappropriation in violation of the earlier
`
`12· agreements.
`
`13· · · ·Q· · And before that date, under your
`
`14· understanding, there was no misappropriation; is
`
`15· that right?
`
`16· · · ·A· · I think that's a legal question.· I don't
`
`17· have an observation on that, I'm sorry.
`
`18· · · ·Q· · So why put the 2018 date in your report if
`
`19· it doesn't matter one way or the other?
`
`20· · · · · · MS. O'CONNELL:· Objection,
`
`21· · · ·mischaracterizes his testimony.
`
`22· · · ·A· · It's background information as to my
`
`23· understanding that misappropriation, or alleged
`
`24· misappropriation, did occur.· The precise date is
`
`25· not -- does not alter my calculations based on the
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-08729-SB-MRW Document 297-3 Filed 01/06/23 Page 4 of 9 Page ID
`#:14094
`
`·1· fact that I centered my calculations on the APA,
`
`·2· which occurred sometime after that.
`
`·3· · · ·Q· · So it does not matter when Kretek
`
`·4· allegedly misappropriated the trade secrets under
`
`·5· your analysis, is that what I'm hearing, I'm sorry?
`
`·6· · · ·A· · It doesn't impact my direct calculations,
`
`·7· as I recall.
`
`·8· · · ·Q· · Could you just explain, I'm having a
`
`·9· little trouble understanding.· One of the basis for
`
`10· your opinions is that Kretek's entry on to the
`
`11· market in August of 2016 is basically the impetus
`
`12· for this purchase price; is that right?
`
`13· · · · · · MS. O'CONNELL:· Objection, vague.
`
`14· · · ·A· · I'm not exactly sure what you're getting
`
`15· at, but the fact that Kretek was able to sell, as of
`
`16· August 2016, was, as I understand it, important to
`
`17· Modoral in deciding whether and to what extent to
`
`18· enter the APA.
`
`19· · · ·Q· · Its grandfathered status drove that
`
`20· purchase, is that my understanding of your report?
`
`21· · · ·A· · I think it was important.
`
`22· · · ·Q· · If Kretek's misappropriation began almost
`
`23· two years after that date, how do you reconcile that
`
`24· with your analysis of damages in the grandfather
`
`25· date?
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-08729-SB-MRW Document 297-3 Filed 01/06/23 Page 5 of 9 Page ID
`#:14095
`
`·1· · · · · · MS. O'CONNELL:· Objection to the extent it
`
`·2· · · ·calls for a legal conclusion, asked and
`
`·3· · · ·answered.
`
`·4· · · ·A· · You're asking a legal question.· I believe
`
`·5· they misappropriated, they used a product that was
`
`·6· the result of the trade secrets, but you are asking
`
`·7· a legal question for which I don't have an expert
`
`·8· opinion.
`
`·9· · · ·Q· · And it does not matter when that
`
`10· misappropriation occurred, according to my
`
`11· understanding; is that right?
`
`12· · · · · · MS. O'CONNELL:· Objection to the extent it
`
`13· · · ·mischaracterizes his testimony and report.
`
`14· · · ·A· · For my calculations, it does -- it matters
`
`15· that it was before the APA.· The precise month or
`
`16· timing doesn't impact my calculations.
`
`17· · · ·Q· · Okay.
`
`18· · · ·A· · But the fact that there was a product
`
`19· approved and sold by August 2016 was important and
`
`20· payment under the APA was important and future
`
`21· payment under the APA is important.
`
`22· · · ·Q· · Got it.· So if Kretek's misappropriation
`
`23· didn't begin until March 2018, is it your
`
`24· understanding that as of August 8th, 2016 Kretek was
`
`25· not misappropriating the trade secret?
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-08729-SB-MRW Document 297-3 Filed 01/06/23 Page 6 of 9 Page ID
`#:14096
`
`·1· the 2016 agreements between Swedish Match, TillCe
`
`·2· and Thomas Ericsson, right?
`
`·3· · · ·A· · Yes, I think you read that paragraph
`
`·4· correctly.
`
`·5· · · ·Q· · So for the purposes of your opinions, you
`
`·6· understand that the alleged misappropriation of the
`
`·7· NP trade secrets began in 2018?
`
`·8· · · ·A· · I think that's right, but that's a legal
`
`·9· question.· However, they were allegedly
`
`10· misappropriating at the time they received the APA
`
`11· payment.
`
`12· · · ·Q· · Understood.· Before the March 2018 date,
`
`13· doesn't this sentence necessarily mean that Kretek
`
`14· was not misappropriating the trade secrets?
`
`15· · · · · · MS. O'CONNELL:· Objection, asked and
`
`16· · · ·answered.
`
`17· · · ·A· · I just don't know as a legal matter, but
`
`18· for my purposes, they were allegedly
`
`19· misappropriating as of the point that they received
`
`20· the APA payment.
`
`21· · · ·Q· · Setting aside the legal matter, as a
`
`22· matter of common English, if something happened
`
`23· before something began, doesn't that mean that it
`
`24· did not happen yet?
`
`25· · · · · · MS. O'CONNELL:· Objection, asked and
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-08729-SB-MRW Document 297-3 Filed 01/06/23 Page 7 of 9 Page ID
`#:14097
`
`·1· deadline and thus would not have a product on the
`
`·2· market even today; is that right?
`
`·3· · · ·A· · Yes, I think you read that correctly.
`
`·4· · · ·Q· · And as you explained earlier in your
`
`·5· report, that alleged misappropriation occurred in
`
`·6· March 2018, right?
`
`·7· · · ·A· · Correct.
`
`·8· · · · · · MS. O'CONNELL:· Objection,
`
`·9· · · ·mischaracterizes his report, asked and
`
`10· · · ·answered.
`
`11· · · ·A· · My understanding is that the alleged
`
`12· misappropriation by Kretek occurred or began in
`
`13· March of 2018, that may not be a correct
`
`14· understanding.
`
`15· · · ·Q· · How would you correct the understanding if
`
`16· it was not right?
`
`17· · · · · · MS. O'CONNELL:· Objection, calls for
`
`18· · · ·speculation.
`
`19· · · ·A· · I'm not saying it isn't right, but if I am
`
`20· shown facts that undermine that, I would change that
`
`21· understanding if it's incorrect.
`
`22· · · ·Q· · Understood.· The next paragraph, I think,
`
`23· is a segue to apportionment within the NP trade
`
`24· secrets.· Is this what this section's about in
`
`25· paragraph 82, beginning in paragraph 82?
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-08729-SB-MRW Document 297-3 Filed 01/06/23 Page 8 of 9 Page ID
`#:14098
`
`·1· relevant industry is for the trade secret analysis?
`
`·2· · · ·A· · No, for the technical analysis I have no
`
`·3· opinion on that.· I did find some useful
`
`·4· observations in the licensing in that area that gave
`
`·5· me insights as to valuing the trade secrets here,
`
`·6· but I'm not making any assessment of what's the
`
`·7· correct benchmark to use for purposes of determining
`
`·8· whether they are valid or misappropriated trade
`
`·9· secrets.
`
`10· · · ·Q· · So when you said that the pharmaceutical
`
`11· industry had some relevance, you meant that it was
`
`12· relevant to your financial analysis?
`
`13· · · ·A· · Exactly.
`
`14· · · · · · MS. O'CONNELL:· I have no further
`
`15· · · ·questions.
`
`16· · · · · · MR. SCACCIA:· Nothing for me.· Randy?
`
`17· · · · · · MR. KAY:· Not today.
`
`18· · · · · · VIDEOGRAPHER:· Does this conclude the
`
`19· · · ·deposition?· This concludes for today's
`
`20· · · ·deposition.· The date is September 27th, 2022
`
`21· · · ·and the time is 3:14 p.m.· We are now off the
`
`22· · · ·record.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-08729-SB-MRW Document 297-3 Filed 01/06/23 Page 9 of 9 Page ID
`#:14099
`
`·1· · · · · · · CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
`· · · · · · · · FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · I, TEAGUE GIBSON, the officer before whom
`
`·4· · · ·the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby
`
`·5· · · ·certify that the witness whose testimony
`
`·6· · · ·appears in the foregoing deposition was duly
`
`·7· · · ·sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness
`
`·8· · · ·was taken by me in stenotypy and thereafter
`
`·9· · · ·reduced to typewriting under my direction; that
`
`10· · · ·reading and signing was not requested; that
`
`11· · · ·said deposition is a true record of the
`
`12· · · ·testimony given by said witness; that I am
`
`13· · · ·neither counsel for, related to, nor employed
`
`14· · · ·by and of the parties to the action in which
`
`15· · · ·this deposition was taken; and, further, that I
`
`16· · · ·am not a relative or employee of any counsel or
`
`17· · · ·attorney employed by the parties hereto, nor
`
`18· · · ·financially or otherwise interested in the
`
`19· · · ·outcome of this action.
`
`20
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·__________________________
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Teague Gibson
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25· My commission expires: April 14, 2024
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
