N 1 6x ~ z z Uo o Z6~ DEAN S . KRISTY (State Bar No . 157646) KEVIN P . MUCK (State Bar No . 120918) FELIX S . LEE (State Bar No . 197084) CHRISTOPHER A . GARCIA (State Bar No . 215184) JENNIFER C . BRETAN ( State Bar No . 233475) FENWICK & WEST LL P 275 Ba tt ery S tr eet San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone : (415) 875-2300 Facsimile : ( 415) 281-1350 E-mail : dkristy@fenwick.com Attorneys for Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc ., John T . Chambers, Larry R . Carter, Steven M . West, Edward R. Kozel, Donald T . Valentine, Judith L . Estrin, Gary J . Daichendt, Donald J . Listwin, Carl Redfield and Michelangelo Volp i DAN K . WEBB (Pro Hac Vice 2116105) ROBERT Y . SPERLING (Pro Hac Vice 2116105) ROBERT L . MICHELS (Pro Hac Vice 2116105) RONALD S . BETMAN (Pro Hac Vice 2116105) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703 Telephone : (312) 558-5600 Facsimile : (312) 558-570 0 e-mail address : rbetinan@winston .com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION In re CISCO SYSTEMS , INC . Case No . C-01-20418-JW SECURITIES LITIGATION 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 2 0 21 22, 23. 24 This Document Relates To : ALL ACTIONS . 25 26 27 28 SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENTIARY APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF CISCO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date : June 13, 2006 Time : 9 :00 a.m . Place : Courtroom of The Honorable James War e SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENTIARY APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF MSJ - COI -28418-JW
80
Embed
In Re: Cisco Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation 01-CV ...securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1018/CSCO01/2006522_r01x... · General Manager, Wavelength Routing Business Unit)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
N 1
6x
~ z zUo o
Z6~
DEAN S. KRISTY (State Bar No . 157646)KEVIN P. MUCK (State Bar No . 120918)FELIX S. LEE (State Bar No . 197084)CHRISTOPHER A. GARCIA (State Bar No . 215184)JENNIFER C . BRETAN (State Bar No . 233475)FENWICK & WEST LL P275 Battery S treetSan Francisco, California 94111Telephone : (415) 875-2300Facsimile : (415) 281-1350E-mail : [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc ., JohnT. Chambers, Larry R. Carter, Steven M . West,Edward R. Kozel, Donald T. Valentine, Judith L .Estrin, Gary J . Daichendt, Donald J . Listwin, CarlRedfield and Michelangelo Volp i
DAN K. WEBB (Pro Hac Vice 2116105)ROBERT Y. SPERLING (Pro Hac Vice 2116105)ROBERT L . MICHELS (Pro Hac Vice 2116105)RONALD S . BETMAN (Pro Hac Vice 2116105)WINSTON & STRAWN LLP35 West Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60601-9703Telephone: (312) 558-5600Facsimile: (312) 558-5700e-mail address : rbetinan@winston .com
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re CISCO SYSTEMS , INC. Case No . C-01-20418-JWSECURITIES LITIGATION
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22,
23.
24
This Document Relates To :
ALL ACTIONS .
25
26
27
28
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENTIARYAPPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF CISCODEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT
Date: June 13, 2006Time: 9:00 a.m.Place : Courtroom of The Honorable James Ware
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENTIARY APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF MSJ - COI -28418-JW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
FJ, 13[A J W
a a
14[~ o 0
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exhibit Description
120 December Fiscal Year 2000 Close Meeting Materials (excerpts )
121 December Fiscal Year 2001 Close Meeting Materials (excerpts )
122 January Fiscal Year 2001 Close Meeting Materials (excerpts )
123 Relevant portions of Plaintiffs' Amended Responses to Defendant Steven West' s
Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs Plumbers & Pipefitters Nationa l
Pension Fund, Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund ,
Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois and Alexander Nehring .
124 Relevant Portions of Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc's Third Amended Response s
to Plaintiff Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Funds' Fifth
Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc .
125 Excerpts of September 15, 2005 deposition of Joseph Bass (Vice President &
General Manager, Wavelength Routing Business Unit) .
126 Excerpts of March 28, 2005 deposition of Carol Kelly (Director, Manufacturing
Finance) .
127 Excerpts of September 28, 2005 deposition of Jeffrey Kouohakji (Controller,
Cisco Systems Capital) .
128 Excerpts of February 21-22, 2006 deposition of Blaine F. Nye (expert for
plaintiffs) .
129 Excerpts of August 30, and September 1, 2005 deposition of Dennis Powell (Vice
President & Worldwide Corporate Controller) .
130 Excerpts of February 13-14, 2006 deposition of Paul Regan (expert for plaintiffs) .
131 Excerpts of February 23-24, 2006 deposition of Roman Weil (expert for Cisco
defendants) .
26
27
28
1
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENTIARY APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF MSJ - COI -20418-IW
EXHIBIT 120
Month 5
Cisco SYSTEMS
December FY 00 Close MeetingDecember 30, 1999
9:00 a.m. - 1 :00 P .m .Wall Street Conference Room - SJ-11T
0
0
_ OL ic Person 'lime MinutesConsolidated P&L and Jonathan Chadwick 9:00-9:40 40B/S Review
Actual vs . BudgetlFcst Analysis Janice Mclelland 9:40- 10:00 20
CS, Professional Services Nick Howard/Mona Harris/ 10:00- 10 :25 25Larisa Mitroshkina/Mary Koonmen
Inventory Trend Analysis Frank Atter/Dawn Hartman/ 11 :45 - 12 :15 30Gross Margin Bridge Laura Rivera/Donal Conroy0/H Spending & Variance s
Summarize Additional Dennis Powell 12 :15 - 1 :00 45Entries and Action Item s
General Comments:1 . Please plan on attending your portion of the meeting only.2. Final close entries will be booked by 6:00pm (WDI) and the final consolidation will be available by
9 :00 pm. WD4 .
Other-Attendees Binder Distributio n
Jim Anderson Carter 001 Anderson 00 6Debi Normington Powell 002 Timmins 007Larry Carter Normington 003 Salhus 008David Rogan Chadwick 004 White 009Dan Salhus PwC 005 Rossman 01 0
Rogan 01 1
CONFIDENTIAL CI5 PPNPF-HC 0017022
[70z11
erm2
r
n_
(I)
z71
I
n0..a
0
Cisco Inc.CpMaudatad %tYt of Ope ration s
(In Thousands)
Qtr I Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 VT D QIr 1 November D ec ember Dec9mber QEr 2 Qtr 2 YTD VTDAetusl Actual Actual Actual Actua l Actual Actual Adu0i Conaaft Ac *l Cmnmlt Actual I1ud uUf5ommi t
Nolr1 Prior petlud gnartetly data llaa been restated for fnolhtp completed in the current quarter.PreTorma EPS In cludes Adj uignenls rolatad to IPR&D, tunorlizatiun of goodw0! and lamn5lblev end related sm effects
12128.1988 12:13 PM
EXHIBIT 121
CISCO SYSTEMS
December FY 01 Close MeetingDecember 28, 2000
10:00 a.mi. -1:30 p.m.Wall Street Conference Room - 53-1113
Topic Person Time Minutes
Consolidated P&L and Dan Salhus 10 :00 --10 :20 20
BIS Review Mohan Patel
Actual vs_ Budget/Fcst Analysis Mary Kadomoto 10 :20- 10 .30 to
CA (Customer Advocacy) Jim Fuller/Susan Powell/ 10:3 D -- 11 :00 3 0
Professional Services Tony Savastano/Susan Mcdonough
Break 11 :00- 11 :10 1 0
Revenue Reserves Mrinalini IngramlMichele Leung/ U .-ID-11 :50 40Marty Menz
X27366.1 1156(4( S 0.474 1 11.0111 S 6.016 S 9.744 S 4226 S 9k37 i 0114 5 6406. i 0.503 S 9357 5 0.1 7_S $ (0112(4 4315 3 6417' S 7,393 5 Rlm 1 01129 S 1.346
6PS•Ealhpl 5 01%1 3 9,716 i 0421 S 5.999 S 0,356 5 $117 5 11 171 1 It. 133 S ELM S 8,456 37 0- 110 f 44031 i 6032 s 11469 i 0.011 $ 0120 S 0713 S 07 36
L 00C Person Time MinutesConsolidated P&L and Dan Salhus 10:00 - 10:20 .20$1S Review Mohan Patel
Actual vs. Budget/Fcst Analysis Mary Kadomoto 10:20 - 10:30 10
CA (Customer Advocacy) Jim Fuller/Tony Savastano/ 10:30 -11 :00 30Professional Services Susan Mcdonough/Susan Powel l
Break 11 .00- 11 :10 10
Revenue Reserves Mrinalini Ingram/Michelle Leung) 11 :10 - 11 :50 40Marty Men z
Lease Accounting Sue Perkins 11 :50 -12:10
Other Income and Expense Wilson Tang/Greg Bromberger 12:10 -12:20Bal . Sheet Investment Accts .
Break 12:20 -12:30
Inventory Trend Analysis Frank Atter/Dawn Hartman) 12:30 -1:00Gross Margin Bridge Brian KardCarol Kelly❑1H Spending & Variances
Tax Glen Rosman 1 :00 -1 :20
Summarize Addi tional Dennis Powell 1 :20- 1 :40Entries and Action Item s
Cgneral Comments:1 . Please plan on attending your portion off the meeting only.2 . Final close entries will be booked by 61K) pm and thefinal corssolidation will be available by
9:00 pm, WD3.
Other Attendees Binder DistributionLarry Carter Carter 001 White 009David Rogan Powell 002 Roseman 010
Johnson 003 Rogan 01 lChadwick 004 Ashby 012
PwC 005 Patel 01 3Kadonmoty 006 Teh 014Timmins 007 Holland 01 5Salhus 008 Nelson 016
WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)SPENCER A. BURKHOLZ (147029)DANIEL S. DROSMAN (200643)JONAH H. GOLDSTEIN (193777)MATTHEW P. MONTGOMERY (180196)LUCAS F. OLTS (234843)JESSICA D. TALLY (234432)655 West Broadway, Suite 1900San Diego, CA 92101Telephone: 619/231-10586191231-7423 (fax)
.com
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-and-PATRICK T. COUGELIN (111070)LESLEY E. WEAVER (191305)100 Pine Street, Suite 2600San Francisco, CA 94111Telephone: 4151288-4545415/288-4534 (fax)[email protected] e[ Ierachlaw.com
CO-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
LEVIN, PAPANTONID, THOMAS,MITCHELL,
ECHSNER & PROCTOR, PA. .TIMOTHYM. O'BRIEN (pro hac vice)316 South Bayles Street , Suite 600Pensacola, FL 32501 -Telephone: 8501435-7000850/497-7057 (fax)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT GF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIESLITIGATION
)This Document Relates To: )
ALL ACTIONS. )
Master File No. C-0 i20418-JW(PV )
CLASS ACTION
PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED RESPONSES TODEFENDANT STEVEN M . WEST'SSECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TOPLAR47IFFS PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERSNATIONAL PENSION FUND, CENTRALSTATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWESTAREAS PENSION FUND, CARPENTERSPENSION FUND OF ILLINOIS ANDALEXANDER NEHRING
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1-9t Cir. 1992); In re Convergent Techs. Sec. LiUig.,108 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Cal. 1985);In re Gupta
Corp. Sec. Luig., No. C-94-1517 FMS, 1995 U.S. Dist LEXIS 21847 (N.D. Cal . July 18, 1995); In
re Ashworth Sec. Litig , 213 F.R.D. 385, 389 (S .D. Cal . 2002); In re M77 Tech Corp. Sec. Litig. ll,
11 No. SACV 00-0745 DOC (ANx), 2002 U.S. Dist LEXIS 13015, at * 7-* 10 (C.D. Cal. June 14,
2002); In re Two Intl, Ltd Sec. Litig., MDL No. O0-MD-1335-B, 2001 U.S. Disk LEXIS 819
(D.N.H. Jan . 30, 2001) ; Elec. Data * Corp. v Steingraber, No. 4:02CV225, 2003 U.S. Dist .
LFXIS 11815, at *4-*8 (El). Tex. June 27,2003). Plaintiffs also object that the allegations at issue
contain specific facts that stand on their own, independent of any other facts . Finally, p1aintif
object to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information not with in plaintiffs' possession,
custody or control, or information that is equally available to defendants .
Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff respond as follows :
Plaintiffs direct dthndauts to the Ragan Expert Report.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this response on an ongoing basis .
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 13 ;
IDENTIFY each customer YOU contend placed double or triple orders during anyquarter of
I the CLASS PERIOD, and provide the date and amount of each such order.
RESPQN---S-E TO INTERROGATDRYNO. 13 :
Plaintiffs incorporate herein each of the foregoing General Objections . Plaintiffs object to
this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks or purports to require disclosure of informat ion which is
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or
any other applicable privilege or immunity. Plaintiffs objeetto this inuno storyon the grounds that
defendants have violated Fed. R. Ciro. P. 33(a) by propounding more than 25 interrogatories,
including discrete subparts, and that this intemgaIoy is therefore improper . In particular, the
identities of persons counsel selected to interview or relied upon in the FAC, and the memoranda
they prepared (through investigators), are privileged attorney work product . See, e.g. Wickman v
Taylor, 329 U .S. 495, 510-11 (1947) ; Holmgren v. State Farm Mur Auto Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 576
(9th Cir. 1992); In re Convergent Terns. Sec. Litig.,108 FAD. 328 (N .D. Cal . 1985) ; In re Gupta
Corp. Sea Litlg_, No. C-94-1517 FMS, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21847 (N.D. Cal . July 18, 1995) ; InPLS' AMENDED RESP . TO DEF_ STEVEN WEST'S RROGATORIES - SET TWO - C-01-20418 -JW(PVI) -7-
re Ashworth Sec_ Litig., 213 F.R.D. 385, 389 (S.D. Cal . 2002) ; In re M 7Tech. Corp. Sec. Litig. 3l,
No. SACV 00-0745 DOC (ANx), 2002 U.S. Dist LEXIS 13015, at *7-010 (C.D. Cal . June 14,
2002) ; In re Tyco Int'1, Ltd Sec. Litig., MDL No. 00-MD-1335-B, 2001 U .S. Dist. LEX[S 819
(D NX. Jan. 30, 2001); Elec_ Data Sys. Corp. v. Steingraber, No. 4:02CV225, 2003 U.S. Dist .
LEXIS 11816, at *4-*g (E.D. Tex. June 27, 2003). Finally, plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to
the extent that it seeks information not within plaintiffs' possession, custody or control, or
information that is equally available to defendants .
Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiffs respond as follows:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs have obtained evidence that Cisco customers placed double or triple orders in Q1 FY01
and Q2 FY01; however, despite knowledge of the problem, CEO Chambers and CFO Carter hav e
11testified. that the company itself did not b k double or triple ordering, so plaintiffs are unable to
quantify the amount of double or triple orders . Plaintiffs also direct defendants to the depositions
and the accompanying exhibits of: John Chambers on September 21 and 22, 2 005, Larry Carter on
September 29 and 30, 2005, long Dennerline on August 18, 2005, and James Gould on July 25,
2005.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this response on an ongoing basis .
I INTERROGATORY NO . 14:
If YOU contend that CISCO's financial statements were misleading by reason of the amounts
I reserved for returns , IDENTIFY each affected financial statement and the amount of each
misstatement.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO . 14 :
Plaintiffs incorporate herein each of the foregoing General Objections . Plaintiffs object to
this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks or purports to require disclosure of information which is
protected from disclosure by the attorney -client privilege, the atto rney work protect doctrine aw or
any other applicable pr ilege or immunity . Plaintiffs objectto this interrogatory on the grounds that
defendants have viol ated Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) by propounding more than 25 interrogatories,
including discrete subparts, and that this interrogatory is therefore improper . In particular, the
identities of persons counsel selected to interview or re lied upon in the FAC, and the memoranda
PLS' AMENDED P1 SP. TO DEF . STEVEN WEST'S INTERROGATOR IE .S - SET TWO - C-01-20418-JW(PVT) -9-
EXHIBIT 124
DEAN S. KRISTY (SBN 157646)KEVIN MUCK (SBN 120918)FELIX S. LEE (SBN 197084)ALICE L. JENSEN (SEN 203327)CHRISTOPHER A GARCIA (SBN 215184)DONALD W. SEARLES (SBN 135705)JENNIFER C . BRETAN (SEN 233475)FEI+ WICK & WEST LLP275 Battery StreetSan Francisco , California 94111Telephone: (415) 875-2300Facsimile: (415) 281-1350e-mail address . u k fearwick.cnra~
DAN K. WEBB (Pro Hac Vie 2116/05)ROBERT Y. SPERL NG (Pro Hac Vice 21165)ROBERT L. MICHELS (Pro Hac rice 2116/05)RONALD S. BETMAN (Pro Hac Vice -211"5)J. ERIK CONNOLLY (Pro Hac Vwe 2116105)KRISTA M. ENNS (SEN: 206430)WINSTON & STRAWN LLP35 West Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60601-9703Telephone: (312) 558-5600Facsimile: (312) 558-5700e-mail address: rb on.com
Attorney for DcfendaouCisco Systems, Inc, John T. Chambers, Larry RCater, Carol A . Bart, Steven M. West Edward It .Kozel, Donald T. Valdrtine, Robert L. Peke, JudithL. Estrin, Gary J . Daichendt, Donald J . Listwin, CarlRedfield and Michelangelo Volpi
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
lI
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26,
27
28
in re CISCU S 7 S'1'bmSECURITIES LITIGA '
ALL ACTIONS.
Case No. C-0l -20418-. W
CLASS ACTION
DEFENDANT CISCO SYSTEMS, INC .'ST W AMENDED OBJECTIONS ANDRESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CENTRALSTATES, SDUT}EEAST ANDSOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUNDS,FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TODEFENDANT CISCO SYSTEMS, INC .
Del .t Moo System . Inc. 3rd Amdea Ob vctionsand Rezpoi es to Phim i & Fifth Set of Iuteamgatories
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
.! 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15;
Defendant incorporates herein each of the foregoing General Objections. Defendant objects
to the interrogatory on the grounds that plaintiffi have violated Fed . R Civ. P. 33(a) by previously
propounding more than 25 interrogatories, including discrete subparts, and that this interrogatory is
therefore improper. In addition, since the Class Period encompasses at least six f scat quarters, this
interrogatory itself constitutes six separate intearrogatories . Defendant further objects to the
inteccogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome e, oppressive and harassing,
and purports to impose on Defindaut obligations inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant firmer objects that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, seeks
information which is neither relevant to the subject master of this action nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidetioe . Defendant further objects to the interrogatory on the
grouW that, if any suchrevenue was recognized, plaintiffs can just as easily as defendants ascertain
the requested information from the business records of Cisco Capital that have already been
produced to plaintiffs .
Subject to and. without waiving these objections, and based on investigation to date ,
Defendant responds as follows. The amount of revenue Cisco recognized for sales lease transitions
for which there were no lease des signed by customers at the time the revenue was recognized
was :
Q1 FY00 -$9,157,799.08
Q2 FY'00 -$38,581,698.28
Q3 FY"00 $53,395,456.75
Q4 FY00 -$29,529,213 .60
Q1 FY01 -$80,315,717.07
Q2 FY01 -$23,495,083 .94
Sales lease transactions for which not a ll lease schedules had been signed were reported as
prefimded inventory ("PFI") on Cisco Capital's balance sheer. At the end of the quarter, Cisco
Capital aggregated the total dollar value oftthe sales lease transactions reported as PFI. The existing
PFI balance (i .e., the l ee from the prior quarter) was reversed and the new PFI balance was
5Defmdent Cisco Syste s, Inc . 3rd Amended Objectionsand Re es to Plaintiffs Fifth Set of ImUmmPtas s
ra g
r,)Cr
P- IGo
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
14
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recorded. The revenue recorded was the difference between these two numbers (the balance sheet
chuge). In any given quarter, if the dollar-value of the sales lease transactions no longer reported as
PFI (La, sales lease transactions reported as PFI for which lease schedules had been signed) was
greater than the dollarvalue of all of the sales lease transactions reported as PF1, then Cisco Capital
would report a negative revenue entry for PF L
Defendant reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory pursuant to Fed .
R. Civ. P. 26(e) to the extent it becomes aware of the existence of additional responsive information.
I INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Identify by customer, shipping date, dollar volume, date revenue was recognized, invoice
number, and transaction number, each sales lease transaction from which Cisco or Cisco Capital
recognized revenue when there was no lease schedule for that transaction signed by a customer at the
time the revenue was recognized.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16;
Defendant incorporates herein each ofthe foregoing General Objections. Defendant objects
to the interrogatory on the grounds thatplaintiffs have violated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) by previously
propounding more than 25 interrogatones , including discrete subparts, and that this interrogatory is
therefore improper. Indeed , although plaintiffs have not specifically identified the transactions
subject to this interroga tory, the interrogatory as drafted calls for at least seven mbparts of
information as to any particular transaction. Defendant find= objects to the interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overly broad, maduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing, and purports to
impose on Defendant obligations inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
further objects that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, seeks information which is neither
relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence . Defeandant f rther objects to the interroga tory on the ground that, if any such
revenue was recognized, plaintiffs can just as easily as defendants ascertain the requested
information from the business records of Cisco Capital that have already been produced to plaintifs.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, and based on investigation to dam neither
Cisco or Cisco Capital determined the amount of revenue to be recognized for sales lease
6Defentant Cisco Systems, Im. 3rd Amended ObjectivesandResponses to Plaintiffs̀' Fifth Set of Interrogatories
EXHIBIT 125
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI
---o00---
In Rem )
}
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC-, } No . C-01-20418-3W (PVT)
l
SECURITIES LITIGATION, ]
This document relates to )
ALL ACTIONS .
a
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OP
JOE BASS
SEPTEMER 15, 2005
ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOE BASS, produced
an a witness at the instance of the PLAINTXFF , and duly
sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause
on the 15th day of September , 2005 ,, from 10 :07 a .m. to
4 :33 p .m . & before April Eichelberger, CSR in and for the
State of Texas , reported by machine shorthand, at the
offices of Hundt Reporting , 703 Rcxinney Avenue , Suite
207, Dallas , Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure .
}
550 West C Stmt, Suite 600San Diego, CA 92101
619-235-2400
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
1fl
11
1.2
13
24
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
34
25
wanted to cancel its orders for the 159007
A. At this time frame?
Q . Yeah.
A. No, sir.
Q- Dv you have some recollection at all whether
AT&T told Cisco it wanted to cancel its oxdesre at any
time frame?
A . Yes, sir.
Q . Okay. What time frame Oo yOU ha" in stied?
A . 1-do='t recall the date, but I know E&T did
cancel their orders for the trial systems.
Q. Okay . And are you able to place that at any
tim frame in conjunction with the -- with the date of
this *-mail, before or after?
A. I belief is after this time frame , but 1
don't recall specifically . Ia this time frame, the
February ML;ch, time fsa:us, Y believe .
Q . Okay . And I believe you -- and I don't want
to misquote you. = believe the first thi ng you said
was, "My belief is after this time frame .° Is that your
tastes
A. I dsu' t recall the time frame of when AT&T
canceled thqir orders .
Q• *11 , you'd agree with me that AT&T canceling
their orders was a big deal to you and your team,
EASTWOOD-ST INDeposition Management (800) 5142714
11t3SAM
12 :357K
11 :357K
13.=367[
11 :36AM72
Witness: }fie B t
4
5
6
7
8
9
ZD
l1
12
13
14
151 .15
17
IN THE i]NITSD STATES ]DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTR±`CT OF CALIPORNI .A
-- - Do*--
1
2
In !e :
3
CISCO SYSTffi+ S, INC., j
1
SFCCIRIT •S LITIGATION, ]
This document xei.atE to )
ALL ACTIQ,NS .
No . C -O1-2041$-JW (PVT )
REPORTER ` S CERTIFICATION
DEPOSITION OF JOE BASS
SEPTEMBER 26, 2 O 5
1, April Eichelberger, Certified Shorthand Reporter
in. ane for the State of Texas, hereby certify to -the
follow g
That the witness . JOE BASS, was duly sworn by., the
oftice± and that the transcript of the oral deposition
is a true record of the testimony given. by the witness ;
That pursuant to information, given to the deposit-ion
bff .ce'r at the time said testimony was taken, the
is
20
21
2,2
23
24
25
Witty s: Joe Buss
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
following includes counsel for all parties of record :
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS :
Mr. Jonah Goldstein, Mr . Lucas F . Alts
LERPCH COIIGHL-IN STOIA GELLER RUD ' & R013EINS
( 619) 231-1050, (619) 231_.7423 (Fax)
FOR THE M PENDANT tI SCC SYSTEMS :
Ms . Monika M, B2acha
KNSTQN & STRAWN, LISP
-(312) 558 .8064, (31.2) 5 58-5700 (Fax)
FOR THE DEFENDANT PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
Mr . Renato Mariotti
HELLER EHRMAN, LLP
(415) 772-6000 ■. (415) 712-6268 (Fax- }
I further certify that I apt neither counsel for,
related to, nor employed by any of the parties or
attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was
taken, and further that I am not financially or
otherwise interested in the ou~cpthe of the action .
Certified to by me this day of
2005 .
April Eichelberger, Texas CSR No. . 7495
Expiration Date : December 31, 200 5
indt Reporting . LLC
Fix,n Timber 357
703 McKinney 1venue, Suite 207
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214') 220-1 .122, Fax (214) 220- 1127
EXHIBIT 126
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A
r
---000---
In re :
CISCO SYSTEMS , INC ., ]
SECURITIES LITIGATION j
}
This Document relates to: )
}
ALL ACTIONS . ]
l
No. C-O1-20418-JW
(PVT )
VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF CAROL KELLY
MONDAY. MARCH 28, 2005
e S eastward-stei ndeposition services & litigation support
550 West C Street, Suite 600San Diego, CA 92101
619-235-2400
1 A Those are the general factors I'd be 11 53 :45AN
2 referring to at the time .
3 Q But in terms of being contained withi n
d this E-mail, are those the only ones that you're
5 identifying as relating to pipeline? 11 :53 :52AN
6 A Yes .
7 Q Okay .
8 The sentence goes on to say 'pipeline
versus shipments . "
10 Can you explain to me, when you use the 11 : 54 : O3AM
11 term "shipments ." what you were referring to?
12 A The way I'm using 'shipments' there would
13 be I think somewhat correlated to build plan .
14 Q Okay .
is Why don't you start by telling me what you 11 :54 :46AM
3.6 mean by "build plan . "
17 A 'Build plans is how -- what -- the number
18 manufacturing is committing to building in th e
19 quarter .
20 Now, some of that may go into finished 11 :54 :56AN
21 goods, so that would not constitute a shipaaent . A
22 shipment would be, you know, fully out the door and
23 we would recognize revenue on it . However, in thi s
24 case the word "shipments," it's loosely correlated
25 to 'build plan ." 11 :55 :11AM
8 4
EA„STWOOD-STEINdeposition services & litigation support (M) $14-2714
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.8
9
10
11
12
13
14
35
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
1, KELLI COMBS, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter of the State of California, do hereby
certify :
That the foregoing proceedings were
taken before me at the time and pl ace herein set
forth; that any witnesses in the foregoing
proceedings, prior to testifying, were placed under
oath ; that a verbatim record of the proceedings was
made by me using machine shorthand which was
thereafter transcribed under my direction ; further,
that the foregoing is an accurate transcription
thereof .
I further certify that I am neither
financially interested in the action nor a relative
or employee of any attorney or any of the parties .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date
subscribed my name .
Dated ;
25 KELLI COWS ■ CSR NC. 7705
EXHIBIT 127
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NQRTHERH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re;
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. ,
SECURITIES LITIGATION, ) No . C-01-20418-JW (PVT)
This document relates to ) VOLT D I
ALL ACTIONS .
Videotaped Deposition of JEFFREY KOtICHAA.7I ■
PM of CISCO SYSTEMS, INC ., taken at
100 Pine Street, San Francisco.
California, commencing at 9 : 08 a .rn. ,
Wednesday, September 28, 2005, before
Janice Schutzman , CSR No. 950 9
w 44
66:550 West C Stmet, Suits 600
San Diego, CA 9210 1619-235-2400
I payment is for this particular transaction ?
2 MS . EM M ; Objection.
3 MS . RYAN: Objection, vague .
4 TEE WITNESS : So it could be 36 moths or
5 it could be 30 days . 12 :09PK
6 SY MR. J ONTGKMRY :
7 Q . And at the time that this dcaumient, Exhibit
8 313 was executed , you can 't tell whether or not it' s
9 going to be 30 days or three years , is that correct?
10 MS . EMS .- Objection , form, vague . 12 :10PH
11 THE WITMSS : That ' s correct .
L2 BY MR . MDbi'1'60Y1
13 Q . And in that instance, with that loam of
14 information , would you feel that the recognition of
15 revenue an the transaction , msnoriali$ed by this, 12 :1OPM
16 asstiming all other requirements were met, would b e
17 appropriate?
18 MS . EMS : Objection, form, vague .
19 TM WITNESS : I would, because it' s
20 probably the most conservative approach because you 12 :10PM
21 wouldn't take it as typically just not 30, so youo d
22 aasime, for lack of anything else , that the lease
23 term specified here is what the lease would look to .
24 So in order to determine whether it wa s
25 going to be an operating lease or finance lease , you 12 :11PM
12 6
EASTWovn scEnvDemo tion Moment ( 800) 514-2714
I would, if thin in all you had, there would be enough
2 information here to make that judgment call .
3 BY MR. TQQM$RY =
Q . And you believe that revenue recognition
5 would be appropriate, assuming all other
6 requirements are stet ?
7 MS. ffi]N3 : Objection, vague .
8 'f8$ WI SS t I'd have to calculate out
9 whether its an operating lease or a finance lease .
10 BY MR. N TCOI tY:
11 Q. Let's assume that the ragairrasents are met
12 for a capital lease .
1.3 A. Okay.
Q . Then, based on the information contained in
15 hews, do you believe that there is sufficient
16 information about the term of payment to recognize
17 revue?
18 MS. YES : Objection, vaguer calls for
19 speculation.
20 TEE WITNESS : So there is enough
21 information here to m aka the determination of
32 tether it would be an operating lea se or a capital
23 lease . So if this document, I think this document
24 would need to be in conjunction with an WA , which