throbber
Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`-----------------------------------x
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
` Plaintiff,
` Case No.
` -against- 04-CV-5312
`eSPEED, INC.,
` Defendant.
`-----------------------------------x
` April 7, 2005
` 9:49 a.m.
`
` Videotaped deposition of ROBERT G.
`McCAUSLAND, taken by Defendant, pursuant to
`subpoena, at the offices of Winston & Strawn LLP,
`200 Park Avenue, New York, New York, before Jack
`Finz, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary
`Public within and for the State of New York.
`
`Page 1 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
` McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
` Attorneys for Plaintiff
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
` BY: MATTHEW J. SAMPSON, ESQ.
`
` WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
` Attorneys for Defendant
` 35 West Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703
` BY: RAYMOND C. PERKINS, ESQ.
` PEJMAN SHARIFI, ESQ.
`
` FRIED FRANK LLP
` Attorneys for the Witness
` One New York Plaza
` New York, New York 10004
` BY: DAVID ZILBERBERG, ESQ.
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` STEVEN BORSAND
` PATRICK CATANIA
` ROBERT CALVERT, Videographer
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 2 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the
`record.
` This is the video operator speaking,
`Robert Calvert, of LegaLink Action Video, offices
`located at 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, New
`York. Today's date is April 7, 2005. The time
`on the video monitor is 9:49 a.m.
` We are here at the offices of Winston
`& Strawn, located at 200 Park Avenue, New York,
`New York, to take the videotape deposition of
`Robert McCausland, in the matter of Trading
`Technologies, Incorporated, versus eSpeed,
`Incorporated. The venue of this case is the
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of Illinois. The index number is
`04-CV-5312.
` Will counsel please voice identify
`yourselves and state whom you represent.
` MR. PERKINS: Good morning. Ray
`Perkins, representing the defendant, eSpeed.
` MR. ZILBERBERG: David Zilberberg,
`representing the witness, Robert McCausland.
` MR. SAMPSON: Matt Sampson from
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff,
`
`Page 3 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`representing the plaintiff, Trading
`Technologies. With me today is Steven Borsand
`from Trading Technologies, and Patrick Catania,
`an independent consultant.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court
`reporter please swear in the witness.
` R O B E R T G. M c C A U S L A N D,
`having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public
`(Jack Finz), was examined and testified as
`follows:
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Please begin.
` EXAMINATION BY MR. PERKINS:
` Q. Sir, could you please state your name
`for the record?
` A. Robert McCausland.
` Q. And where do you live?
` A. I live in Mendham, New Jersey.
` Q. What's your street address?
` A. 21 Pembroke Drive.
` Q. You have been deposed before; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. About how many times?
` A. At least three.
`
`Page 4 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Q. How many times have you been deposed
`regarding the Intex system?
` A. Well, once where it was the relevant
`system in question, yes.
` Q. And which case was that?
` A. That was -- I guess at that point it
`was eSpeed versus the three commodity exchanges,
`Board of Trade, the Chicago Merc and the New York
`Merc.
` Q. Do you still have a copy of that
`deposition?
` A. If I do, I don't know where it is.
` Q. If at any time you do not understand
`my questions, just let me know and I will try to
`repeat or rephrase the question. Do you agree to
`do that?
` A. Yes. Thank you.
` (Defendant's Exhibit 110
`for identification, subpoena.)
` Q. Let me show you what I have marked as
`a copy of Defendant's Exhibit 110, which is the
`subpoena that my office served on you, sir. Have
`you seen this document before?
` A. Yes, I have.
`
`Page 5 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Q. And in this subpoena, as the
`attachment, there is a request for documents.
`Did you read that, sir?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. And did you look for documents in
`response to the subpoena?
` A. I did.
` Q. And did you have any documents in
`response to the subpoena?
` A. I had a few documents which were
`relevant to some system design and testing
`procedures, but that was about it. The majority
`of the documents that I once had with Intex, I
`left them in Bermuda when I left.
` Q. When you say you left them in
`Bermuda, specifically where did you leave them in
`Bermuda?
` A. Intex had an office on Church Street.
` Q. So you left them at the Intex offices
`in Bermuda?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When did you leave Intex?
` A. Well, in -- let's see. In 1988
`Security Pacific exercised an option to license
`
`Page 6 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 60
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` MR. SAMPSON: Objection; vague.
` A. Well, you would have to -- when you
`say it moved, it moved away from -- if the quote
`moved to the point where, you know, in this
`particular illustration, where last was not still
`within the quote, then it probably -- it resulted
`in a repainting of it, and the price that would
`be oriented there would be something within the
`quote, somewhere between the best bid and best
`offer. Or it could be one or the other if they
`were just a tick apart.
` Q. This is what I am wondering, Mr.
`McCausland. The price range here that is on the
`right-hand side of Defendant's Exhibit 10, the
`price range goes from 86.26 to 86.13; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And say that those are the only
`prices that I wanted displayed on the screen, no
`matter what happens with the market and the best
`market. Are you with me so far?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So, I mean, if the best market goes
`up, I don't care how much, or goes down how much,
`
`Page 7 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 61
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`these are the only prices that I wanted displayed
`on the Intex screen. Are you with me?
` A. But that wasn't what happened. But
`go ahead. You are saying this is a supposition?
` Q. Yes, this is what I am trying to find
`out. If these are the only prices, 86.26 or
`86.13, that I wanted shown on the screen when the
`best market moved, was there a way I do that in
`the Intex system?
` MR. SAMPSON: Objection; calls for
`speculation. It is also a hypothetical question,
`based on the witness' last answer.
` A. Well, let's put it this way: Number
`one, it is illogical that you would want to do
`that from a trading point of view, so, therefore,
`I'm quite sure that we didn't provide the ability
`to do that, to freeze it.
` Q. Was there a number two?
` Mr. ZILBERBERG: There doesn't have
`to be number two.
` Q. I'm just wondering. You said number
`one.
` So as far as you recall, there was no
`ability to freeze the price column in the Intex
`
`Page 8 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 62
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`system?
` A. No.
` Q. You said that it would be illogical
`to do that. Why is that?
` A. Well, what you are attempting to do
`here is show -- give as much information, as much
`data as possible. So you want to show, what I'll
`say, roughly equal amounts of potential offers --
`you know, actual offers and actual bids. So if
`you froze it and the market moved away, maybe you
`would end up just either cutting the number of
`bids that you could display or the number of
`offers you could display, by however many ticks
`the market moved off what's here, the last price.
` Q. I am looking here under, you know,
`the text under the trading screen. It refers to
`a scroll feature. It says "A scroll feature can
`move the book up or down in order to add depth to
`the market." Could you explain how that scroll
`feature worked in the Intex system?
` A. You know, specifically, I don't
`recall exactly how it worked. It was obviously
`designed so that you could look further into one
`side or the other. But it wouldn't necessarily
`
`Page 9 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 77
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Q. Contract ID, what does that
`represent?
` A. Well, it's the maturity month of the
`contract, which identifies the specific contract.
` Q. And limit price, that's the price
`that you are going to buy or sell?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Principal agency, what does that
`represent?
` A. Well, if you are a trader and you are
`trading on a principal basis, for your own
`account or the account of your firm, then that's
`designated as principal. Otherwise, if you are
`acting as an agent for a client, then it would be
`an agency trade.
` Q. Time in force, what does that
`represent?
` A. Well, that's, you know, there are
`various times in force. GTC is good till
`canceled. So an order could stay in the system
`for -- it stays there until it gets executed or
`it gets canceled. It could just as easily have
`been a day order, which means at the end of the
`day it automatically cancels.
`
`Page 10 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 78
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Q. And memo, what does that represent?
` A. That is just a free-form field to put
`information which would be carried along with the
`transaction.
` Q. Now, the trading screen that is shown
`here, is this what the screen looked like when
`Intex was released live in about 1984?
` MR. SAMPSON: Objection to the form
`of the question.
` A. Pretty much this is what it looked
`like, yes.
` Q. When you say pretty much, what do you
`mean?
` A. Well, you know, I don't remember
`exact details, but this was substantively the
`screen that we had in the system.
` Q. Now, to place an order in the Intex
`system, could you explain to me what a user would
`have to do in order to place an order?
` A. All right. As best as I can
`remember, we had special function keys on the
`keyboard which designated what type of order, and
`when I say that I mean are you going to put a buy
`in, a sell, a cancel, a replace. Those are the
`
`Page 11 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 79
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`types of orders that you could enter. And so
`that would get you started with, you know,
`starting to fill in the form at the bottom here.
` Again, you would, by a selection
`process, designate which contract it was that you
`were either bidding or offering in. And then you
`would go on to fill in the other fields.
` Q. Now, every time I placed an order in
`the Intex system, would I have to fill out each
`of the parameters, the order type, buy/sell,
`quantity, contract, limit price? Would I have to
`fill that out each and every time?
` MR. SAMPSON: Objection to the form
`of the question.
` A. Most of the time I believe you had to
`fill them, you know, all these parameters out.
`But, okay, you would start -- obviously, you had
`the function key that said I want to buy, so that
`would get you started there, or bid. But, you
`know, the quantity and the price and those other
`things you would have to fill out, fill in the
`form.
` Q. The function key there was a -- by
`function keys, you mean like F1, F2, F3?
`
`Page 12 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 80
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A. These probably were the keys we used,
`but I don't remember specifically. I can't
`remember what the keyboard layout looked like.
`But we had, you know, we had keys that, you know,
`represented the various transactions that you
`wanted to do. We had keys that allowed you to
`scroll up and scroll down. And, you know,
`obviously you had the alphabetic and numeric keys
`necessary to fill in quantities and enter data.
` Some of these things would be like a
`toggle, you know. If I got to the principal
`agency, I wouldn't have to type principal in
`there. I had a toggle that said, okay, it is
`agency, principal, and I would keep it in that
`key until it was the form that you wanted.
` Q. Explain the toggle function to me
`again.
` A. Well, for example, I'm looking at
`principal and agency field. When it came time to
`fill that field in, I would have a toggle key.
`You know, I'm focused on that field, I have a
`toggle key, and each time I hit it, it offered me
`one of the options.
` Q. I understand.
`
`Page 13 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 81
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A. And it would as a result fill that
`option in on the form, in the order form.
` Q. Was the -- strike the question.
` Was the Intex system designed such
`that if I did not want to type in the parameters
`that are on the bottom of the page here, that we
`talked about, but I wanted to default them to,
`you know, a certain thing, like always want to
`buy or have a default quantity, I know what my
`contract is, it's always going to be the same,
`could you do that?
` A. There was no provision for you to set
`up default values.
` Q. So there was no provision for me to
`set up, say, for example, a default quantity, I
`always want to buy or sell at 25?
` A. That's right.
` Q. And there was no way for me to
`default the buy/sell to either buy or sell?
` A. No. You had to initiate that, the
`function key.
` Q. Did Intex have a way to trade through
`the market?
` MR. SAMPSON: Objection to the form
`
`Page 14 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 82
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`of the question.
` A. That would be a function of the
`price.
` Q. Could you explain that to me?
` A. Well, let's take the example here.
`If, let's say, in the June '83, if I want to buy
`500 contracts, I could say buy 500 at 86.21,
`which would mean I would buy the 250 at 86.20 and
`I would buy 300 at 86.21.
` Q. So in the example that you just used
`in the Intex system, the system would, in trading
`through the market, automatically set each of the
`parameters down here to also buy that 86.20 for
`250; is that correct?
` MR. SAMPSON: Objection to the form
`of the question; assumes facts not in evidence
`and mischaracterizes the prior answer.
` A. That all happened in the market
`process.
` Q. What do you mean?
` A. Well, you would have an order come
`in, say buy 500 at, you know, 86.21, and the
`market process would take that buy order and
`match it against the queue of offers, and it is
`
`Page 15 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 153
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`did. I'm sorry. The five bids below the market
`and the five offers above the market.
` A. It would be -- on the Intex system,
`it would be was it within the, you know, say
`seven or eight -- seven price ticks, say. If it
`was in the seven price ticks, it would show it.
`If it was not in the seven price ticks, in the
`normal display it would not show. However, there
`was the scroll feature which allowed you to go
`further in one direction or the other to find
`other orders.
` Q. And I'm, you know, not interested in,
`you know, what -- I want to know if you are sure
`as you sit here today that that's how it worked.
` MR. PERKINS: I am going to object to
`the form of the question. It's argumentative and
`asked and answered.
` A. Could you rephrase the question?
`Does what work?
` Q. Are you sure as you sit here today
`that it is not possible that the Intex system, as
`implemented, would delete prices at which there
`is no quantity in the market?
` A. I'm absolutely positive, because I
`
`Page 16 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 154
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`was long an advocate of saying let's go back and
`redo do this.
` Q. And why did you think that was a
`shortcoming?
` A. Well, because if you are showing --
`you are filling up a page of data that maybe is
`of no value to -- I mean, subsequent
`implementations that I was involved in, when we
`did a book display, which was intended to show
`the depth, we only showed a price where there was
`actually an order, because that's what a trader
`is interested in. He wants to know where the
`orders are. He doesn't want to look at a page
`full of empty prices. And that was one of the
`issues we had here.
` Q. Subsequent implementations of the
`Intex system or other --
` A. Other systems.
` Q. Other trading systems?
` A. We never implemented any changes in
`that aspect of the display on the Intex system.
` Q. Are you familiar with the term Level
`2 screen? Do you know what a Level 2 screen is?
` A. Level 2 screen, in what context is
`
`Page 17 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 155
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`that?
` Q. In the context of electronic
`trading.
` A. No. You will have to explain to me
`what you mean by a Level 2 screen.
` Q. Do you know what a Level 2 NASDAQ
`screen is?
` A. Oh, okay. I've seen the Level 2
`NASDAQ screen.
` Q. Do you know how the Level 2 screen
`works in terms of displaying quantities
`associated with prices?
` A. No, I've never really worked that
`much with the NASDAQ terminals and their screens,
`so, you know, I can't say that I really
`understand how it works.
` Q. Maybe we could refer to the, I think
`it's DX 10, which is the Intex document like
`this. You provided a little bit of testimony
`earlier about highlighting a row in the market
`summary screen to select a contract of interest.
`Is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you did that, if you highlighted a
`
`Page 18 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 172
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`10 that is shown here, the trading screen that's
`shown on the first page of that exhibit, would
`you agree with me that that trading screen
`accurately represents the graphical user
`interface of the Intex system as it went live in
`1984?
` MR. SAMPSON: I object to the form of
`the question.
` A. The book display that we had was in
`this form.
` Q. And by this form, you are referring
`to what is shown here on the first page of
`Defendant's Exhibit 10?
` A. Yes. Exactly. You know, you had
`multiple prices. You had the quantities shown at
`the price levels, and the other information
`that's here, entering an order.
` Q. And just so I'm clear, you were one
`of the -- you were the one who came up with the
`graphical user interface for the Intex system; is
`that correct?
` MR. SAMPSON: Objection to the form
`of the question. It mischaracterizes his
`testimony.
`
`Page 19 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 173
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A. Well, I specified what we wanted,
`which was the summary display, and then a book
`display comparable to a specialist's book, what
`he saw, what he had.
` Q. And you were one of the main people
`involved in actually designing the Intex system;
`is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In fact, you were the main designer
`of the Intex system; is that true?
` A. Probably, that would be accurate.
` Q. And Mr. Gomes was the main software
`developer of the Intex system; is that correct?
` A. Yes, he was.
` MR. PERKINS: Thank you. I have no
`further questions.
` MR. SAMPSON: I just have one last
`followup.
` EXAMINATION BY MR. SAMPSON:
` Q. In your testimony before you say that
`it was a shortcoming to design the display with
`prices that have no quantity associated with
`them, so I'm wondering why would you design the
`display that way?
`
`Page 20 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 174
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A. Well, let's put it this way: I
`didn't necessarily design the display. That's
`the way it was programmed. And it was -- you
`know, I will put it this way, there were just too
`many other things that were important to work on
`the system than this display.
` Having spent some time, particularly
`with the group in New York, it was the summary
`page that they worked off, and occasionally they
`would go here. But, by and large, they worked
`off the summary page.
` Q. The group in New York, do you mean
`traders or developers?
` A. Traders.
` Q. Traders?
` A. Traders. And I'm thinking -- I'm
`speaking specifically of the -- I can't think of
`the firm we had who was making markets for us.
` Q. And why is it that they used
`primarily the summary page?
` MR. PERKINS: Objection; calls for
`speculation.
` A. That's where most of your information
`is. It shows you the best bid, the best offer,
`
`Page 21 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`Page 175
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`and if there was -- only if you were interested
`in doing, say, a larger quantity than what, say,
`was offered or bid, then you go see, well, is
`there more depth to this, I mean, one tick down
`is there another quantity that would interest me,
`and I would be willing to pay down to get it.
`But it's usually, you know, the best market is
`what interested people and that's where they
`traded.
` MR. SAMPSON: Thanks, Mr.
`McCausland. I appreciate your time today.
` MR. PERKINS: Thank you.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end
`of Tape No. 5 in the videotape deposition of
`Robert McCausland. We are going off the record.
`The time is 3:53.
` (Time noted: 3:53 p.m.)
`
` _______________________
` ROBERT G. McCAUSLAND
`Subscribed and sworn to before me
`this _____ day of _________, 2005.
`
`__________________________________
`
`Page 22 of 22
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2287
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket