Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 96
`Case 1:14-cv-02396—PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 96
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 2 of 96
`
`Deposition of:
`Michael Mitzenmacher , Ph.D.
`June 24, 2019
`
`In the Matter of:
`Network-1 Technologies, Inc. Vs.
`Google LLC And Youtube, LLC
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800.808.4958 | calendar-dmv@veritext.com |
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 3 of 96
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Page 1
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v. 14 Civ. 2396 (PGG)
`
`GOOGLE LLC and YOUTUBE, LLC, 14 Civ. 9558 (PGG)
`
` Defendants.
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`
` VOLUME I Pages 1-208
`
` VIDEO DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL D. MITZENMACHER, Ph.D.
`
` Monday, June 24, 2019, 9:19 a.m.
`
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
` Two Seaport Lane
`
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`
` --- Reporter: Kimberly A. Smith, CRR, CRC, RDR ---
`
` Realtime Systems Administrator
`
` Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 4 of 96
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 APPEARANCES:
`
`23
`
` Russ August & Kabat
`4 By: Brian D. Ledahl, Esq.
`5 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`6 Los Angeles, CA 90025
`7 (310) 826-7474
`8 bledahl@raklaw.com
`9 for the Plaintiff;
`10
`11 Williams & Connolly LLP
`12 By: Samuel Bryant Davidoff, Esq.
`13 725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`14 Washington, D.C. 20005
`15 (202) 434-5000
`16 sdavidoff@wc.com
`17 for the Defendants.
`18
`19 Also Present: Gayle Ashton, Video Operator
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: Good morning.
`2 We are going on the record at 9:19 a.m. on June 24,
`3 2019. This is Media Unit 1 of the video recorded
`4 deposition of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., taken by
`5 counsel for defendant in the matter of Network-1
`6 Technologies, Inc. vs. Google LLC and YouTube, LLC.
`7 This deposition is being held at
`8 Finnegan Henderson, located at Two Seaport Lane,
`9 Boston, Massachusetts. My name is Gayle Ashton,
`10 and I'm the videographer from the firm Veritext.
`11 The court reporter is Kimberly Smith, also from
`12 Veritext.
`13 Will counsel please identify their
`14 appearances.
`15 MR. DAVIDOFF: Sam Davidoff on behalf --
`16 from Williams & Connolly on behalf of defendants
`17 Google and YouTube.
`18 MR. LEDAHL: And Brian Ledahl from Russ
`19 August & Kabat on behalf of the plaintiff.
`20 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: Will the court
`21 reporter please swear in the witness.
`22 MICHAEL D. MITZENMACHER, Ph.D.,
`23 having been satisfactorily identified by the
`24 production of his driver's license, and
`25 duly sworn by the court reporter, was deposed
`
`Page 5
`
`1 and testified as follows:
`2 EXAMINATION
`3 BY MR. DAVIDOFF:
`4 Q. Good morning, professor.
`5 A. Good morning.
`6 MR. DAVIDOFF: I would like to mark
`7 actually an exhibit, which I think we'll mark as
`8 Exhibit 1 to your deposition.
`9 (Mitzenmacher Exhibit 1 was marked
`10 for identification.)
`11 Q. And this is just a list of your prior
`12 litigation experience over the last five years that
`13 was provided to us.
`14 Is that familiar to you?
`15 A. Yes.
`16 Q. And really I thought this might just help
`17 refresh your memory because it looks like you've
`18 done a bit of testifying.
`19 A. Um-hum.
`20 Q. My question is if you could just tell me
`21 which of the -- not just these, which cases you've
`22 testified at trial in. And I thought maybe it would
`23 help to look at the list.
`24 A. Okay. My recollection is the France
`25 Telecom case, the Juniper vs. Palo Alto Networks
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`1 I N D E X
`
`Page 3
`
` WITNESS: Michael D. Mitzenmacher, Ph.D.
`
`23
`
`45
`
` EXAMINATION Page
`6 By Mr. Davidoff 5
`7 AFTERNOON SESSION
`8 By Mr. Davidoff 112
`9
`10 EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION:
`11 Mitzenmacher Description Page
`12 Exhibit 1 List of witness's litigation 5
`13 testimony
`14 Exhibit 2 Witness's 5/29/19 declaration 43
`15 Exhibit 3 U.S. Patent 7,831,438 58
`16 Exhibit 4 U.S. Patent 8,065,733 58
`17 Exhibit 5 3/27/15 Karypis declaration 63
`18 Exhibit 6 U.S. Patent 8,010,988 93
`19 Exhibit 7 U.S. Patent 8,205,237 93
`20 Exhibit 8 U.S. Patent 8,904,464 93
`21
`22
`23
`24 Original exhibits retained by reporter to be
`25 returned to Williams & Connolly
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 5 of 96
`
`Page 6
`
`1 case. I think in the JobDiva, it wasn't at trial.
`2 There was a hearing. But I don't think . . .
`3 Q. Was that a Markman hearing?
`4 A. Yeah. I mean the Microsoft vs. Parallel
`5 Networks, those were IPRs. I don't know the legal
`6 thing, like the deposition counts as testimony.
`7 I mean it wasn't a trial. It was --
`8 Q. It was a deposition like this.
`9 A. Yeah. But I somehow understand for IPRs
`10 they're treated a little differently, but it wasn't
`11 a trial. I believe Finjan vs. Blue Coat, Finjan vs.
`12 Sophos. I guess one of the Realtime cases.
`13 Q. Had trial testimony?
`14 A. Yeah. I think the second Finjan vs. Blue
`15 Coat. And I think -- yeah. I think the second
`16 Finjan vs. Blue Coat and Finjan vs. Symantec --
`17 I have to look up -- I think those might have been
`18 combined at some later point because I think
`19 Symantec was buying Blue Coat, so . . .
`20 And, again, maybe the Apple vs. Caltech
`21 for the IPRs --
`22 Q. Sure.
`23 A. -- I was deposed, but . . .
`24 Oh, and Centripetal vs. Keysight.
`25 Q. Is that it?
`
`Page 7
`
`1 A. I think so.
`2 Q. And just let me make sure I have it. So
`3 you have France Telecom. And was that testimony in
`4 New York or California?
`5 A. Um --
`6 Q. Do you recall where the trial was?
`7 A. The trial was in California.
`8 Q. Okay.
`9 A. Yeah.
`10 Q. That's what I thought. I think the case
`11 got transferred at some point.
`12 A. Yeah. Sorry.
`13 Q. And Juniper v. Palo Alto, that was in
`14 Delaware?
`15 A. Yes.
`16 Q. JobDiva was in New York?
`17 A. Yes.
`18 Q. And the Finjan vs. Blue Coat, you recall
`19 testifying at two trials there?
`20 A. Yeah.
`21 Q. And both in San Francisco?
`22 A. Yeah.
`23 Q. And the Finjan v. Sophos, was that also in
`24 San Francisco?
`25 A. Yeah. Or that area. Might have been
`
`Page 8
`
`1 San Jose or . . .
`2 Q. Fair enough. Northern District of
`3 California?
`4 A. Yeah.
`5 Q. So three trials where you were testifying
`6 on behalf of Finjan?
`7 A. Yes. I guess -- yeah, I think there's been
`8 at least three -- well, the two Blue Coat and the
`9 Sophos/Symantec, yeah, I think that's three.
`10 Q. And Realtime, that was in the Eastern
`11 District of Texas?
`12 A. Yes.
`13 Q. When was that testimony, roughly?
`14 A. It was a few years ago. I'd have to look
`15 it up.
`16 Q. That's fine.
`17 A. 2016 or '17.
`18 Q. I'm sure it's written down somewhere.
`19 A. Yeah.
`20 Q. And Centripetal vs. Keysight, that was in
`21 Eastern District of Virginia?
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. And when was that testimony?
`24 A. That was late last year, probably -- might
`25 have been November, October/November last year.
`Page 9
`
`1 Q. That was a jury trial?
`2 A. Yes.
`3 Q. What was the result of that, do you recall?
`4 A. The result was -- I guess my understanding
`5 was, after I testified but before the trial was
`6 complete, the parties settled.
`7 Q. And do you have any cases that are
`8 scheduled for trial in the next year that you know
`9 of?
`10 A. Yes, possibly. I mean, like I think
`11 they've been scheduled. Whether they'll actually
`12 stay scheduled, I don't know.
`13 Q. Sure. Can you tell me what they are.
`14 A. I think the Finjan vs. ESET one here, and
`15 then -- let's see -- I think the Finjan vs. Juniper
`16 that's listed there.
`17 Q. So those two cases on this list are
`18 obviously still active. Are there any other cases
`19 on this list that are active? And I know maybe
`20 there's something on appeal or something, but that
`21 you know of is active?
`22 A. Yes. So as far as I know, the Caltech vs.
`23 Apple is still active.
`24 Q. Okay.
`25 A. I think some of the Acceleration Bay cases
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 6 of 96
`
`Page 10
`1 are still active, though I don't know their status.
`2 I guess something that's not on this
`3 list -- or I don't think it's on this list, which
`4 is, I guess, new, and so maybe that's why it's not
`5 on the list -- I don't remember when this was sent
`6 to you -- is I have some cases -- and I have to look
`7 up the name. It's for Brew House.
`8 It's a case involving the Telephone
`9 Consumer Protection Act, so it's not a patent case.
`10 And I don't know what the status of that is, if
`11 that's going to be planned to go to trial or what
`12 the timeline of that would be.
`13 Q. That was going to be my next question.
`14 And I understand these things are kind of moving
`15 targets.
`16 A. Yeah.
`17 Q. Is there anything else you're working on --
`18 any other cases you're working on that aren't listed
`19 on there?
`20 A. Let me think for a second. So there is
`21 that one. So not -- nothing else that I've given
`22 testimony on.
`23 Q. Is there anything else that you've been
`24 disclosed as an expert?
`25 A. I believe I might have already been
`
`Page 11
`1 disclosed for like an additional Finjan case versus,
`2 I think it's Bitdefender.
`3 Q. Are you also working on another Realtime
`4 case now?
`5 A. Yeah. So I think -- or they've asked me to
`6 do stuff, but I'm not sure I've been disclosed or I
`7 don't actually know what the status of that is.
`8 I haven't . . .
`9 Q. I probably wouldn't have heard of it if you
`10 haven't been disclosed. Anything else, any other
`11 cases that you're working on?
`12 MR. LEDAHL: Just to be clear, you're
`13 asking about cases where he's been disclosed to the
`14 opposing party so it's not a confidential consulting
`15 relationship or something like that?
`16 MR. DAVIDOFF: Right.
`17 A. I believe that's it.
`18 Q. And then without -- just "yes" or "no," I
`19 guess -- are there other cases where you're working
`20 on a confidential consulting basis?
`21 A. Yes.
`22 Q. And how many of those are you working on
`23 now?
`24 A. I think just one.
`25 Q. And is that one case with Russ August?
`
`Page 12
`1 A. Well, actually there's that one and there's
`2 another one that I guess has been in limbo that I
`3 just was recently contacted about. So that might be
`4 two.
`5 Q. Is one of those or both of those with Russ
`6 August?
`7 A. No.
`8 Q. What about Amster Rothstein?
`9 A. What about?
`10 Q. Amster Rothstein, is that the . . .
`11 A. No, I don't think so.
`12 Q. The Brew House case, who have you been
`13 retained by?
`14 A. Well, I was retained, I guess, by Brew
`15 House. I'd have to look up the attorneys. That was
`16 work -- I sometimes do work with a consulting firm
`17 called the Analysis Group.
`18 Q. And do you know who the opposing party on
`19 that case is?
`20 A. I'd have to look up the names. It's like
`21 it's an individual who I think is trying to set up a
`22 class action.
`23 Q. I see. Brew House is the defendant?
`24 A. Yes.
`25 Q. And do you know what court that's pending
`Page 13
`
`1 in?
`2 A. Um . . .
`3 Q. Even just geographically.
`4 A. Yeah. It was someplace odd. I think it
`5 may be Missouri.
`6 Q. In all of your prior work -- obviously we
`7 haven't covered other places where you may have just
`8 given deposition testimony or expert reports --
`9 but I now want to ask a question that sort of
`10 encompasses all of that, if that makes sense.
`11 A. Um-hum.
`12 Q. In any of that -- the work that you've done
`13 related to litigation, have you ever had any of your
`14 opinions excluded by a court?
`15 A. Not like in the Daubert sense --
`16 Q. Okay.
`17 A. -- if that's what you mean.
`18 Q. In some other sense?
`19 A. Well, my understanding is that like at
`20 various times during trial, judges may say like, Oh,
`21 well, like this patent is out, so there's going to
`22 be no testimony about that patent if I'd put in
`23 testimony, like in the deposition or the report or
`24 things like that.
`25 So I think there have been times where
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 7 of 96
`
`Page 14
`1 the judge has sort of said, Okay, the testimony is
`2 limited to the subjects in these areas.
`3 Q. Understood. Any other kind of situations
`4 where you -- and of course, you've maybe offered
`5 opinions and cases have settled.
`6 A. Um-hum.
`7 Q. But any other situations other than the
`8 patents dropped out or the case settled where your
`9 opinions were precluded?
`10 A. The only one that really sticks to mind is
`11 there was a case where there was a lot of code
`12 involved, and so some of the code I discussed in the
`13 report and then we had like some large appendices
`14 where we were citing to related code, I think the
`15 judge said like, You can only talk about code that
`16 he specifically talked about like in the main body
`17 of the report.
`18 Q. Do you remember which case that was?
`19 A. It was one of the Finjan cases, but I don't
`20 remember which one.
`21 Q. Even if your testimony wasn't excluded,
`22 has, to your knowledge, a court ever found any of
`23 your opinions unreliable?
`24 A. I'd have to go back and look. I mean, I
`25 don't recall that specific phrasing. But, you know,
`Page 15
`
`1 I don't recall everything.
`2 Q. I don't mean to be wedded to the particular
`3 phrasing. Do you recall a court ever criticizing
`4 your opinions or your testimony?
`5 A. Not offhand, but I'd have to go back and
`6 look.
`7 Q. So as you sit here today, you can't remember
`8 a judge in the courtroom, for example, saying
`9 something negative about your testimony?
`10 A. Oh, I mean, I can imagine a judge saying
`11 some negative things.
`12 Q. I'm not --
`13 A. I've had cases where the judge has said
`14 like, you know, Stop interrupting the lawyer or, you
`15 know, or like said like, That's not relevant; let's
`16 stay on topic -- or I'm sure -- because I've been in
`17 some number of trials, I've certainly had different
`18 interactions with judges where, you know, they've
`19 tried to put me on the track that I guess they
`20 wanted for their trial.
`21 Q. Can you remember any of those specifically?
`22 A. Let's see. I'd have to go back and recall.
`23 I know it's happened. I just might be mistaken if I
`24 tried to relate a specific incident.
`25 Q. What about written criticism? Has a judge
`
`Page 16
`1 ever written an opinion or order that criticized
`2 your testimony?
`3 A. I don't know. They may have. I mean, I
`4 don't recall offhand.
`5 Q. As you sit here, you're not aware of any
`6 judge writing an opinion that criticized your
`7 testimony?
`8 A. Again, I just say like I can't recall.
`9 Q. So you think it might have happened?
`10 A. Yeah. I mean, it might have. I mean, I
`11 think like there's certainly times where I've gone
`12 back and forth with judges and --
`13 Q. I'm asking about in writing.
`14 A. What?
`15 Q. I'm asking about in writing. Has a judge
`16 written an opinion or an order?
`17 A. I'd say I think I don't recall in many
`18 cases, like, you know, I might not have seen all
`19 their writings with regard to my testimony.
`20 Q. I'm just asking you -- I'm just asking you
`21 what you're aware of. Can you think of any instance
`22 where a judge in writing criticized you?
`23 A. I'd have to go back and look to remember.
`24 Q. So right now you can't remember any?
`25 A. Yeah. I'd have to go back and look.
`
`Page 17
`
`1 Q. So it's possible that a judge has written
`2 an opinion criticizing your testimony; you just
`3 don't recall it right now?
`4 MR. LEDAHL: Objection, speculation.
`5 A. It's certainly possible, yeah.
`6 Q. When were you first retained to work on
`7 this matter for Network-1?
`8 A. I think it was just a couple months ago.
`9 Q. This year?
`10 A. I think so, yeah.
`11 Q. Is there some ambiguity about when you were
`12 retained? You're hesitating.
`13 A. No. I just don't recall. My recollection
`14 is -- I mean, I checked before the deposition, but
`15 my recollection is that it was very recently.
`16 Actually, yeah, now that I think about it, I think
`17 it was last month and a half, two months ago that --
`18 Q. Certainly in 2019?
`19 A. Yeah.
`20 Q. And that's the first time you did any work
`21 for this case, I assume?
`22 A. Yeah.
`23 Q. You've done work -- been retained by -- or
`24 on behalf of clients of Russ August before, correct?
`25 A. Yes.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 8 of 96
`
`Page 18
`1 Q. And can you tell me which matters you've
`2 been retained by Russ August in connection with?
`3 A. I believe it was the set of Realtime cases.
`4 I think we've discussed or come out that there's
`5 some other cases where -- or that may come up that I
`6 don't think I've been disclosed.
`7 Q. In addition to the work you're doing for
`8 Network-1, you're currently working with Russ
`9 August on other cases as well, correct?
`10 A. Yes. I believe there's been one other case
`11 I've worked with them recently.
`12 Q. You're working with them on one other case
`13 in addition to Network-1?
`14 A. I believe so, yes.
`15 Q. I just want to make sure I'm not . . .
`16 It's at least one other case; is that
`17 what you're saying?
`18 A. I think right now it's just one.
`19 Q. So at least one other case?
`20 A. Well --
`21 MR. LEDAHL: Objection, misstates the
`22 testimony.
`23 Q. I'm just trying to understand what your
`24 "I believe so" -- I just -- you're working with them
`25 on Network-1, correct?
`
`Page 20
`1 Q. But you're aware that you've been retained
`2 by Russ August in connection with a case that has a
`3 party with the name "Realtime" in their name?
`4 A. That's what I recall, yes.
`5 Q. Is there any ambiguity about your
`6 recollection there?
`7 A. I don't think so, but I would, again, have
`8 to go back and look. Like I said, I haven't billed
`9 or done anything with that case that I can recall in
`10 a few months, so I would just have to look back and
`11 check its status.
`12 Q. You don't recall that relationship being
`13 terminated?
`14 A. No.
`15 Q. Other than that case, are there any other
`16 cases in which you're currently under retention by
`17 Russ August? Other than that case and this case, of
`18 course.
`19 A. I don't believe so.
`20 Q. Have you ever been -- worked with the firm
`21 Amster Rothstein in connection with a case?
`22 A. I don't remember the name. I don't think
`23 so.
`24 Q. They're local counsel in this case. I'm
`25 not trying to hide the ball on that. You didn't
`
`Page 19
`
`1 A. Yes.
`2 Q. And you're working with them on a Realtime
`3 case, correct?
`4 A. I believe -- I'd have to check the
`5 paperwork. I believe that's been signed, so I think
`6 so, yes.
`7 Q. Well, I mean, I haven't heard an objection
`8 so I'm just asking you if you remember. You've been
`9 retained by them for a Realtime case that you're
`10 currently working on?
`11 A. I'm not clear. I think we might have just
`12 had some back-and-forth conversations to begin with,
`13 but I don't think I've done any active work on it
`14 for a few months. So I don't know that I'm working
`15 on it at the moment.
`16 Q. You're currently retained by Russ August in
`17 connection with a Realtime matter, correct?
`18 A. I believe so, yes. That's my recollection.
`19 Q. Well, I guess I'm just trying to
`20 understand. When you say you believe so, is there
`21 some ambiguity?
`22 A. So I don't remember what the actual name of
`23 the party was, like there's been a Realtime Data,
`24 but there was some other name. Like I would just
`25 have to check my record.
`
`Page 21
`
`1 know that?
`2 A. No.
`3 Q. And you don't recall working with them on
`4 any other matter?
`5 A. No.
`6 Q. Have you -- You've obviously submitted a
`7 declaration relating to claim construction in this
`8 case, correct?
`9 A. Yes.
`10 Q. Have you been retained to look at any
`11 issues of infringement in connection with this case?
`12 A. I mean, I believe my retainer says that
`13 that may come up -- or that like I may be involved
`14 in other parts of the case, but I haven't done any
`15 work on infringement at this point.
`16 Q. Your retention's not limited to claim
`17 construction issues, correct?
`18 A. No, I don't believe so.
`19 Q. You signed a protective order in this case;
`20 is that right?
`21 A. Yes, I believe so.
`22 Q. Why did you do that?
`23 A. Because the attorneys asked me to.
`24 Q. Have you reviewed any material covered by
`25 the protective order in this case?
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 9 of 96
`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`1 A. I don't believe so.
`2 Q. Have you reviewed any Google or YouTube
`3 nonpublic material in connection with this case?
`4 A. No, not at this point.
`5 Q. Have you spoken with any other experts who
`6 have been retained in connection with this case?
`7 A. No.
`8 Q. Have you gained in your work on this case
`9 so far any understanding of how the YouTube content
`10 ID system works?
`11 A. No.
`12 Q. You've not had any conversations about that
`13 with anyone?
`14 A. No.
`15 Q. Including counsel?
`16 A. No. I believe that just in terms of the
`17 background of the case, I believe it came up that,
`18 you know, they think that YouTube or Google used
`19 some form of locality-sensitive hashing, which I
`20 said, you know, matched my background, but no
`21 details, I think, beyond that general description.
`22 Q. Can you recall what you were told about
`23 Google or YouTube's use of locality-sensitive
`24 hashing?
`25 A. I believe simply that they used it.
`
`1 the area of -- read a variety of papers that relate
`2 to Google and Google systems or to systems generally
`3 that deal with video and audio files.
`4 And so my recollection is that I've
`5 heard that content ID uses locality-sensitive
`6 hashing, but again just in a general sense. I don't
`7 know the details of that functionality.
`8 Q. You've read papers that describe how Google
`9 sensitive ID works?
`10 A. I don't recall any level of detail of that
`11 locality-sensitive hashing. I mean -- and again,
`12 this is sort of vague recollection -- I've read lots
`13 of papers that talk about systems in general, but in
`14 particular, I've read some papers that relate to
`15 YouTube systems. I believe they relate to locality-
`16 sensitive hashing.
`17 Q. Do you recall the authors of any of those
`18 papers?
`19 A. No.
`20 Q. Do you recall what journals you read those
`21 papers in?
`22 A. Not offhand. And it might not have been
`23 for journals. It might have been for conferences or
`24 things I reviewed.
`25 Q. Can you recall any identifying information
`
`Page 23
`1 This was just making sure that I'd have background
`2 suitable for this sort of case.
`3 Q. Were you told anything else about the
`4 operations of YouTube?
`5 A. No, not by counsel or . . .
`6 Q. Have you read any depositions in this case?
`7 A. No. I don't think so. I can check my
`8 report, but I don't -- my declaration, but I don't
`9 recall any.
`10 Q. There's nothing cited in your declaration,
`11 I don't think.
`12 A. Then no.
`13 Q. What, if anything, is your understanding of
`14 how locality-sensitive hashing is used by content ID?
`15 MR. LEDAHL: Vague and ambiguous.
`16 A. Can I -- I would say I don't know at any
`17 detailed level. My understanding is they may use
`18 some form of locality-sensitive hashing to provide
`19 some sort of, you know, I guess, sketch or form of
`20 identifier for the content.
`21 Again, I think that's things I think
`22 I've also heard outside of the context of counsel,
`23 but just at that high level.
`24 Q. Where else do you think you've heard that?
`25 A. Well, so, again, I didn't sort of work in
`
`Page 25
`
`1 about those papers?
`2 A. No. I don't recall or know how the --
`3 currently how the system functions at that level of
`4 detail.
`5 Q. I'm just asking about the papers. Can you
`6 recall the dates of publication of any of those
`7 papers?
`8 A. Nope.
`9 Q. Can you recall when you read them, roughly?
`10 A. Not with any specificity. Again, I do
`11 reviews and things for a lot of systems-types
`12 conferences, so I would expect maybe over the last
`13 five years, but I can't recall with any specificity.
`14 Q. Other than what you've read in papers and
`15 what counsel has told you, is there any other source
`16 of your understanding that content ID may use
`17 locality-sensitive hashing?
`18 A. Not that I can recall.
`19 Q. Have you ever spoken with any employees of
`20 Google or YouTube about content ID?
`21 A. Not that I can recall.
`22 Q. When you say not that you can recall, do
`23 you think it's a possibility that you've done that?
`24 A. I mean, I have friends or colleagues that
`25 work at Google, and I'm sure at times I've talked
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 153-12 Filed 06/28/19 Page 10 of 96
`
`Page 26
`
`1 with them generally about things. I don't recall
`2 any specific conversations about content ID.
`3 Q. Who are your friends who work at Google?
`4 A. Andrei Broder, I believe, still works
`5 there. He was a previous mentor of mine.
`6 Let's see. Adam Kirsch, K-i-r-s-c-h.
`7 He was a student of mine that went to work at
`8 Google.
`9 Let's see. I think Serge Vassilvitskii
`10 works at Google. I talk with him about research
`11 problems. I don't think I would have ever -- I
`12 don't think he knows about or I would have talked
`13 with him about content ID. But I'm sure there are
`14 plenty of other people I know at Google. I think --
`15 Q. Can you think of anyone else?
`16 A. I'd have to go check and look just because
`17 I -- even if I -- I wouldn't be sure that they
`18 worked at Google.
`19 But, yeah, I don't think any of these
`20 people work on -- specifically on content ID, so I'm
`21 not sure what they would have known, but probably in
`22 terms of conversations just talked about general
`23 things with them, since I'm interested in hashing
`24 generally, topics related to hashing might have come
`25 up in talking to them.
`
`Page 27
`
`1 Q. Just a point of clarity. You said your
`2 friends and colleagues that work -- or worked at
`3 Google. And I asked you about friends and you gave
`4 me these three names. Were you distinguishing or
`5 were you giving me friends and colleagues?
`6 A. Friends and colleagues. You know, I guess
`7 Andrei I would consider a friend. And Adam was my
`8 student. I think I would consider him a friend.
`9 Serge is more of a colleague.
`10 Q. Any other colleagues who either work or
`11 have worked at Google that you can think of?
`12 A. So -- Let's see. So again, to be clear,
`13 these are not people who I recall having any sort of
`14 specific conversation about Google products. But if
`15 you're asking just at a general level, are there
`16 colleagues I have known who work at Google, I know
`17 David Anderson. He's a professor at CMU. I think
`18 he recently spent some sabbatical time at Google.
`19 Another colleague that I think is
`20 currently spending time at Google is Rasmus Pagh,
`21 P-a-g-h. Again, I should make clear that, you know,
`22 I don't recall particularly, you know, with David or
`23 Rasmus, who are just professors and colleagues of
`24 mine who I've written papers with and who I know
`25 spent time at Google.
`
`Page 28
`
`1 And in particular, I don't think I've
`2 had any Google-specific conversations, certainly not
`3 with regard to technology, you know, with -- and
`4 even with the others, I don't recall any
`5 conversations or anything specific about content ID.
`6 They're just colleagues of mine that I'm sure I've
`7 talked about work things with at various times.
`8 Q. But with respect to the first three --
`9 Adam, Andrei, and Serge -- you think it's possible
`10 you could have talked about locality-sensitive
`11 hashing with them generally?
`12 A. Possibly, I mean, just because I'm
`13 interested in hashing in my research, and I've
`14 talked with them about research topics, so . . .
`15 Q. And so you might have talked with them
`16 about hashing work they did at Google?
`17 A. At a very general level.
`18 Q. You mentioned with respect to Serge that
`19 you were talking with him about a particular
`20 research problem or problems. Did you have
`21 something more specific in mind?
`22 A. It doesn't really relate to hashing.
`23 I mean, we've been sort of -- he's written some
`24 stuff about how to use machine learning in
`25 conjunction with what I'd call more traditional
`Page 29
`1 algorithms to improve them, and I've also done some
`2 work in that area.
`3 So we've had some back-and-forth in
`4 letting each other know about our work in that area
`5 just because we're both sort of working on the
`6 same -- or not the same set of problems but sort of
`7 a similar theme.
`8 Q. What's your understanding of what he's
`9 working on?
`10 A. I believe he works in the Google research
`11 division. So I guess I think he's like a professor
`12 at Google, but not at a university. So all I know
`13 is, you know, the research he publishes or puts out.
`14 Q. Do you know what projects he works on at
`15 Google?
`16 A. No.
`17 Q. Do you know whether or not Google uses
`18 machine learning in its content ID system?
`19 A. No, not specifically. I mean, I might
`20 guess that it does in places, but I honestly haven't
`21 looked at the system.
`22 Q. What's your guess on where it would use it?
`23 MR. LEDAHL: Objection, calls for
`24 speculation.
`25 A. Just a guess, I know Google invests heavily
`8 (Pages 2