PREC14A

text of Preliminary filing to SEC January 2012

*http://www.secinfo.com/xxxxx

Lindner Peter * PRE 14A * American Express Co * On Jan
25, 2012
Filed On Jan 25, 2012 12:15pm ET   *   SEC File 1-07657
*
Accession
Number 1394849-7-2
  As Of               Filer            Filing
As/For/On
Docs:Pgs
Issuer

1/25/2012  Lindner Peter              PREC14A
1:10
American Express Co

Preliminary Proxy Solicitation Material -- Contested
Solicitation
*   Schedule
14A
Filing Table of Contents
Document/Exhibit                   Description
Pages   Size

 1: PREC14A     Peter Lindner 1st Draft of Proxy
10  38K

1
proxyverb.txt
142380792
142380792
PREC14A 1 draftproxy.htm FIRST DRAFT OF NON-MANAGEMENT
PROXY
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
(Rule 14A-101)
INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities
Exchange Act of
1934
Filed by the Registrant [  ]
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [X]
Check the appropriate box:

[X]     Preliminary Proxy Statement
[   ]   Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only
(as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
[   ]   Definitive Proxy Statement
[   ]   Definitive Additional Materials
[   ]   Soliciting Material Pursuant to Rule 14a-12

AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
PETER LINDNER

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than
the
Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

[X]   No fee required.

[   ] Fee computed on the table below per Exchange Act
Rule
14a-
6(i)(1)and 0-11.
  (1) Title of each class of securities to which
ransaction
applies:
  (2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction
applies:
  (3) Per unit price or other underlying value of
transaction computed pursuant
      To Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (Set forth the amount on
which the filing  fee is calculated and state how it was
determined):
  (4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
  (5) Total fee paid:
[   ] Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
[   ] Check box if any part of the fee is offset as
provided by
Exchange Act
Rule
       0- 11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the
offsetting fee was paid  previously.  Identify the
previous
filing by registration statement number,
   or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
(1)     Amount Previously Paid:
(2)     Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
(3)     Filing Party:
(4)
Date Filed:

PRELIMINARY COPY, SUBJECT TO COMPLETION
DATED January 25, 2012
PROXY STATEMENT OF
PETER LINDNER
IN CONNECTION WITH THE
2011 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
OF
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY

Prec14a filing for American Express by Peter Lindner as
plaintext

Wednesday, January 25, 2012


I am resubmitting my proposal of 2009/2010 basically
since I have sued American Express (Amex) in the SDNY
(Southern District of New York) in
Was: case 10cv2228 (JSR-JLC) which is on appeal as
Is:  case 11-3594-cv to the 2nd  Circuit Court of Appeals
en banc

My central point in this appeal is that under NY
Judiciary section 487 on "intent to deceive" any Court in
NY State, which I provide the excerpts from the sworn
testimony of Joe Sacca, Esq in 2009, and contrast it with
the previously sealed transcript of Mar/Apr 2007.  Mr.
Sacca of Skadden(alongside Ms. Jean Park of Kelley Drye
Warren, and Amex General Counsel's VP Jason Brown, Esq.)
told USDJ Koeltl that Amex had not attempted to stop my
communications with the SEC.  At the time, I protested,
but Mr. Sacca and his colleagues did not modify their
statement which I believe is factually incorrect, as one
can tell from the 2007 transcript.

Here is how I plan to inform the 2nd  Circuit Court of
Appeals why this criminal misdemeanor should be remedied
via a Specific Performance:  to wit, placing my
Shareholder Proposal on the proxy, along with my
nomination as a Director.  I note that in 2009, USDJ
Koeltl (rightly) felt in His Honor's ORDER that there
would be much confusion and expense to change the proxy a
few days before the meeting (April 23 for the April 29,
2009 meeting, I believe).  Thus, I am requesting this in
January 2012, which is prior to Amex printing the
proxies, and clearly before those proxies are
distributed.

My reasoning is that what may be legal in other States,
is illegal for lawyers in NY State, and that is "intent
to deceive" the Court, which Mr. Sacca did perhaps
inadvertently in April 2009.  But despite repeated oral
and written requests to Mr. Sacca to inform the Court
that he made a mistaken comment (repeatedly), Mr. Sacca
has not modified his rebuttal to me that Amex did not
stop me from communicating with the SEC.  I am not a
lawyer, but as I understand the law, NY Judiciary section
487 on "intent to deceive" any Court in NY State is a
criminal misdemeanor, which later can be sued for treble
damages in a civil suit.  I feel the SEC laws are written
so that criminal conduct should not be allowed to affect
whether a Shareholder Proposal is voted on.  Thus, I
asked that the offending lawyers (Sacca, Park, Brown) be
disbarred if found by our Courts to have intended to
deceive the Courts, whether successful or not, but in
this case successful.

I assert with the transcripts of 2007 (Jean Park and
Jason Brown) and 2009 (Joe Sacca) I provide a factual
foundation for a full look by the 3 entities:
Amex, me and Amex Shareholders (and Shareholder
Employees, of which I was one, via the EEOC standard
enunciated by the US Supreme Court ruling that former
employees count as employees).

I recognize that my Proposals may be challenged by Amex,
and that I am subject to SEC laws on statements I make,
even though I believe them to be true under Rule 14A9 and
under section 14A.  I understand the Company may
challenge my statements, and that any question about
conflict on illegality of my proposals can be settled by
a Court of competent jurisdiction

Thus I seek the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to remedy
the flaw of 2009 by not allowing Amex to do so again, and
specifically by having Amex put on (as stated before) my
Shareholder Proposal on EEOC rights, hopefully via a
Truth Commission, so that past and present wrongs can be
fixed.

Here is what I basically wrote / am writing the Court,
subject to change:

I hereby am suing American Express and now ask for a
"Specific Performance" remedy by the 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals, enforceable by an ORDER that Amex must put my
Shareholder proposal and nomination on the Proxy, since
they committed a violation of NY Judiciary section 487 on
"intent to deceive" any Court in NY State in April 2009
by (repeatedly) denying (whether successful or not, but
in this case, successful) that Amex stopped me from
communicating with the SEC prior to 2009.  This
allegation was made on "April 23, 2009 6:30 p.m." by Joe
Sacca, and was on the brief filed by Mr. Sacca (of
Skadden Arps) and Ms. Jean Park (of Kelley Drye &
Warren), with Amex's General Counsel's VP "Jason Brown,
Attorney for Defendant".  As the next pages will show,
Mr. Brown specifically put in the record on "Thursday,
March 29, 2007" that I could not what Ms. Park calls my
"shareholder activities", and Mr. Brown enumerates as
"That Mr. Lindner, acting alone or in concert, directly
or indirectly, will not submit any shareholder proposal
under Rule 14(a)(8) under the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934".  Since this alleged "intent to deceive" was
ruled by USDJ Koeltl to not include my "shareholder
proposal in the company's proxy materials" and "proxy
materials seeking to elect himself as a director
including his shareholder proposal".  USDJ Koeltl went on
to say that since the meeting was only four (4) days
later, it would cause Amex to "suffer considerable
disruption between upon the issuance of the plaintiff's
requested preliminary injunction.  Rescheduling or
postponing the April 27, 2009, shareholder meeting and
reissuing or amending the proxy materials would result in
significant expense, among other things.  "  It is now
January 2012, 3 months prior to the meeting, and thus no
need to reschedule or postpone the "shareholder meeting
and reissuing or amending the proxy materials".  I note
that I was given only 14 days after the rejection of my
Appeal by the 3 Judges of the 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals, dated January 11, 2012.

In the paragraphs below, I provide the "factual
foundation" as required by SEC "Rule 14a-9 -- False or
Misleading Statements."  I understand that Amex may
challenge my proposal, and I am subject to SEC laws on
statements I believe to be true under section 14A, which
relates to Shareholder Proposals .  Specifically, "As the
Commission stated in Exchange Act Release No. 40018,
proposals that relate to ordinary business matters but
that focus on "sufficiently significant social policy
issues . . . would not be considered to be excludable
because the proposals would transcend the day-to-day
business matters."

Thus, my complaint alleges facts showing that  Amex'
attorney Joe Sacca misled USDJ Koeltl by claiming that
Amex did not stop me from going to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) prior to 2009, when Amex, Jean
Park and Jason Brown wrote a document that detailed how I
could not go to the SEC (paragraph 15 of the IFP
Attachment in Exhibit 3).   This is what Amex wrote on
March 2007 that said I can not "submit any shareholder
proposal under Rule 14(a)(8)" to the SEC.  Joe Sacca lied
about that in print and verbally, with Ms. Park and Mr.
Brown being present in Court but not correcting this
information, despite my repeated requests in the Court
and via email.

"MS. PARK: The company would also require Mr.
Lindner's agreement to irrevocably - with respect to
Mr. Lindner's shareholder activities -

MR. BROWN: And I'll read this. This is Jason Brown,
counsel for American Express.

That Mr. Lindner, acting alone or in concert,
directly or indirectly, will not submit any
shareholder proposal under Rule 14(a)(8) under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or any other
rule under that Act, as amended, or any successor
rule;

He will not under American Express Company's bylaws
nominate himself or anyone else to run for board of
directors;

That he cannot bring any item for action before any
meeting of shareholders of American Express Company;

He cannot attend any shareholders meetings;

He cannot engage in any solicitation of proxies
under any regulation or rule of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in opposition to the company's
own proxy solicitation;

He cannot request a shareholder list under any
Securities laws, being federal laws or state laws;

He must remove his website regarding his proxies or
any, I guess, shareholder activity and will not in
the future post any such website."

[Case No. 06cv3834 (JGK-THK), Lindner v American
Express and Qing Lin, Thursday, March 29, 2007, TR
4, lines 2-19]

  My complaint alleges that Amex lawyers Park, Sacca and
Brown had intent to deceive the Court by denying to USDJ
Koeltl in this case's predecessor and not admitting it to
USDJ Rakoff or Magistrate Judge Cott, which should have
been done, which is a criminal misdemeanor under NY
Judiciary section 487 on "intent to deceive" any Court in
NY State, subject to their disbarment and treble damages
under a separate civil lawsuit.  By such conduct of the
attorneys, I was denied due process in my judicial
proceedings. This is a basis in law and in fact and
clearly brings my complaint, and my appeal, outside the
grounds for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. section  1915(e).
Clearly, by improper, if not unlawful conduct, by
adversary counsel, I should not be denied the ability to
pursue my claims for relief.

Here is one of the several times that Amex has said that
Amex did not make "misrepresentations to the Court about
Mr. Lindner's ability to communicate with the SEC.  There
is in fact no evidence in the record that Mr. Lindner was
under any prohibition from responding to the SEC"


      "14             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you, your Honor.
I appreciate
       15    that you've read everything.  I guess the
question is what
       16    constitutes irreparable damage when this
same thing keeps
       17    happening year after year.  I had hoped in
2006 when I attended
       18    the shareholders meeting that my words to
Ketchen Oltin in the
       19    question and answer period, how seriously
does American Express
       20    take its code of conduct, and he replied
very, very seriously.
       21    So, I thought that might be a type of wake-
up call for the
       22    people under him so that they would use the
code of conduct,
       23    which actually would have settled my whole
problem with a memo
       24    and a phone call.  Although -- and exchange
of money, too, for
       25    violation of a contract.  That did not
happen.
                            SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,
P.C.
                                      (212) 805-0300

3
             94n3linc                 Motion
        1             And when I wanted to go to the
shareholders meeting in
        2    2007, again this time I filed on the SEC Web
site, AmEx got a
        3    court order to stop me from communicating
with the SEC, to ask
        4    me to withdraw my filing from the SEC, to
take down my Web
        5    site, to not attend the shareholders
meeting, to not ask my
        6    questions.
        7             And what's more amazing is that in
the last week's
        8    April 14 meeting in front of your Honor, Joe
Sacca said AmEx
        9    has never tried to stop communication with
the SEC.  I stood up
       10    and corrected his misimpression.  So I was
quite surprised to
       11    see in his brief that Ms. Park said that
American Express never
       12    tried to stop me from communicating with the
Securities and
       13    Exchange Commission.  I don't know why they
keep saying that.
       14    And in fact it's even in their own exhibit
where they quote
       15    from my filing with the SEC.  I note that
AmEx, on Defendant's
       16    Exhibit 17, that I think it's 17.  I'm
sorry.  Anyhow, they
       17    note that I was stopped from communicating
with the SEC.
       18             So, that's one -- the
inconsistencies bother me.  It's
       19    when they make a wrong statement and then
they're corrected,
       20    you would think that they would not want to
be corrected again.
       21    But I'm forced to do that."

So, the above excerpt says that I tell The Court (which
is located in NY State, and thus under the protection of
NY Judiciary section 487 on "intent to deceive" any Court
in NY State  - a criminal misdemeanor subjecting the
lawyer to disbarment) that "Joe Sacca said AmEx has never
tried to stop communication with the SEC.  I stood up and
corrected his misimpression."

 "And what's more amazing is that in the last
week's April 14 meeting in front of your Honor,
Joe Sacca said AmEx has never tried to stop
communication with the SEC.  I stood up and
corrected his misimpression.  So I was quite
surprised to see in his brief that Ms. Park
said that American Express never tried to stop
me from communicating with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  I don't know why they
keep saying that."

Mr. Sacca then responds by saying that he'd like to
"address just a couple points.  One is the accusation
that we've made misrepresentations to the Court about Mr.
Lindner's ability to communicate with the SEC. There is
in fact no evidence in the record that Mr. Lindner was
under any prohibition from responding to the SEC in
response to American Express' request for no action.  "


      "9             MR. SACCA:  Good afternoon, your
Honor.  I will be
       10    very brief.  I don't intend to repeat
anything that was in our
       11    papers, unless your Honor would like
clarification.
       12             I would like to address just a
couple points.  One is
       13    the accusation that we've made
misrepresentations to the Court
       14    about Mr. Lindner's ability to communicate
with the SEC.  There
       15    is in fact no evidence in the record that
Mr. Lindner was under
       16    any prohibition from responding to the SEC
in response to
       17    American Express' request for no action.  In
fact, although
       18    Mr. Lindner has asserted that it wasn't
until March 23 of this
       19    year that Magistrate Judge Katz freed him to
respond to the
       20    SEC, we have put into the record as Exhibit
9 to my declaration
       21    a letter to Mr. Lindner from the chief
counsel of the SEC dated
       22    April 8, 2009, in which he says he is
responding to four
       23    letters from Mr. Lindner, one of which was
dated February 25 of
       24    2009.  So we do have evidence that Mr.
Lindner was
       25    communicating with the SEC during a period
he now says we were

11
             94n3linc                 Motion
        1    prohibiting him from doing so.  I did just
want to respond to
        2    that accusation briefly.
        3             The last point I'd like to make is
in reference to
        4    Mr. Lindner's -- what he says are recent
conversations with
        5    Mr. Be of the SEC staff.  Mr. Lindner did
make to the SEC, and
        6    we have put before the Court as Exhibits 10
and 11 to my
        7    declaration, two of his submissions to the
SEC where he asked
        8    them to reconsider their no-action letter.
He argued that his
        9    proposal dealt with the issue of
discrimination which he argued
       10    was a significant social policy.  And April
8 the SEC said,
       11    having considered his position, it declined
to reconsider its
       12    decision.  So, the SEC has heard and
considered the argument
       13    that this proposal relates to a significant
shareholder issue.
       14             According to the document that's
appendix I to
       15    Mr. Lindner's reply submission, his
conversation with Mr. Be
       16    was apparently entirely hypothetical.
Because he says in his
       17    letter to Mr. Be, "Despite the fact that you
can't address
       18    hypotheticals, you pointed out that
significant social policies
       19    can be included."  That's something we don't
dispute.  The SEC
       20    rules are what the SEC rules are.  The
argument here is, and
       21    why Mr. Lindner has no likelihood of
succeeding on the merits
       22    of any claim here, is that his proposal does
not deal with a
       23    significant social issue.  The text of the
proposal makes clear
       24    he wants a commission appointed to institute
mandatory
       25    penalties for violation of American Express'
code of conduct

12
             94n3linc                 Motion
        1    which covers an enormous range of conduct.
And on its face
        2    does not relate to a significant social
policy.  That's the
        3    essential point.  That's why there is no
likelihood of success
        4    on the merits here.
        5             And just finally, on the issue of
irreparable harm, we
        6    would submit that someone who has been
pursuing this issue
        7    since 2007 but never come to court to seek
the relief that he
        8    now seeks clearly did not suffer irreparable
harm.  Thank you.
        9             THE COURT:  Okay.
       10             MR. LINDNER:  May I answer, your
Honor?
       11             THE COURT:  Very briefly.  You are
entitled to.
       12             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.  I'm
sorry.  I don't know if
       13    Ms. Park even speaks to Joe Sacca.  But if
Ms. Park were saying
       14    that, I would be quite upset.  I think there
is no doubt that
       15    Magistrate Judge Katz made an ex parte
communication with me
       16    and told me that I would be under contempt
of court if I did
       17    not withdraw my filing from the SEC and not
communicate to the
       18    SEC.  I don't know if Mr. Sacca is aware of
it or whether he
       19    even speaks to his co-counsel.  Or maybe if
that's a scheme
       20    that they are doing here.
       21             As to whether American Express had
tried to stop my
       22    communication with the SEC, in order to do a
proxy filing and I
       23    want to have directors on a slate so I'm not
just -- if I just
       24    have myself running for director, the SEC
requires me to put
       25    down that I'm disenfranchising the voters
because they won't be

13
             94n3linc                 Motion
        1    able to vote for any of the other people.
So I have to get the
        2    directors to agree to -- that I list them on
my slate.
        3             On March 5 of 2009, Judge Katz
issued an order, number
        4    133, that prohibits Lindner from contacting
AmEx and that he
        5    wouldn't allow me to speak to the board of
directors about my
        6    proposal or to run for the board of
directors.
        7             On March 9, the SEC -- Judge Katz
ruled in number 134
        8    that I am allowed to speak at the
shareholders meeting but
        9    prior to that I was not.  If I had not been
able to speak there
       10    under SEC rules, I would not be able to
present my shareholder
       11    proposal for two more years.
       12             On March 13, Ms. Park said that --
a few days later
       13    Ms. Park writes to the judge that she wants
to -- that I wish
       14    to speak to the nominating committee and --
let me strike that.
       15    There is like -- I listed 10 different
things here.
       16             On March 16, Jean Park writes a
letter to Katz re
       17    sanctions and reconsideration dated March
16.  And she wanted
       18    me to stop me from communicating to the
members of the other
       19    board.
       20             There are five other diversionary
tactics between
       21    March 16 and April 14.  On April 14, again,
Ms. Park tries to
       22    schedule the hearing after the meeting.  And
then the two
       23    letters to Judge Katz to slow me down and to
not let me include
       24    transcripts to the SEC.  If not allowing me
to include
       25    transcripts is not -- and having Ms. Park
censor them before I

14
             94n3linc                 Motion
        1    upload them to the SEC is not interfering
with the
        2    communication, I don't know what is.
        3             THE COURT:  All right.  I'm
prepared to decide.  Thank
        4    you all.  I've thoroughly reviewed the
papers and I've listened
        5    to argument and I'm prepared to rule."


I set forth particular facts showing that there were
levels of bad faith from Amex and their side, including
perjury (from a vendor), coverup (by Amex's General
Counsel's  Office and by 2 outside law firms representing
Amex), misleading Shareholders (by Amex CEO Ken Chenault
and Stephen Norman), and violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley
(SOX) requirements made after Enron's financial scams on
the CEO personally attesting to the Code of Conduct filed
with the SEC,

1.	For 5 years, Amex VP Jason Brown, Esq. covered-up
contractual, ethics and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 violations by VP Qing Lin,
despite General Counsel's  Louise Parent being his
boss and General Counsel's  Office signing the
June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract.

2.	As stated above, for 2 years, Joe Sacca, Esq. of
Skadden Arps perjured himself to USDJ Koeltl, and
then covered it up along with Jean Park, Esq. of
Kelley Drye Warren, even though I wrote him for 2
years that he should tell the Judge he misspoke in
April 2009 by saying that Amex never stopped me
from communicating with the SEC, when Jason Brown
and Jean Park both were present when the Court
ORDERed me upon Amex's request to not communicate
with the SEC, to withdraw a filing to the SEC
(which can't be done), and not attend the April
2009 Amex Shareholder meeting in person or via
representative (which may be illegal under SEC
laws on a single class of Shareholder stocks), and
also a violation of NY Judiciary section 487 on
"intent to deceive" any Court in NY State, which
is a criminal misdemeanor subject to treble
damages filed in a separate civil suit

3.	Amex's Vendor FischerJordan did perjure themselves
by plainly stating that they did not talk to Qing
Lin about me, and especially not negative things,
when
a.	Qing Lin gave a deposition that spelled out the
name of FischerJordan's principle Boaz Salik
for Qing giving information about me in
violation of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner
Contract signed by (now Banking President) Ash
Gupta, Amex's General Counsel's  Office, and
me.
b.	Jason Brown, Esq. noted that Qing admitted to
saying that "I don't think Peter Lindner can
work at American Express" , where  AXP is the
NYSE symbol for American Express
c.	Worse: on this critical point, Jason Brown did
not include that in his summary letter to me
(and presumably copied to Secretary of the
Corporation Stephen Norman, Esq.), even though
Mr. Brown told me that in person as "I don't
think Peter Lindner can work here." I had
written Mr. Brown by email that Mr. Brown
admitted this statement, which would be a
violation of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner
Contract, and Mr. Brown denied in email (all in
24 hours) that characterization /
memorialization of what Brown said to me, and
blandly replied that it was not mentioned in
Brown's April 2006 summary because "There was
no reason for me to include it"
4.	Surely if  Jason said something to me, and I say
this is proof of Qing's Contract violation and
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and violation of the Amex Code of Conduct,
but Jason denies in writing he even said that to
me, and 3 years later admits under oath that his
hand-written notes are pretty much verbatim what
he told me, it is irresponsible (or more correctly
a cover-up) to not point out this disagreement in
Jason's summary of the dispute to me and to
Stephen Norman,Esq. I note that  in Dec2005 that
Mr. Norman told me that Mr. Norman would get Mr.
Brown to again look into Qing Lin's (then) alleged
and now admitted violation of the June 2000 Amex-
Lindner Contract.
a.	I stress the word "again" since I made that
allegation in Aug2005 that Qing spoke to Boaz
Salik of FischerJordan, and Jason Brown said my
words were not identical, but then refused to
tell me how they differed from what Qing said.
b.	I note in passing that this matter could have
been settled by Jason Brown telling the truth
and quoting Qing's words in his summary, which
would have proven that
i.	Qing gave "any information" to Boaz Salik,
and
ii.	that (indirectly) Qing had not referred
Boaz to Human Resources (both required by
paragraph13 of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner
Contract signed by Jason Brown's General
Counsel's Office, and Ash Gupta and me).
iii.	Moreover, since I had filed an EEOC
Complaint, Qing's actions were also a
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
c.	This indicates that it was
i.	a cover-up by one of the signatories of
the June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract, and
by two Officers of Amex (VP Jason Brown,
Esq. and Qing), and
ii.	 also a violation of the Amex Code of
Conduct regarding past / present / future
possible ethical problems being reported
to one's manager who'd report it to the
Secretary of the Corporation.
d.	What could have been settled in Feb 2006 had
Jason Brown honestly confirmed that Qing spoke
to Boaz about me
i.	whether or not Qing said good or bad
things about me,
ii.	but in this case: bad inferences of not
being able to work at Amex
iii.	and, this isn't even true, since I could
have worked for FischerJordan as a
consultant at Amex

5.	It is also doubtful that Banking President Ash
Gupta allowed his direct reporting aide of 15
years to leave despite these accusations without
having asked why Qing had not reported this breach
of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract, signed by
Gupta, earlier, as required by the Amex Code of
Conduct ("Code") which both Gupta and Qing sign
every few years and explain to their (over 100)
employees.  The Code states that possible ethical
problems past / present / future .
6.	When confronted about this in the Amex Annual
Shareholders' Meeting in successive years, CEO
Chenault blandly told the Shareholders
misleadingly that the Code of Conduct works, when
specifically the General Counsel's Office, the
Banking President & his VP, all violated in the
past / present / future clause of the Code, and
that the General Counsel's  covered this up for 4
years despite being signatories. Thus, altogether
this shows that the Code is not working, since
a.	The Code which Qing, Ash, Jason, Ken signed did
not stop Qing from violating the June 2000
Amex-Lindner Contract in 2005,
b.	Nor stop Jason Brown from denying what he told
me in Feb 2006 (only to admit it under oath 3
years later)
c.	Nor stop Ash Gupta to profess ignorance of it
all,
d.	Nor force the General Counsel's  Office to
enquire why a known violation was noted in
Aug2005 and confirmed in Feb 2006 was not
included in a report to Jason Brown's superiors
nor then reported to the Secretary of the
Corporation.

7.	If the Code "works", this would have been
prevented in Feb/Mar2005 prior to Qing speaking to
Boaz Salik, by having Qing ask Ash Gupta whether
Qing should talk about me in violation of the June
2000 Amex-Lindner Contract signed by Ash and the
General Counsel's Office, and in Feb 2006 by Jason
Brown asking his manager in the General Counsel's
Office if it was okay for Qing to have said "Peter
is a technical person.  I don't think Peter can
work at Amex" in violation of paragraph13 and
possibly also Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the NYC and NY State Human Rights laws.
And given that both Qing and Jason admitted of
those violations in Jan2009, should not a working
Code have had both of them report to Ash Gupta
(Qing's boss) and the General Counsel (Jason's
boss) that a past violation occurred, which then
would be reported to Stephen Norman for deciding
if it was indeed a past violation or even a
possible violation back then that was not
forwarded to their managers as Qing, Jason and Ash
had signed in writing their adherence to the Code?
Specifically, Sarbanes-Oxley allows the Code to
exempt certain classes of people, and CEO Ken
Chenault could have exempted VP's and higher from
those restrictions, but pointedly did not, thus
placing himself as a violator of the Code by being
alerted by me in April 2009 at the Amex
Shareholder Meeting of Qing's violation and Qing
starting 2 weeks later to work for a competitor
after 15 years at Amex reporting to Ash.  How come
Qing "left" but Jason remained, as did Ash?  This
is clearly exempting Jason from the reporting
requirements, and worse than Qing who committed
the act, Jason aided and abetted Qing by not
reporting it when he realized that Qing acted in
his own self-interest instead of following the
law, the contract and the Code.

It may arguably be "bad faith" according to USDJ Rakoff
and MJ Cott for me to miss a single deadline, but it is a
minor bad faith which pales compared to deliberate
perjury to the Court by Officers of the Court and sworn
witnesses and of the CEO to Shareholders and to the SEC.


There are things that are clearly deserving of a public
hearing, including the perjury of the witnesses, the
cover-up by the Amex General Counsel's  VP for several
years in defiance of the document June 2000 Amex-Lindner
Contract which his office signed with me, by the
continued cover-up by CEO Ken Chenault who denied to both
the SEC in writing and to the Shareholders verbally at
the Annual Shareholder Meetings that the Code  of Conduct
worked when in fact the General Counsel's  Office
conspired with Qing Lin and Banking President Ash Gupta
to vitiate it by covering up, lying, and making false
claims about what ultimately is proven that everything I
said was true and that they were "mistaken" or lied about
it, in violation of SEC regulations, NY law, rules of the
SDNY, and contrary to their sworn oaths via affidavit.

These matters should be re-opened and specific questions
addressed to the individuals, e.g. Chenault, Brown,
Sacca, Park, Gupta, Barran, Salik, Norman, so that they
can refuse to make any statement under the 5th Amendment
about self-incrimination, and that the Court and
prosecutors can use the raw facts to show that they
knowingly lied and covered up and retaliated in 2005 and
even now in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.  Moreover, my private property for which I
paid several thousand dollars: the tape recordings (on
DVD and videotape and audio tape) are being wrongly held
by SDNY Courthouse against my wishes even though I paid
for them, and have not been reimbursed, which is a
violation of the 4th Amendment on seizure of property .

In filing my instant appeal, I also filed a 30 page
"Attachment to Request to Proceed IFP.pdf", which
explains this in detail.  Moreover, I have been out of
work since Feb 1, 2011 - for 11 months - partially due to
the wrongful actions only partly admitted privately, but
not publicly by the Defendants.  According to the IRS, it
costs $4,000 a month to live in my zip code, and my
mortgage/maintenance/taxes come to $3,000, and I get
$1,400 per month in unemployment.  This is clearly a form
of being a pauper: unable to pay for my home, let alone
thousands for a lawyer and for the Court expenses.  When
I asked the Court clerk Anna, who checked with her
supervisor, there are no written standards in the 2nd
Circuit Court of Appeals for what constitutes poverty for
IFP: In Forma Pauperis, which would make that a candidate
for denial of due process if such decisions are made
arbitrarily, and in this, my case without a single reason
given.

For all the above reasons, it is respectfully submitted
that dismissal of my appeal and denial of my motion to
proceed in forma pauperis be heard en banc and both the
dismissal and denial be reversed.







-------------------------
Below are parts of what I submitted in prior years, which
are relevant, I believe to the best of my knowledge and
ability.


To Bill Ford & Geoff Hughes:
I have a question which Mr. Hamm of PWC says he doesn't
know the answer to.  Would there be any financial impact
to
AXP's financial statements / stock price if Amex fired
both
the GC and the President for violating SOX?
Mr. Hammm is only concerned with violations that have a
financial impact, if I understand him right.

I'd appreciate a rough estimate.  I feel it would;
specifically,
[A]the stock price could go up, since Amex is showing
Amex
is ethical and let its wrongdoers go, or
[B]the stock price may go down since it sat on this
news for 4 years.

I can give you my previous sworn statement and the Amex
Code of 2010, and of 2005-2006.
/s/ Peter Lindner



Ward Hamm, Amex Liaison Auditor
Price Waterhouse Coopers
Chairman's Office - US Firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
300 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, New York 10017

Voice:    (646) 471 4000
     RE: is there a financial impact if Amex's President
     and General Counsel were let go as a result of SEC /
     SOX violations?

Dear Ward,

     Thanks for calling me back this afternoon and
talking
to me for over an hour about the allegation I made that
Amex (American Express) filed a false or misleading
statement with the SEC namely that the Amex Code of
Conduct (which was filed as per Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) law
of
2002) was not being followed for the Amex (AXP) Banking
President Ash Gupta, nor by  the General Counsel's
Office.


     You stated you had no idea if there are any
financial
impacts if Amex's President and General Counsel (GC) were
let go as a result of SEC / SOX violations.  To me, since
you (PWC) certified that you followed the
PCOAB [see footnote 1] standards, and since the PCOAB
follows SOX and SOX mandates that if a

     [Footnote 1: Google begins by saying:
     'Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
     The PCAOB is a private-sector, non-profit
corporation,
      created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to oversee the
     auditors of companies in order to protect the...'


http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-
     8&rlz=1T4WZPG_en___US427&q=PCOAB

     and the PCAOB writes the audits are to 'protect the
interests of investors and further the public interest' :

          'The PCAOB is a nonprofit corporation
established
            by Congress to oversee the audits of public
           companies in order to protect the
           interests of investors and further the public
           interest in the preparation of informative,
           accurate and independent audit reports.

          The PCAOB also oversees the audits of broker-
          dealers, including compliance reports filed
          pursuant to federal securities laws, to promote
          investor protection.'
           [emphasis added]
           http://pcaobus.org/Pages/default.aspx

          I am not only an investor, but also an employee
          Shareholder, as are tens of thousands of Amex
         employee Shareholders.
        [END of Footnote 1]

company has a ethics code or code of conduct, it must
file
it with the SEC and can exempt certain classes of people
from said code, therefore it seems clear that to have
Amex
 file a misleading code of conduct ('Code')
(CEO Ken Chenault wrote that no one is exempt from the
Code) would have a serious financial implication.
 Specifically, since Qing Lin admitted under
oath in January 2009 that he violated 13 of the June 2000
Amex-Lindner contract signed by Amex's GC, Ash Gupta, and
me, and since Jason Brown, Esq. of the Amex GC said to me
in Feb2006 that Qing [breached the contract
where 13 says Qing is among 7 people not allowed to give
 'any information' about me to prospective employers ]
told
my prospective employer that 'I don't think Peter Lindner
 can work here,', therefore both of them breached the
Amex
Code by not reporting to their manager any past /
present / future potential violations of the code or of
the
 law.

	If either Qing or Jason had done so, then their GC
and Ash Gupta would have been aware in February 2006 or
as
early as March 2005 or as late as January 2009 that Qing
had breached the contract signed by his direct
manager, Ash Gupta in June2000.  And as managers, under
the
 Code, they would forward this information to the
Secretary
 of the Corporation.

Given that I asked CEO Ken Chenault in the Shareholder's
meeting in both April 2009 and April 2010 about the Qing
incident, and Ken evaded the question by saying he
believed
in the integrity of the Amex employees and in
the management of Corporate Secretary Stephen Norman
 (transcripts available), it seems to defy credulity that
 Ken would have been unaware of Qing's misdeeds and also
of
Qing's departure for competitor Chase Manhattan some 2
 weeks after I asked that question in April 2009.
And Ken could have taken the April 2010 re-asking to
amend
his statement to say that almost all of the Amex
employees
had integrity, but two of those 5 I had
mentioned had breached the Code, and possibly Title VII
of
 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and possibly defamed me by
 making an untrue statement about me to a 3rd party.  It
was untrue what Qing said, since I am allowed to work
'here' at American Express as a contractor or as an
employee of a vendor.

Now, Banking President Ash Gupta signs many documents,
including financial instruments, such as Bond issuances
for
 Amex, Centurion Bank (I believe) and other
certifications,
 as well as signing the June 2000 Amex-Lindner contract,
where his name is mentioned I think ten times.

So, I would think it prudent to suspend Ash from signing
 his name to any Amex promissory document, given that
Amex
did not mind when the June 2000 Amex-Lindner contract was
violated by his direct employee, and Ash knew
about it for months or years and did nothing, and covered
it up with the able help of the General Counsel's Office.

So, we come now to the question:  Given that the Amex
Code
was violated by at least Amex VP Jason Brown, Esq. of the
General Counsel's office and by Qing who managed 100
people
in Risk Management at Amex prior to
leaving in May 2009, wouldn't it make sense for their
 bosses to be held responsible for what they knew and
when
 they knew it?  And if they knew about it for months or
 years, wouldn't it make sense to accept/demand their
resignation, along with putting into place new strictures
so that this doesn't happen again?  And given that you at
PWC (as well as the SEC) has this information as a sworn
 statement from me for multiple weeks prior to the
Amex 9am Monday May 2, 2011 Annual Shareholder Meeting,
wouldn't it be appropriate at that time to retract your
unqualified approval of Amex's financial and SEC filed
documents, and state that you have information that
casts doubts upon Ken's certification that SOX was
complied
 with in FY 2010?

Sincerely yours,


Peter W. Lindner
1 Irving Place, Apt. G-23-C
NY, NY 10003
home/fax: 212-979-9647
cell:     917-207-4962
email: nyc10003@nyc.rr.com

cc:    cfletters@sec.gov
       Bill Ford, registered broker (I believe)
       Geoff Hughes, Wachovia / Wells Fargo branch mgr &
my
        broker
        Joe Sacca, Esq. Skadden


STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Sworn as true on the __________  day of __________, 2010
by


__________________________________
Peter W. Lindner




From: Peter main email
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 5:19 PM
To: ward.hamm@pwc.com
Cc: Joseph N Sacca ; cfletter@sec.gov
Subject: American Express - do violations of SOX count as
having impact on auditor's okay of Financial Stmts, incl
certification by CEO of SOX compliance

Ward:

Here's my notarized sworn statement that I'm asking my
two (past & present) brokers about the financial impact
of an auditor disregarding Sarbanes Oxley violations by
the Banking President and General Counsel, since that may
not necessarily have an impact on the financial aspect
(share price, net worth) of American Express.
I think if President Clinton can be impeached for lying
under oath about a consensual sexual affair that had
nothing to do with the government (except the making a
sworn statement), then I think Ash, Jason, the General
Counsel can all be fired for covering up and not
reporting for several months or years a known violation
of both the SEC filed Code of Conduct under SOX, and of a
contract signed by Banking President Ash Gupta and me and
the General Counsel's office in June2000.

In the credit card / banking industry, the whole concept
is reliance upon one's word (e.g. Amex keeps track of a
cardmember's promise to pay, and if the payment does not
come in on time as the c/m promised - the check will be
sent for $100 in two weeks - then Amex gives a negative
mark on the c/m's history internally), then should not I
be able to trust the word and then signature of both Amex
and of Ash Gupta? And given that they (and I and CEO Ken
Chenault and the GC) all signed the Code several times
over their years at Amex, shouldn't they have acted in
accordance with that dictate of the 2005/2006 Amex code
which requires employees to report potential past /
present / future violations of the Code or of the law to
their manager, who in turn would report it to the
Secretary of the Corporation?

To me, this is a big deal. And if PWC decides that it is
okay for the Banking President to disregard the June 2000
contract he signed with me, and disregard the Code which
he signed maybe a half dozen times in 15 years and which
he instructed his staff on the meaning of the Code as
well as handled alleged violations of such code, then how
can PWC say that Ash Gupta's signature is valid on
promissory notes issued by Amex and on certifications to
the SEC?
And since you included that CEO Ken Chenault certified
SOX compliance in the annual report filed with the SEC,
and
*	it is clear now that
o	Ash,
o	Ken,
o	Jason and
o	the GC
*	all knew that
o	Qing violated the Code in 2005 and admitted it
under oath in Court in January 2009, and that
o	the GC's Jason Brown, Esq.
?	knew of this in Feb2006 and
?	told me that orally then,
?	but denied it in an email to me the next
day,
?	only to admit it under oath later in
Jan2009,
*	and that Ken was apprised of that breach / violation
in detail with specific names and facts in the
Annual Shareholder's Meeting in
o	April 2009
o	April 2010
*	and that Ken refused to amend his misleading April
2009 statement in the 2010 meeting
o	which is SEC sanctioned event
?	broadcast over the web
?	with transcripts available on the web and
by Thomson StreetEvents
o	and where financial details for the previous
fiscal year are highlighted and amended
don't you think that this is significant and a cover up
and perhaps could cause not only Qing to leave Amex (as
he did in May2009, 2 weeks after the Apr2009 meeting
where I mentioned his name - a coincidence?)?
I feel it's not often that a GC will sign a contract,
sign a code of conduct, and be told in Jul2005 and again
in Feb2006 of a violation of said Code and said Contract,
and then help cover it up in an official summary in April
2006 to me (and perhaps to Secretary of the Corporation
Stephen Norman), and not admit it until forced to under
oath in Jan2009. I feel it is rare that Skadden would
violate NY Judiciary section 487 by having an 'intent to
deceive' a Court by falsely writing and saying that Amex
did not interfere with me communicating to the SEC prior
to 2009, when in fact their co-counsel Jean Park of
Kelley Drye Warren authored such a document and enforced
it in April 2007 under pain of me being in contempt of
court until this alleged oral agreement was overturned by
federal USDJ Koeltl in May 2007 (documents and
transcripts upon request-although Amex has gotten a Court
ORDER to stop me from possessing those documents or
showing them to anyone under pain of Contempt of Court).
So, we have here KDW and Skadden having 'intent to
deceive' the Court (allegedly) which is a criminal
misdemeanor which can cause them to be disbarred in SDNY,
which would result in being disbarred in NY State, and
which could win me treble damages in a separate suit in
NY State, and Qing breaching the Code and the Contract
signed by his boss for the 4-5 years from 2005-2009, and
CEO Ken filing a misleading certification with the SEC
that SOX was complied with in 2010. I think this really
has financial impact, especially if any of these people
I've named lose their tenure, bonuses, jobs or pensions.
But I'm not a lawyer.
The case is 06cv3834 Lindner v American Express and Qing
Lin.
Regards,

Peter Lindner
1 Irving Place, Apt,G-23-C
NYC, NY 10003
home/fax: 212-979-9647
cell: 917-207-4962
email: nyc10003@nyc.rr.com

  The matter concerns:
"SEC Form DEF 14A is most commonly used in
conjunction with an annual meeting proxy. The form
should provide security holders with sufficient
information to allow them to make an informed vote
at an upcoming security holders' meeting or to
authorize a proxy to vote on their behalf. It
includes information about the date, time and place
of the meeting of security holders; revocability of
proxy; dissenter's right of appraisal; persons
making the solicitation; direct or indirect interest
of certain persons in matters to be acted upon;
modification or exchange of securities; financial
statements; voting procedures; and other details."
 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/SEC-Form-DEF-
14A.asp#axzz1kTQ34pbJ

  This is footnoted in
http://www.sec.gov/interps/legal/cfslb14a.htm
to refer to:
*	"See Amendments to Rules on Shareholder Proposals,
Exchange Act Release No. 40018 (May 21, 1998)"
which says that it is not "day-to-day business matters"
if Shareholder proposals focus "on sufficiently
significant social policy issues (e.g., significant
discrimination matters)".  My Shareholder Proposal
(Attachment #____) is based on discrimination under EEOC
rules and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-40018.htm
"However, proposals relating to such matters but
focusing on sufficiently significant social policy
issues (e.g., significant discrimination matters)
generally would not be considered to be excludable,
because the proposals would transcend the day-to-day
business matters and raise policy issues so
significant that it would be appropriate for a
shareholder vote."

  It is in the transcript as:
"I'm not sure whether he can be used on an AXP"
where  AXP is the NYSE symbol for American Express
[TR 201, lines 20-21, 14:58:01,
  The video tape is important to show how Ms. Park stops
Brown from answering the question by me by repeatedly
interrupting me and then calling me a "time waster" six
times, but Mr. Brown says:
"		18         Q.     You have the part which is
indented
19   where it has a quote.  I'm talking about
17:39:11 	20   Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.  Can you read that
          21   sentence?
22         A.     "I'm not sure whether he can
be used
          23   on an AXP."
24         Q.     Why did you not include that
in your
0340
 	1                      J.K. Brown
 	2   letter?
 	3         A.     Why did I not include this in
my
 	4   letter to you?  Is that what you're asking
me?
17:39:25  	5         Q.     Yes.
 	6         A.     There was no reason for me to
 	7   include it."
[TR 339 Lines 18-24 to TR 340 lines 2-7, January 22,
2009, 10:34 a.m., deposition of Jason K. Brown]

EX-99.CODE ETH

PRELIMINARY COPY, SUBJECT TO COMPLETION
DATED JANUARY 25, 2012
PROXY STATEMENT OF PETER LINDNER
IN CONNECTION WITH THE
2012 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS OF
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY

INTRODUCTION

 This Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") and the
accompanying form of Proxy are being furnished by
Peter Lindner ("Mr. Lindner") to the stockholders (the
"Stockholders") of American Express Company (the
"Company" or "Amex") in connection with his
solicitation of proxies to be voted at the Company's
2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the
"Annual Meeting"). The Company has announced that the
Annual Meeting will be held on ______, 2012, at 10:00
a.m. Eastern Time local time at:

American Express Company
200 Vesey Street, 26th floor
New York, New York 10285

This Proxy Statement and form of Proxy was to be
mailed to Shareholders by Amex.  However, this was
defeated was / is being appealed by Mr. Lindner
January 25, 2012 at the US Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit with docket number is 11-3594-cv.

Mr. Lindner was informed by the 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals in a letter dated January 11, 2012 that his
appeal has been denied and has 2 weeks to appeal this
en banc.  Thus, this document was created in the past
2 weeks, for which Mr. Lindner apologizes for its
rough format.

AMERICAN EXPRESS DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES

This filing references both a video and a website for
deep background.

The 40-second long video is on YouTube and has closed
captions:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XmxONWPEM

And the website is, which has the full transcript of
the video, plus many of  the background documents
(about 15 documents) to this Shareholder Proposal to
create an Amex Truth Commission to deal with EEOC
("Equal Employment  Opportunities Commission")
matters, that is to say, significant matters regarding
discrimination:

www.amexethics.blogspot.com  (temporarily not active)


This Shareholder Proposal is about discrimination
against gay employees by predatory managers,
presumably closeted gays.  Moreover, while the public
may  be outraged at a woman being sexual harassed by a
male manager, there is less  outrage when a male is
sexual harassed by a male manager, as was the
situation with Mr. Lindner in American Express in
1998.  However, this Shareholder  Proposal is NOT
about that discrimination and sexual harassment,
important  though it may be, but about

1)	Amex's 7 year cover-up of the retaliation by (now
former) Amex's Senior Vice President Qing Lin who
reported to Ash Gupta, now the President of Banking at
Amex, not only in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, but

2)	also Qing's breach of the Amex Code of Conduct,
and additionally the June 2000 Amex-Lindner
Contract.

3)	And possibly the NY State and NYC Human Rights
laws.  (Mr. Lindner is not a lawyer, but is
currently representing himself pro se.)

The June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract was to have ended
the sexual harassment incident for both sides some 10
years ago, only to have Qing breach the
agreement's paragraph 12 and paragraph 13 (text below)
by telling a prospective employer  several statements
about Mr. Lindner, including one of which was
admitted  under oath in January 2009 with documentary
backup that "I don't think Peter  Lindner can work at
American Express".  Paragraph 13 of the June 2000
Amex- Lindner Contract names 7 people, including Qing
and Ash, from giving "any information" to prospective
employers and referring questions by them to Human
Resources.  Amex was informed in July 2005, and that
key phrase was uncovered in a February 2006
investigation initiated by Secretary of the
Corporation Stephen Norman, Esq.  Yet, despite the
investigator Jason Brown,  Esq. of Amex's
General Counsel's Office being alerted by Mr. Lindner,
Mr.  Brown did not include that quote in his second
and supposedly final report,  nor did Mr. Brown
notify his superiors and Qing's manager (Ash Gupta,
now the  President of Banking at Amex) that Qing
breached the written June 2000 Amex- Lindner
Contract; by not informing their superiors, Jason
Brown and Qing Lin  both violated the Amex Code of
Conduct.

To have CEO Ken Chenault, Esq. say at the April 2009
Amex Shareholder meeting in response to Mr. Lindner's
Shareholder Proposal on revising the Code of
Conduct so that it works, Mr. Chenault (again in Mr.
Lindner's layman's opinion) misled the Amex
Shareholders, which is a violation of the rules of
the SEC, possibly:

"Rule 14a-8(i)(3)
The proposal or supporting statement is contrary to
any of the Commission's proxy rules, including rule
14a-9, which prohibits materially false or misleading
statements in proxy soliciting materials."

Mr. Lindner has written to CEO Ken Chenault, Esq. a
month in advance of the Shareholder's April 26, 2010
meeting to allow him to investigate and respond
to these matters which have been dragging on for now 5
years.  Mr. Chenault, through his lawyer refused to
respond, terming it a "special treatment" (by
Secretary of the Corporation Carol Schwartz, Esq.) and
also "preferential treatment":

"You are seeking preferential treatment and, as you
previously have been advised in writing, you will not
be furnished with responses (either directly or via
the Company's website) prior to the Annual Meeting."
[April 14, 2010 and Apr 20, 2010, at 2:07 PM, email by
Daniel E Stoller, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP]

FULL TEXT OF PARAGRAPHS 12-13 OF THE JUNE 2000 AMEX-
LINDNER CONTRACT

The following is the full text of the two paragraphs
numbered 12 and 13 of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner
Contract signed by Mr. Lindner and Ash Gupta, now the
President of Banking at Amex.  Please note that
a)	in Paragraph 12, no one in Amex should give
information about Peter Lindner to prospective
employers except for Mr. Lindner's "dates of
employment, positions held and final salary"
b)	in Paragraph 13, a tighter restriction is made
upon 7 Amex employees including Qing Lin and Ash Gupta
in that they can not give "any information" and must
"direct all requests for references" to Human
Resources ("HR"):

"12.	The Company, Ash Gupta and Richard Tambor
represent and agree not to disclose to any party
outside of the Company any of the facts and
circumstances leading up to Mr. Lindner's termination;
or leading up to this Agreement, except on a need to
know basis for a legitimate business purpose.
Further, the Company, Gupta and Tambor agree to keep
the terms and facts of this Agreement confidential
except that they may disclose the terms of this
Agreement and the facts of this Agreement on a need to
know basis for a legitimate business purpose.  The
Company further agrees that it will disclose only Mr.
Linder's dates of employment, positions held and
final salary in response to any inquiries or requests
for references regarding Mr. Lindner.

13.	The Company agrees to instruct and direct the
following Company employees not to disclose any
information regarding Mr. Lindner's  employment or
termination of employment from the Company to any
person  outside of the Company and to direct all
requests for references or  inquiries received by such
employees regarding Mr. Lindner to the  appropriate
human resources individual(s):  Ash Gupta, Qing Lin,
Daniel  Almenara, Raymond Joabar, Wei Chen, Claudia
Rose and Richad Tambor."

 REASON FOR SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL AND MR. LINDNER'S RUN
FOR DIRECTOR

 Mr. Lindner was to have been soliciting proxies from
fellow Stockholders and  fellow  former Employees to
elect Mr. Lindner to the Board of Directors of  the
Company (the "Board") at the Annual Meeting.  Mr.
Lindner is asking   Stockholders to enact a
Shareholder Proposal (the "Proposal") on  revising
Amex's Code of Conduct (the "Code"). Sometimes (and
Mr.  Lindner has been  wrong about this in the past),
there is a new wave  sweeping across the  country for
a revision of ethics. Mr. Lindner  wishes Amex to lead
the  country in having a good code of conduct,  rather
than have incidents occur  periodically that cause
pain,  embarrassment, and social/financial disorder -
which has happened in  the US Congress and in
companies such as Enron.

Please note that in 2009, Amex told the SEC that this
proposal is "ordinary  business" and thus should not
be voted on by the Shareholders. This is  quite
untrue, since it is a rarity for any body (government
or  corporation) to ask for the Truth and give a
blanket amnesty for  telling it. And then firing those
who do not tell the truth.  Well,  lesser forms of
punishment for lesser infractions.


This year Amex fought Mr. Lindner's Shareholder
Proposal by claiming it was   too  late, even though
last year in 2009, Amex's lawyers had an intent to
deceive  the  Court in NY State, which is a criminal
misdemeanor.  Mr.  Lindner makes that  statement
without the assurance of being a lawyer, since  Mr.
Lindner is a  computer programmer.  However, if you
read pages 9-10 of  "Request by Plaintiff  ver f for
release of DVDs and.pdf" which was written  on April
4, 2010, it will  give the legal basis why under NY
Judiciary Law  section 487, an attorney  cannot  make
a false statement to a judge in any  court in NY
State, and that is  included  in the Local Rules of
the Southern  District of New York, 1.5(b)(5) which
applies  the NY Laws to the SDNY.  An  "intent to
deceive the Court" is a criminal  misdemeanor, which
Mr. Lindner  as a non-lawyer assumes to mean
conviction  would  entail the loss of a  license to
practice of the offending lawyer(s).  In the  case of
Peter  Lindner versus American Express and Qing Lin
06cv3834, Amex's  two  lawyers  informed USDJ Koeltl
on 3 separate days that Amex did not stop Mr.  Lindner
from communicating with the SEC prior to 2009, when in
fact Amex tried  and  succeeded in April 2007 to get
SDNY Magistrate Judge Katz to compel Mr.   Lindner
under pain of Contempt of Court to "withdraw" Mr.
Lindner's filings   from  the SEC and to not
communicate with the SEC (among other restrictions,
including  stopping Mr. Lindner from attending the
April 2007 Amex  Shareholder meeting in  NYC).  Those
two lawyers were Mr. Joe Sacca, Esq. of  Skadden,
Arps, Slate,  Meagher & Flom LLP and Ms. Jean Park,
Esq. of Kelley  Drye & Warren LLP.  Some  people say
there is no such thing as bad publicity;  however,
perhaps having an  attorney lie to a court and not
retract their  statements even after repeatedly
informing them of the errors may count as  bad
publicity.


In order to make this document acceptable to
challenges from the SEC  and from Amex, this proxy has
too much additional information, for  which Mr.
Lindner apologizes.


THE TEXT OF THE SHAREHOLDER ETHICS PROPOSAL

Amend Amex's Employee Code of Conduct ("Code") to
include mandatory  penalties for non-compliance on its
provisions, especially with regard to  discrimination
against employees, the precise scope of which shall be
determined after an independent outside compliance
review of the Code  conducted by outside experts and
representatives of Amex's board,  management,
employees and shareholders. This shall include a Truth
Commission, patterned after the Truth Commissions used
in South Africa  to end Apartheid, for instance (which
runs 70 pages).

REQUIRED INFORMATION PURSUANT TO AMERICAN EXPRESS CO.
BY-LAW 2.9:

(i)	(a)  Brief description of business proposal.

Amend Amex's Employee Code of Conduct ("Code") to
include mandatory penalties   for non-compliance, the
precise scope of which shall be determined by a
"Truth  Commission" after an independent outside
compliance review of the  Code  conducted  by outside
experts and representatives of Amex's board,
management, employees  and shareholders.  This is
especially with regard to  EEOC (Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission) cases and alleged
discrimination by Amex.

	(b)  Reasons for bringing such business to the
annual meeting.

Mr. Lindner's discrimination in violation of Title
VII  of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was first alleged
and then admitted by both Qing and by the General
Counsel's Office VP Jason Brown, Esq. in 2009. Amex is
fighting these efforts of Mr. Lindner. Given the
anecdotal evidence show that the Code is breached and
not enforced.  Rather, management regards the Code as
nothing  more than window-dressing for Sarbanes-Oxley
compliance. Especially:  In January  2009, Amex's
employees admitted under oath a breach in March 2007
of an out- of-court settlement regarding gay
discrimination against Mr.  Lindner.  Yet even  with
this knowledge, Amex CEO Ken Chenault told the April
2009 Shareholder  meeting that he has "full confidence
in the Company's code  of conduct and the  integrity
and values of our employees, for Steve who  handled
this from an  administrative channel." [Steve is
Secretary of the  Corporation Stephen  Norman]

	Some two weeks later, the Amex employee who
admitted (in January 2009)   breaching the code (in
March 2007) left Amex for a competitor, and that
employee reported directly to Amex's President of
Banking.  Clearly someone  one  step down from the
President who not only breached an agreement signed
by that  same President and covered it up for 4 years,
well, that's a sign  that the Code  of Conduct is not
working, and that at least two of the  employees
lacked  integrity.

	Moreover, Amex fought putting this Shareholder
Proposal on the Proxy  from 2007 through 2009,
indicating that the Proposal only dealt with ordinary
"business matters", when it was clear to Amex that it
involved "significant  social policy issues (e.g.,
significant discrimination matters)" [see  paragraph
below from SEC Rules]

This lack of adherence to basic principles of conduct
erodes confidence in  the  Company, has affected or
will affect the market price of the Company's  shares,
and warrants attention from the shareholders.  In
other words, this  matter  affects Shareholders as
well as being socially significant, as is  indicated
in  SEC Rule 14(a)(8) on Shareholder Proposals:

"proposals relating to such matters but focusing on
sufficiently significant   social policy issues (e.g.,
significant discrimination matters) generally   would
not be considered to be excludable, because the
proposals would  transcend  the day-to-day business
matters and raise policy issues so  significant that
it  would be appropriate for a shareholder vote."
http://sec.gov/rules/final/34-40018.htm



REASONS FOR BRINGING SUCH BUSINESS TO THE ANNUAL
MEETING

Personal experience and anecdotal evidence and the
apparent lack of remorse by CEO Ken Chenault at the
actions of VP Qing and the General Counsel's Office VP
Jason Brown show that the Code has been  breached and
not enforced. Rather, management (VP and above) regard
the  Code as nothing more than mere Sarbanes-Oxley
(SOX) compliance (see  paragraph below on quotes about
SOX; Amex has filed its Code with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission SEC for many years.)  CEO Chenault
has personally signed that the Code is working, yet if
the Code did not work in stopping Jason Brown for
these past 5-6 years, then how well is it working on
others (eg. Ash Gupta, CEO Chenault, the current and
past heads of the General Counsel's Office, who could
have retrospectively investigated and apologized for
Qing's actions and Brown's coverup in email and in
Court until his testimony was given under oath in
January 2009).  That is not working:  that is a
dysfunctional Code that may work, but surely did not
work in this long protracted case, where Amex did not
even follow its principles of trying to fix things
quickly. This lack of  adherence to basic principles
of conduct erodes confidence in the  Company, has
affected or will affect the market price of the
Company's  shares, and warrants attention from the
shareholders.  Also below  (after quotes) is the
chronology of Amex's (in varying degrees of
successfulness) of preventing this issue from being
discussed with the  Shareholders.


 QUOTES FROM OTHER SOURCES ON SOX AND ETHICS AND SEC

"Sarbanes-Oxley and businesses work together to
increase the overall  integrity and ethics in
business. The act came in the wake of a series  of
corporate financial scandals, including those
affecting Enron, Tyco  International, and WorldCom
(now MCI). The law is named after sponsors  Senator
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G.
Oxley (R- OH). It was approved by the House by a vote
of 423-3 and by the Senate
99-0."
http://www.globalethicsuniversity.com/sarbanes-oxley-
compliance.php



 "The following is a brief list of selected cooperate
governance
rulemaking by the SEC, NYSE and NASDAQ. Companies
covered by these
regulatory bodies are required to:

* Adopt a Code of Ethics applicable to specific
officers

* Adopt a Code of Conduct applicable to all directors,
officers and
employees

* Create an environment that encourages employees to
report violations

* Adopt procedures that allow employees a confidential
and anonymous
process  for submitting   concerns

* Adopt procedures that facilitate the effective
operation of the code

*  Protect individuals from retaliation who report
violations of the
code of  conduct "
http://www.kenexa.com/Solutions/Survey/SarbanesOxleyCo
mpliance.aspx




DETAILS ON AMEX ATTEMPTS TO STOP COMMUNICATIONS TO
SHAREHOLDERS

American Express ("Amex") went to Federal Court to
stop Mr. Lindner
from communicating with shareholders by doing the
following:

1.	Amex got a Federal Judge (a Magistrate Judge) in
the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) to prohibit Mr. Lindner
from attending the
Amex April 2007 Shareholder Meeting.

2.	Amex got the same SDNY Judge to prevent Mr.
Lindner from
communicating with the SEC (Securities and Exchange
Commission).

3.	Amex tried to get Mr. Lindner to get the SEC to
withdraw his  March 2007 SEC preliminary filing
(#0001394849-07-000002) to have a  Shareholder
Proposal and for running for the Amex Board. The SEC
said  that any filing made cannot be retracted, as it
is instantaneously  place on computers all over the
world.

4.	Amex got the Judge to stop Mr. Lindner from
communicating with
the SEC.

5.	Amex got the Judge to have Mr. Lindner remove his
April 2007  website completely, via an ex parte
conference call with the Judge, Mr.  Lindner, and Mr.
Lindner's lawyer (and without Amex).

6.	Amex gave a promise in open court to make a
written contract  outlining these restrictions, but
then got the Judge to allow Amex to  not make the
contract in writing, and then enforce the "verbal"
contract. This is noteworthy, since the written
contract would have  included the terms of the June
2000 Amex-Lindner contract [attached as  PDF - see
page 14 of 16, paragraph 20 - in PACER (a public
access to  the Court system) as Document 17 Filed
12/20/2006], which gave Mr.  Lindner 21 days to show
the terms of the contract to a lawyer, and 7  days
after signing the contract to revoke it. However, by
not putting  the contract in writing, Amex was able to
enforce the contract without  allowing Mr. Lindner to
revoke it or "sign and revoke" the contract.  Amex was
(and still is) represented by the law firm of Kelley
Drye &  Warren LLP.

7.	Amex got the Magistrate Judge to prohibit Mr.
Lindner from asking  questions at the 2007 Meeting.

8.	The April 2007 Meeting passed without Mr.
Lindner's being able to  attend, since it would have
been in Contempt of Court if Mr. Lindner  went to the
Meeting.

9.	Mr. Lindner spent $20,000 in legal fees to get a
higher federal  SDNY Judge (a US District Judge) to
invalidate the restrictions on Mr.  Lindner, with one
major exception: The Court kept the restriction that
Mr. Lindner can not reveal the contents of the
Contract, nor can Mr.  Lindner reveal the transcript
of the "open Court" session where the  alleged oral
agreement is discussed. That transcript
"LindnervAmEx032907.pdf" has been sealed by the
Magistrate Judge at  Amex's request, and remains
sealed.

10.	For the record, the US District Judge ruled that
Amex "failed to  establish ... the existence of a
binding oral settlement agreement."  This is in his 24
page decision of May 31 2007, which is publicly
available on PACER (included here as a PDF, Document
51 Filed  06/05/2007) and should be on the website
mentioned in this Proxy and  Shareholder Proposal
statement. In other words, Amex had no right in  April
2007 to stop Mr. Lindner from filing with the SEC nor
from  attending the April 2007 Shareholders' Meeting.

11.	Amex also attempted (but did not succeed) to stop
Mr. Lindner  from speaking at the upcoming Amex April
2010 Shareholder Meeting.  Amex's reasoning was
"American Express CEO, Kenneth Chenault, presides
over the shareholders meetings and ... Mr. Lindner may
.... either  directly or indirectly, discuss his claims
against Defendants [Amex]  with Mr. Chenault."

12.	But the SDNY Magistrate Judge ruled "The Court
will not place  restrictions on Mr. Lindner's speech
at a shareholders' meeting.  Counsel can be present
and can adverse her client [Mr. Kenneth  Chenault] at
that time. Any communications with the Board of
Directors  must be in writing and sent through
Defendants' counsel. So Ordered.  3/12/09."

13. 	Interestingly enough, Amex claimed in 2007 that
Amex had an oral  agreement to settle Mr. Lindner's
suit and thus Mr. Lindner had  willingly agreed to
these restrictions. However, two years later in  2010
when there clearly was and is no agreement between
Amex and Mr.  Lindner, Amex again attempted to stop
Mr. Lindner from communicating  with the SEC. This
time, the SDNY Magistrate Judge ruled "The Court has
placed no restrictions on Plaintiff's [Mr. Lindner's]
communications  with the SEC. So Ordered.".(attached
as Document 143 Filed 03/23/2009)  This proxy filing
is written in the spirit of that Magistrate Judge's
order that there are "no restrictions" on
communication with the SEC.

14. It is a tough job to bring a shareholder's
proposal. Mr. Lindner is  single (not married) and has
no children, but if either of these  conditions were
not true (e.g. married with children) then Mr. Lindner
would have been discouraged by his spouse or the needs
of his children  from continuing this (4 years and
counting) battle against a  multinational firm, such
is Amex.  This previous statement is  hypothetical,
but still within the realm of reality.

15. Moreover, Mr. Lindner submitted his 500-word
Shareholder Proposal  prior to Jan 1 2009 (see PDF of
letter to Secretary of the Corporation  Stephen Norman
of December 30 2009) where Mr. Lindner states that he
wishes "to cooperate with the Board in making any
changes to the  proposal that would make it amenable
to them" (cover letter, paragraph  1), yet Amex wrote
the SEC that the vagueness (see page 8 of 37 page
letter of Jan 22 2009) of the 500 word Proposal:

"The Proposal at hand is inherently vague and
indefinite because  it fails to define critical terms
or otherwise provide guidance  as to how it should be
implemented. No definition of "outside  experts" is
provided, for example, and no explanation is given as
to how such experts would be selected. Likewise, the
Proposal  contains no elaboration of the process
whereby "representatives  of Amex's board, management,
employees and shareholders" will be  chosen, nor does
it make clear how the distinction between these
overlapping groups will be drawn."

Mr. Lindner was constrained by Amex's bylaws to 500
words, and Mr.  Lindner noted he would make changes.
For the record, this proxy was previously 5,000 words
long (without attachments).

16. 	Amex also stated to the SEC that this Shareholder
Proposal is a  redress of a personal claim. Actually,
it is comparable to saying the  Civil Rights Act of
1964 gives redress of person's right (e.g. Rosa
Parks) to sit on a bus. The issue is true: Mr. Lindner
was wronged,  however, it was not for a mere violation
of Federal Law, but also for  breach of a written
contract. The case with Mr. Lindner is clear-cut in
that if the Amex participants had written a memo, this
alone would have  solved the matter. It took Mr.
Lindner 3 years to get the handwritten  note DEF00370
from Amex's investigating attorney. (Amex has declined
to  release that document.) If the Code of Conduct can
not solve such a  clear case, then it is likely that a
non-contract case would be harder  to prove. So, Mr.
Lindner decided that it was worth his personal
aggravation and a substantial part of his money to
fight the good  fight, which hopefully would uncover
other Amex people who have been  wronged in the past,
and in the future stop others from having to fight
and possibly lose this same battle (and possibly
losing for lack of  resources: money, psychological
support, ability to write, to use the  PC and fear of
being ostracized).  For the record, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 was designed to help  African-Americans,
but was changed to help women and whites, too (see
Wikipedia).   Mr. Lindner is white, but that law was
used to help him,  since title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 says "employee" covers  former employees
also, as ruled by a unanimous 1997 Supreme Court
ruling.   Mr. Lindner notes for the record that  Mr.
Lindner can walk  unassisted, yet slots cut into
sidewalks to allow wheelchairs may yet  one day help
me.  Doing the right thing for a small class of
people,  can sometimes help a much larger class of
people in the future.  Or to  use the more eloquent
phrasing of Cardinal Roger Mahony in 1998  [original
source perhaps Gandhi?]

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of
how it treats  its weakest members -- the last, the
least, the littlest."

17. Amex complained to the Court that Mr. Lindner was
speaking to the  Secretary of the Corporation Stephen
Norman about being on the Board,  and got the
Magistrate Judge to threaten to dismiss Mr. Lindner's
suit  (attached Pacer Document 133 Filed 03/05/2009)
if this happens again.  The Judge refers to an order
of Nov 21 2008 (attached Document 93 Filed
11/21/2008), which bars Mr. Lindner from contacting
Ms. Park's client,  which has now expanded from Qing
Lin and Amex, to any employee of  American Express.

18. Look at all the documentation this proxy
references just to make a  point: that Amex breached a
written agreement, as well as violating a  federal law
(EEOC), and fought against admitting it for several
years  and tens of thousands of dollars, with 30 page
letters and a hundred  court exhibits (yes, there are
more).  This proxy is technical and 27 pages long, and
has approximately ten attachments of varying
complexity  and subtlety.

19. In the interim, Amex and Lindner have / had been
in settlement discussions which Mr. Lindner felt were
improperly conducted against his explicit
instructions, and Mr. Lindner sought to overturn that
out-of-court settlement, and is still trying to do so
by putting the proffered money from Amex in an escrow
account.  Simultaneously, Mr. Lindner has been
fighting to get Amex to revise the Code of Conduct
either through a Shareholder Proposal or via
discussions, which Amex refused (repeatedly) to do.
Given that the signer of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner
Contract was the General Counsel's Office and that
they have known of the violation for almost 5 years
and have not dismissed the person Jason Brown, Esq.
who covered it up (as of this writer's knowledge on
Jan2012), it is clear that Amex would rather fight
than switch.  I suggest as in the Arab spring, it
would be preferable for Amex governance to change its
repressive laws than to stifle dissent.

20.  Conclusion: Thus, the Amex Code ought to be
revised to make it easier for someone to correct an
injustice, rather than expend all this  energy to win
a matter that the Amex employees themselves have
admitted  breaches of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner
contract.


WHY YOU SHOULD ADD LINDNER TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS -
NOW PROBABLY MOOT

*Unfortunately, for Mr. Lindner, Amex has won in April
2009 and April 2010  from  keeping Mr. Lindner's proxy
for the Board of Directors and for Mr.  Lindner's
Shareholder Proposal from being seen by the Amex
Shareholders and  even the Amex  employees who own
Amex stock via their retirement plans at  Amex.
However, should the Courts stop Amex from conducting
the voting, Mr.  Lindner possibly may  be allowed to
run this year, which is unlikely.  This  matter was
dealt with in  April 2010 in the SDNY lawsuit Lindner
v American  Express 10cv2267, which would have had an
Order to Show Cause (OSC) and a  Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) to have Mr. Lindner's Shareholder Proposal
on the proxy, mainly because the  previous year (April
2009) Amex allegedly  violated NY State Law (NY
Judiciary  Law section 487) and SDNY Local Rules in
intending to deceive the Court.

* In Mr. Lindner's opinion, the current Code is
beautiful to look at,  but not worth much in
operational terms. Mr. Lindner believes there is  no
stronger message that can be sent to The Company's
Board and  management this year than dual approval of
a shareholder resolution to  fix the Code and to
install Mr. Lindner to ensure that this task is  done.



WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THE LINDNER SHAREHOLDER ETHICS
PROPOSAL

* Sometimes transparency in words and deeds can have
unexpected morale  and financial benefits. Your clear
message in this election will  directly assist Mr.
Lindner in convincing the directors that a change  in
the Code is long overdue. Mr. Lindner believes this
will be the  shortest path to the restoration of
shareholder value and the  realization of The
Company's promise of ethical behavior. Amex trusts
its customers to give their word and stand by it, and
billions of  dollars are made on that premise. It
would be hypocrisy at best for  Amex to give its word,
yet not carry it out.

*Mr. Lindner has first hand knowledge of The Company's
technology and  of its operations and its culture. Mr.
Lindner has spent nine years  working at American
Express, Travel Related Services (TRS), and Amex
Bank. Much more detail is on the website:

www.AmexEthics.blogspot.com

(It stands for having an Amex Code of Conduct,
relating to the ethics of its  employees, be
established via an Amex Truth commission - the
shareholder  proposal to investigate whether Amex has
a few or has many incidents of where  the Amex Code of
Conduct has been violated.)


*

WHY THIS DOCUMENT A "PRRN14A' REVISION RATHER THAN A
'PREC14A" INITIAL FILING

This document was originally filed 2009-05-14 and is
only being amended now  in  2010.  That is the subject
of the Amex Court case 10cv2267, which is  described
elsewhere in this document.  Here is the definition of
the form

*

THIS SOLICITATION IS BEING MADE BY MR. LINDNER AND NOT
ON BEHALF OF THE
BOARD

Mr. Lindner is a former Senior Manager of the Company.
He is an  experienced computer programmer, modeler,
database marking specialist -  and is literate.

PLEASE DISREGARD ANY PROXY CARD YOU RECEIVE FROM THE
COMPANY.  MR.  LINDNER ENCOURAGES YOU TO RETURN ONLY
THE ENCLOSED [Tan? COLOR??] PROXY  CARD.
RECOMMENDATIONS IF LINDNER IS ELECTED

If elected, Mr. Lindner plans to make the following
recommendations to  the Board, which Mr. Lindner
believes are in the best interests of the  Company and
its Stockholders:

* Work closely with the various stakeholders at Amex -
the  shareholders, the employees, the customers and
the vendors - to get  reasonable solutions to the
ethical demands in a modern business.  Ethics is the
fancy way of saying doing right when personal gains
may  say to choose a different path. Lies,  pandering,
obfuscation,  hypocrisy - why these are the very
things that the Securities and  Exchange Acts sought
to get rid of in the 1930's, and from those
beginnings, a strong NY Stock Exchange was created, to
the envy of the  world. We can make money and not lose
our morality or ethics. Mr.  Lindner is actually
saying that perhaps we will make more money with
ethical conduct than by not having ethics.

* Thoroughly investigate all instances of ethical
quandaries faced by  Amex over the last fifteen years.
Some people say there is nothing to  be done, but Mr.
Lindner says that others have faced greater problems
than dealing with the ethics of an already pretty good
company. Getting  rid of slavery for one (okay, that
was 150 years ago), resolving death  squads and
apartheid by having Truth Commissions, handling sexual
improprieties in the US Congress, balancing the rights
of poor and  wealthy citizens.

Let us go the extra distance and make American
Express's Code of  Conduct a document to be proud of,
which reflects the honest  aspirations of its best
employees, its worthy management and directors,  and
of course its shareholders who care for these concerns
and more.  Mr. Lindner asks for your vote for Director
in Amex's Board and for the  Shareholder Proposal to
revise the Code of Conduct in the coming year  in an
open and honest fashion, using the best minds of not
just Amex's  constituents, but also of scholars,
academics, business leaders and  politicians.

This will be a Code of Conduct that can work in the
21st century. No  more will the powerful Amex fight
just people who are racist and who do  not pay their
bills, but also chide and penalize those who break the
honest standards set by the Company. This will not be
like Enron, where  Ken Lay allowed a transgression by
a "top performer," thus abandoning  his supposed
ethics. The film "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
[2005]" details how this path led to Enron's ruin, and
that of its  hardworking employees, the community, and
many hapless investors.


LETTER TO KEN CHENAULT ASKING FOR AN EXPLANATION

Please see Exhibit 4 for the full text.

TEXT OF VIDEO, OF LENGTH 40 SECONDS

The video is entitled "Peter Lindner on Amex Ethics
(for iPhone)", has closed
captioning, can be watched on an iPhone or on a
Personal Computere and is
located on the web at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XmxONWPEM


"I was sexually harassed by my supervisor Qing Lin at
American Express. When I complained to HR, Qing
arranged to have me fired. I feel that one way to help
fight discrimination is to have a truth commission  at
American Express where it looks into what people have
done and if they tell  the truth, Amex won't punish
them. I'm fighting for my case, but I'm also fighting
for all the other people at  American Express whoever
have been sexually harassed in the last 15 years or
have been discriminated against.

I'm trying to look out for your interests in my
shareholder proposal.


[Text Screen 1 (at 0:06 - 0:13) : ]
In 2000, American Express paid Peter Lindner a
settlement for sexual harassment.

Now he wants its Code of Conduct enforced for all
employees.

[Text Screen 2 (0:35):]

For more information, please visit:

www.amexethics.blogspot.com

or email

AmexEthics@gmail.com
"




EVEN AFTER YOU HAVE SUBMITTED YOUR PROXY, YOU MAY
CHANGE YOUR VOTE AT
ANY TIME BEFORE THE MEETING BY SENDING A DULY EXECUTED
PROXY WITH A
LATER DATE TO _____________________ AT THE ADDRESS ON
THE BACK COVER.

NOMINEE FOR DIRECTOR GENERAL

 The by-laws of the Company provide that the exact
number of directors  shall be fixed by resolution of
the Board. According to public  information, the Board
currently consists of ten members having one- year
terms.


Peter Lindner

DATE OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT OF COMMON SHARES PURCHASED
(P) / SOLD (S)
1990- 1998 800* (P)
2010 1,621	shares worth $66,477.21 (the entire
amount from 1990-1998) was
transferred from Amex to a different brokerage.

*approximately

PETER LINDNER RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE IN
FAVOR OF

PETER LINDNER'S Shareholder Proposal (ALSO KNOWN AS
THE ETHICS PROPOSAL)

LISTED BELOW

AND NOT RETURN THE COMPANY'S PROXY CARD TO THE COMPANY
AND NOT VOTE IN
FAVOR OF THE NOMINEES OF THE COMPANY.

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS PROXY STATEMENT OR THE
ENCLOSED [COLOR??]
PROXY CARD SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO:
_______________________
________________________,
______________________
CALL 1-212-979-9647 ____________

VOTING Based on public information, the Board has
fixed the close of
business on Febuary __, 2010 as the record date for
the determination  of the Stockholders entitled to
notice of and to vote at the Annual  Meeting. Based
the latest available public information, there were
approximately 1,160 million shares of common stock
outstanding on March  2009. The holders of a majority
of such shares, represented in person  or by proxy,
shall constitute a quorum at the Annual Meeting. A
quorum  is necessary before business may be transacted
at the Annual Meeting  except that, even if a quorum
is not present, the Stockholders present  in person or
by proxy shall have the power to adjourn the meeting
from  time to time until a quorum is present. Each
Stockholder entitled to  vote shall have the right to
one vote for each share of common stock  outstanding
in such Stockholder's name. Directors are to be
elected by  a plurality of the votes cast at the
Annual Meeting. With respect to  any other matter that
may properly be brought before the Annual  Meeting,
the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast
by  Stockholders entitled to vote thereon is required
to take action,  unless a greater percentage is
required either by law or by the  Company's
certificate of incorporation or by-laws. In
determining the  number of votes cast with respect to
any voting matter, only those cast  "for" or "withhold
authority" are included. Abstentions will be
considered present and entitled to vote at the Annual
Meeting but will  not be counted as votes cast.
Accordingly, abstentions will have no  effect on the
vote. Similarly, where brokers submit proxies but are
prohibited and thus refrain from exercising
discretionary authority in  voting shares on certain
matters for beneficial owners who have not  provided
voting instructions with respect to such matters
(commonly  referred to as "broker non-votes"), those
shares will be considered  present and entitled to
vote at the Annual Meeting but will not be  counted as
votes cast as to such matters and thus will have no
effect  on the vote. Execution and return of the
enclosed [COLOR??] Proxy Card  will not affect a
Stockholder's right to attend the Annual Meeting and
vote in person. Any Stockholder that executes and
returns a Proxy Card  has the right to revoke it by
giving notice of revocation to the  Secretary of the
Company at any time before the Proxy is voted.

Unless contrary instructions are indicated on the
enclosed [COLOR??]  Proxy Card, all shares of common
stock represented by valid Proxies  received pursuant
to this solicitation (which have not been revoked as
described above) will be voted   (a) in favor of the
Lindner shareholder proposal to revise the Amex Code
of
Conduct and
(b) to vote against a director at the discretion of
the Proxy holder(s),
on such other business as may properly come before the
Annual Meeting,
including any adjournment(s) or postponements(s)
thereof.

 IF YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR PETER LINDNER'S SHAREHOLDER
PROPOSAL, YOU MUST  EXECUTE  AND RETURN THE ENCLOSED
[COLOR??] PROXY CARD AND SHOULD NOT EXECUTE  OR RETURN
THE COMPANY'S PROXY CARD.

 DO NOT RETURN ANY PROXY CARD OTHER THAN THE [COLOR??]
PROXY CARD. IF
YOU RETURN MORE THAN ONE PROXY CARD THERE IS A RISK
THAT YOUR SHARES
WILL NOT BE VOTED AS YOU DESIRE, BECAUSE ONLY THE
LATEST DATED PROXY
CARD YOU SUBMIT COUNTS.

 EVEN AFTER YOU HAVE SUBMITTED YOUR PROXY, YOU MAY
CHANGE YOUR VOTE AT
ANY TIME BEFORE THE MEETING BY SENDING A DULY EXECUTED
PROXY WITH A
LATER DATE TO ______________________ AT THE ADDRESS ON
THE BACK COVER.
IF YOUR SHARES ARE HELD IN THE NAME OF A BROKERAGE
FIRM, BANK OR
NOMINEE ON THE RECORD DATE, ONLY IT CAN VOTE YOUR
SHARES AND ONLY UPON
RECEIPT OF YOUR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS.

PLEASE CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACCOUNT
AND GIVE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YOUR SHARES TO BE VOTED ON THE
[COLOR??] PROXY CARD
FOR PETER LINDNER.

YOUR VOTE AT THIS YEAR'S ANNUAL MEETING IS ESPECIALLY
IMPORTANT.


MR. LINDNER ESTIMATES WITHOUT VERIFICATION FROM AMEX
THAT APPROXIMATELY A  HALF  BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF
AMEX STOCK IS HELD BY AMEX IN TRUST FOR THEIR
EMPLOYEES, AND MR. LINDNER HAS BEEN UNABLE TO IDENTIFY
IF AMEX'S PROXY IN THE  PERSON OF SECRETARY OF THE
CORPORATION CAROL SCHWARTZ, ESQ. WILL VOTE THOSE
SHARES AGAINST MR. LINDNER'S PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD
OSTENSIBLY BENEFIT THOSE  EMPLOYEES AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION BY AMEX.


PLEASE SIGN AND DATE THE ENCLOSED [COLOR??] PROXY CARD
AND RETURN IT IN
THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE PROMPTLY.

INFORMATION CONCERNING PERSONS WHO MAY SOLICIT PROXIES
Under the  applicable regulations of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Mr.  Lindner is deemed to be
a "participant" in our solicitation of proxies.  The
name, business address and principal occupation of
each of Mr.  Lindner appears earlier in this Proxy
Statement.

Except as described in this Proxy Statement, neither
the Participant  nor any of his respective affiliates
or associates (together, the  "Participant
Affiliates"), (i) directly or indirectly beneficially
owns  any securities of the Company or of any
subsidiary of the Company or  (ii) has had any
relationship with the Company in any capacity other
than as a Stockholder, with the exception of the
lawsuit filed in  Federal Court mentioned in the
Shareholder Proposal. Furthermore,  except as
described in this Proxy Statement, neither the
Participant  nor any Participant Affiliate is a party
to any transaction or series  of transactions since
January 1, 2006, or has knowledge of any  currently
proposed transaction or series of transactions, (i) to
which  the Company or any of its subsidiaries was or
is to be a party, (ii) in  which the amount involved
exceeds $60,000, and (iii) in which the  Participant
or Participant Affiliate had or will have, a direct or
indirect material interest. Except as described in
this Proxy  Statement, neither the Participant nor any
Participant Affiliate has  entered into any agreement
or understanding with any person respecting  any (i)
future employment by the Company or its affiliates or
(ii) any  transactions to which the Company or any of
its affiliates will or may  be a party. Except as
described in this Proxy Statement, there are no
contracts, arrangements or understandings by the
Participant or  Participant Affiliates within the past
year with any person with  respect to any capital
stock of the Company.   COST AND METHOD OF
SOLICITATION    Mr. Lindner will bear the cost of this
solicitation. While no precise  estimate of this cost
can be made at the present time, we currently
estimate that we collectively will spend a total of
approximately  $5,000 for our solicitation of proxies,
including expenditures for  attorneys, solicitors and
advertising, printing, transportation and  related
expenses. As of April 1 2010, we have incurred proxy
solicitation expenses and legal expenses of
approximately $10,000.   We expect to seek
reimbursement from the Company for our expenses in
connection with this solicitation. In addition to
soliciting proxies by  mail, proxies may be solicited
in person or by telephone, telecopy, e- mail or the
Internet. We will also reimburse brokers, fiduciaries,
custodians and other nominees, as well as persons
holding stock for  others who have the right to give
voting instructions, for out-of- pocket expenses
incurred in forwarding this Proxy Statement and
related  materials to, and obtaining instructions or
authorizations relating to  such materials from,
beneficial owners of Company capital stock. We  will
pay for the cost of these solicitations, but these
individuals  will receive no additional compensation
for these solicitation  services. We have retained the
proxy solicitation firm of ADP at  customary fees,
plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, to participate
in the solicitation of proxies and revocations, up to
$1,000. We also  have agreed to indemnify
_________________ against certain liabilities  and
expenses.

We estimate that no employees of American Express will
be involved in  the solicitation of proxies on my
behalf, since American Express has  successfully filed
in Federal Court to stop communication between Mr.
Lindner and any employee of American Express, and has
further required  that there be no oral communication
but if there is written  communication, it must be
censored and passed through American  Express's
attorney (the firm of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Certain information regarding common stock held by the
Company's  directors, nominees, management and 5%
stockholders is contained in the  Company's proxy
statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Information concerning the date by which proposals of
security holders  intended to be presented at the next
annual meeting of stockholders of  the Company must be
received by the Company for inclusion in the
Company's proxy statement and form of proxy for that
meeting is also  contained in the Company's proxy
statement and is incorporated herein  by reference. We
assume no responsibility for the accuracy or
completeness of any information contained herein which
is based on, or  incorporated by reference to, the
Company's proxy statement.

PETER LINDNER

[revised January 25, 2012]

IMPORTANT

PLEASE REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT AND THE ENCLOSED MATERIALS
CAREFULLY. YOUR  VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT, NO MATTER HOW
MANY OR HOW FEW SHARES OF COMMON  STOCK YOU OWN.

1. If your shares are registered in your own name,
please sign, date
and mail the enclosed [COLOR??] Proxy Card to
_____________________. in  the postage- paid envelope
provided today.   2. If you have previously signed and
returned a proxy card to American  Express., you have
every right to change your vote. Only your latest
dated card will count. You may revoke any proxy card
already sent to  American Express Inc. by signing,
dating and mailing the enclosed  [COLOR??] Proxy Card
in the postage-paid envelope provided.

Any proxy may be revoked at any time prior to the 2010
Annual Meeting  by sending a new proxy card to
________________________ or the  Secretary of American
Express, Inc., or by voting in person at the 2010
Annual Meeting.   Mr. Lindner notes that last year's
(April 2009) Amex  Shareholder meeting recorded a vote
in excess of 900million against Mr.  Lindner's
Shareholder Proposal to about 2,000 or 3,000 votes in
favor.

3. If your shares are held in the name of a brokerage
firm, bank  nominee or Other institution, only it can
sign a [COLOR??] Proxy Card  with respect to your
shares and only after receiving your specific
instructions. Accordingly, please sign, date and mail
the enclosed  [COLOR??] Proxy Card in the postage-
paid envelope provided, and to  ensure that your
shares are voted, you should also contact the person
responsible for your account and give instructions for
a [COLOR??]  Proxy Card to be issued representing your
shares.

4. After signing the enclosed [COLOR??] Proxy Card do
not sign or  return the Company's proxy card unless
you intend to change your vote,  because only your
latest dated proxy card will be counted.

If you have any questions about giving your proxy or
require
assistance, please call Mr. Lindner at

____________________________ 1-212-979-9647

Moreover, the website mentioned above:
www.AmexEthics.blogspot.com

will have additional documents, evidence, transcripts,
etc, subject  only to what Amex can get the Court to
disallow, as Amex has tried in  the past (and
succeeded in April 2007) to stop Mr. Lindner from both
attending and speaking at the Shareholder Meeting
despite Mr. Lindner  owning about $60,000 of Amex
voting shares, and has tried again this  year as late
as March 2009 to stop Mr. Lindner from speaking at the
April 2009 Annual Shareholders Meeting in NYC(details
above and upon  request).

 IN OPPOSITION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AMERICAN
EXPRESS COMPANY  PROXY FOR THE 2010 ANNUAL MEETING OF
STOCKHOLDERS THIS PROXY IS  SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF
PETER LINDNER

The undersigned hereby appoints Peter Lindner as proxy
for the  undersigned with full power of substitution,
to vote all shares of  beneficial interest of American
Express, Inc. (the "Company") which the  undersigned
is entitled to vote at the Company's 2010 Annual
Meeting of  Stockholders, and any postponements or
adjournments thereof, hereby  revoking all prior
proxies, on the matters set forth below as follows:

 PETER LINDNER RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR SHAREHOLDER
ETHICS PROPOSAL  [perhaps? shareholder proposal number
5]. THIS PROXY WHEN PROPERLY  EXECUTED WILL BE VOTED
IN THE MANNER DIRECTED. IF A CHOICE IS NOT  SPECIFIED,
THE PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR THE NOMINEE LISTED BELOW.

[X] Please mark your votes with X as in this example.

1. To act upon any other matters that may properly
come before the
meeting.

 PLEASE MARK YOUR VOTES (ON REVERSE SIDE), SIGN, DATE
AND RETURN THE
PROXY CARD PROMPTLY USING THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE-PAID
ENVELOPE. Please  sign exactly as your name appears on
this Proxy. When shares are held  by joint tenants,
both should sign. When signing as attorney, executor,
administrator, trustee or guardian, please give your
full title. If a  corporation, please sign in full
corporate name by President or other  authorized
officer. If a partnership, please sign in partnership
name  by the authorized person. Date: April ________,
2010


______________________________

Signature of Stockholder


_______________________________

Signature of Stockholder

Dates Referenced Herein and Documents Incorporated By
Reference This
PREC14A Filing

This is version 1 for January 25, 2012.

Date January 25, 2012




17

EX-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
..


AMERICAN EXPRESS CORPORATION


PETER W. LINDNER, . Case No. 06cv3834 (JGK-THK)
..
Plaintiff, .
..
vs. .
..
New York, New YorkThursday, March 29, 2007

..
and QING LIN, .
..
Defendants. .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


TRANSCRIPT OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
BEFORE THE HONORABLE THEODORE H. KATZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


APPEARANCES:


For the Plaintiff:
Thomas John Luz, Esq.
PEARCE & LUZ, LLP
1500 Broadway, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10036


For the Defendants:
Jean Young Park, Esq.
KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP (NY)
101 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10178


 Jason K. Brown, Esq.
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO.
American Express Tower
200 Vesey Street
New York, New York 10285


Audio Operator:
Electronically Recorded
by Court Personnel


Transcription Company:
Rand Transcript Service
80 Broad Street, Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10004


(212) 504-2919
www.randtranscript.com
Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript
produced by transcription service.



(Proceedings commence.)


THE COURT: -- and the parties in Lindner vs. American
Express, 06-cv-3834 have been here since was it 10 or 11? 10
this morning.


After much discussion, I'm pleased that they've worked
out the terms of an agreement, which we're going to put on the
record now. It's going to be embodied in a writing that I
expect to be executed sometime next week.


Ms. Park is going to take -- you're going to draft the
document and send it to Mr. Luz?


MS. PARK: Yes, Your Honor.


THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Park, do you want to outline
the terms of the agreement?


MS. PARK: Yes, Your Honor. The material terms of the
settlement agreement and relief will include the issuance of -or
settlement payment of xxxxxx to Mr. Lindner, which will
include his attorneys' fees. And this payment will issue on a
1099 basis. To the extent that Mr. Lindner would like his
attorneys' fees of xxxxxx paid in a separate check, we agree
and are amenable to issuing a separate check to Thomas J. Luz,
as attorney for Peter W. Lindner, and a Form 1099 would issue
for that, I believe it's $xxxxx, to Mr. Luz or his firm, as
well as Mr. Lindner.


We would want, obviously, a stipulation of
discontinuance to be filed with the Court within ten days of



Mr. Luz's receipt of a signed agreement and settlement of
payments from American Express and, in exchange for which, we
would like some standard clauses: The agreement to withdraw
any and all pending or other charges; a non-admission
provision; comprehensive release of any and all claims up
through the date of the execution of that release; and a no-
application and no re-employment provision which would include
-- which would prohibit or preclude Mr. Lindner from working
for the company or any of its subsidiaries or affiliated
companies in any capacity, whether as an employee or an
independent contractor or consultant. He would also agree that
we would -- if he became employed in violation of this
provision, that we would have the immediate right to terminate
his employment.


This no-employment and no-application provision would
not preclude Mr. Lindner from working as a consultant for a
company who does business with American Express; it would
simply preclude him from working on any American Express of
American Express affiliate project.


We would also agree -- the company would agree, in
exchange for -- also, we -- I'm sorry.


The company would also require Mr. Lindner's agreement
to irrevocably -- with respect to Mr. Lindner's shareholder
activities -


MR. BROWN: And I'll read this. This is Jason Brown,



counsel for American Express.


That Mr. Lindner, acting alone or in concert, directly
or indirectly, will not submit any shareholder proposal under
Rule 14(a)(8) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or
any other rule under that Act, as amended, or any successor
rule;


He will not under American Express Company's bylaws
nominate himself or anyone else to run for board of directors;


That he cannot bring any item for action before any
meeting of shareholders of American Express Company;


He cannot attend any shareholders meetings;


He cannot engage in any solicitation of proxies under
any regulation or rule of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in opposition to the company's own proxy solicitation;


He cannot request a shareholder list under any
Securities laws, being federal laws or state laws;


He must remove his website regarding his proxies or
any, I guess, shareholder activity and will not in the future
post any such website.


MS. PARK: Or engage in any disparagement of the
company, including disparaging blogs on the internet, in
exchange for which we would agree to provide Mr. Lindner with a
letter addressed to Fisher Jordan, and that letter would
provide:


"Dear Sirs, please be advised that Peter Lindner and



American Express were parties to an agreement whereby American
Express agreed to instruct and direct the following company
employees not to disclose any information regarding Mr.
Lindner's employment or termination of employment from the
company to any person outside of the company, and to direct all
requests for references or inquiries received by such employees
regarding Mr. Lindner to the appropriate human resource
individuals: Qing Lin. To the extent Mr. Lin said anything
about Peter Lindner's employment, other than referring him to
human resources, we regret such statement. Sincerely, American
Express Human Resources."


In addition -


MR. LINDNER: I'm sorry. Can you read that last line
there, the -


THE COURT: To the extent?


MS. PARK: Yes. "To the extent Mr. Lin said anything
about Peter Lindner's employment, other than referring him to
human resources, we regret such statement."


MR. LINDNER: Okay.


MS. PARK: In addition, the company agrees to provide
-- furnish Mr. Lindner with a neutral letter of reference which
will state:


"To whom it may concern: This is to confirm that
Peter W. Lindner was employed by American Express from --"
whatever start date he became employed to whatever date his



termination was -- "as a computer programmer, senior manager.
Mr. Lindner's annual salary at the time of his separation from
the company's employ was 75,000. Sincerely, American Express
Human Resources."


In addition, the company has committed to use its best
efforts to determine whether Qing Lin had any communication
with a -- his name is David Lin?


MR. LUZ: (Unidentified.) Yes.


MS. PARK: David Lin at CitiGroup. Mr. Lindner has
agreed to provide the company, by and through his attorney Tom
Luz, with the CitiGroup telephone numbers and a period of time,
a discreet period of time over which he believes Mr. Lin, Qing
Lin would have spoken with David Lin from CitiGroup.


Mr. Brown has agreed to then inquire of Mr. Lin
whether any such -


MR. BROWN: Which Lin?


MS. PARK: Will inquire of Qing Lin whether any such
communication with David Lin took place and, also, to review
Mr. Lin's telephone records to the extent that such review is
feasible.


In the event that the company determines that a
conversation between Qing Lin and David Lin took place, the
company would so advise Mr. Lindner by and through his attorney
and will agree to issue to David Lin at CitiGroup the following
letter:



"Dear Mr. David Lin: Please be advised that Peter
Lindner and American Express were parties to an agreement
whereby American Express agreed --" should I read the entire
paragraph again?


MR. LUZ: No, I think it's -


MR. BROWN: If it's in the same form as -


THE COURT: It's the same letter as it -


MS. PARK: It's the same letter, same form, that we
would be issuing to Fisher Jordan.


MR. LUZ: That's fine, thank you.


MR. LINDNER: And it might also be to that other
manager whose name just escapes me. I'm sorry.


MS. PARK: No, it -


MR. LINDNER: At CitiGroup.


MS. PARK: No. There's one person and one person only


that is CitiGroup. That is David Lin.
MR. LINDNER: No. It's Alan Katz (phonetic) or Alan -
MR. LUZ: There was one other person that we were
supposed to get you the name of.


MR. LINDNER: Remember? And I said I couldn't find -but
he was the boss so I said, you know, David Lin might have
already acted in violation of the EEOC rules and violated -so,
you know, that's the person that -- I think it's Alan Katz,
but I forget his name.



MS. PARK: So what are we -


MR. LINDNER: You would be writing the identical
letter to the second person.


THE COURT: If he had communication with him.


MR. LINDNER: If he had communicated -- if Qing admits
it or if Qing says it didn't happen and it turns out he did.


THE COURT: So you would be ascertaining whether Qing
Lin had any contact with either David Lin or Alan -


MR. LUZ: Okay. Can we go off the record for one
second?


THE COURT: What's his name?


MR. LINDNER: It might be Alan Kap -- Alan Katz. I
forget.


MR. LUZ: We'll get you the information.


THE COURT: Do you want to -- can you stop the tape
for a minute?


(Recess taken.)


(Proceedings resume.)


MR. LINDNER: Are we on the record again?


THE COURT: Yes.


MS. PARK: We will agree, as per the settlement of
June 2000, we will re-commit to directing and instructing -actually,
we didn't finalize that -- the list of employees. We
will agree to commit to instructing and directing the list of
employees, presumably, Ash Gupta (phonetic), Qing Lin, Jason



Brown, and Harold Schwartz, not to disclose any information
regarding Mr. Lindner's employment or the termination of that
employment, and we will also direct these individuals so listed
to forward any requests for references or inquiries from
prospective employers to human resources.


We will further commit that we will agree only to
disclose Mr. Lindner's dates of employment, positions held, and
final salary in response to any inquiries from prospective
employers.


We will require of Mr. Lindner a commitment to direct
any and all prospective employers and -- whether he's being
looked at as a consultant or a regular employee, any
prospective employer to refer to human resources. And we will
be providing Mr. Lindner with a 1-800 number which we expect
him to agree to use when advising prospective employers of
reference information from American Express.


MR. LINDNER: Can you repeat that because, you know,
I'm not allowed to call that 800 number. I tried calling it
and they don't speak to the employees. They only speak to
employers, and they have to pay money. So -


THE COURT: That's what the requirement is, is that's
the number you're to give the prospective employer.


MR. LINDNER: Yeah. I have no problem giving it. But
I'm -- you know, if they ask about whom, you know, who I work
with, I'm not going to, you know, lie, or I'm not going to



withhold the name of Qing Lin or anything like that.


THE COURT: That was not requested in that provision.


MR. LUZ: That's not part of the -- yeah. That was
never part of the agreement.


MR. LINDNER: Okay. The -


MR. LUZ: Let her finish, please.


MR. LINDNER: Okay. I thought she said that already.


MR. LUZ: Let her finish.


(Counsel confer.)


MS. PARK: The company, finally and further, agrees to
a prevailing party provision which will provide that if the
company breaches in any material aspect the neutral reference
provisions of the agreement, and Mr. Lindner thereafter brings
suit as a result of such material breach and prevails at trial,
the company would agree to pay Mr. Lindner on top of whatever
contract damages he would have a liquidated damage amount of
$xxxxx.


THE COURT: Anything else?


MR. LUZ: Just that the terms that were discussed on
the record, or the language used, may be modified by the
attorneys in writing.


MS. PARK: Well, specifically, with respect to the
cease and desist, the standstill provision, which we need to -


THE COURT: Yeah. There's some detail they need to
get from people who aren't there today, but that will be worked



out with the attorneys.


MS. PARK: Right. But the letters as read into the
record, those are final. The verbiage in the letters to Fisher
Jordan, the neutral reference, that language is final.


THE COURT: Did you also indicate that the terms of
this agreement would be maintained as confidential?


MS. PARK: Yes. There would be -- all the other
standard terms and conditions of the agreement would be -- I
guess of the prior agreement. So there would be the non-
admission; there would be a requirement that the agreement be
kept confidential. I see there's an indemnification provision
and a hold-harmless provision. If the taxing authorities
determine that we have not properly characterized the
settlement payment, we would ask that that indemnification
provision also apply to this agreement.


We would want a no-further-consideration provision and
choice of law provision, State of New York, and -


MR. LUZ: Your Honor, would the Court retain
jurisdiction for enforcement of this agreement?


THE COURT: Well, this is what we're going to do, if
that's what you want. That would have to, I guess, be in the
stipulation of discontinuance. But if you want the agreement
itself to be confidential, then the Court can't really sign the
agreement.


MR. LUZ: But they could drop the confidentiality.



MR. BROWN: That's not going to happen.


MS. PARK: No.


THE COURT: So what you would do is, you know, you
have a confidential settlement agreement, you have a separate
stipulation of discontinuance, and if the parties are agreeable
that any violation of the agreement the Court would retain
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement, that could
be in the stipulation that Judge Koeltl signs, without him
having to sign the actual agreement so you can maintain the
confidentiality of the agreement.


MS. PARK: We would be amenable to that, Your Honor.


MR. LUZ: Okay, good. Thank you.


THE COURT: Anything else?


MR. LUZ: We have -- no.


Your Honor, those are acceptable to us. As Mr. Brown
said, we'll work out the language in the agreement.
THE COURT: Okay. So, Mr. Lindner -(
Counsel confer.)
MR. LUZ: Why don't we see what you draft, and if
there's anybody we think of, we'll add to the list.
THE COURT: So, Mr. Lindner, are these terms
acceptable to you?


MR. LINDNER: Yes. I mean, as you said, both sides
walk away unhappy. I'm certainly unhappy, but I see the merit
in what you said in that it would -- you know, I can get on



with my life.


THE COURT: So you're agreeing to this?


MR. LINDNER: Yes, I am.


THE COURT: Okay. And, Mr. Brown, on behalf of
American Express, you're agreeing to the terms of this
agreement?


MR. BROWN: Yes, Your Honor.


THE COURT: Okay. I'm very happy that after all this
time you were able to work it out, and what I'll tell Judge
Koeltl is that he should expect, hopefully, a stipulation by
the end of next week. And let me know if there's any issues,
okay?


(Proceedings concluded.)


*****


CERTIFICATION


I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript
from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the
above-entitled matter to the best of my knowledge and ability.



(Stamp comment
Cathy Steve
4/3/2007 2:11:38 PM
blank)
______________________________________ April 3, 2007
Cathryn Lynch, N.J. Cert. No. 565
Certified Court Transcriptionist
For Rand Transcript Service, Inc.

EX-2

0001
 1   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 2   SOUTHERN STATE OF NEW YORK
 3   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
     PETER LINDNER,
 4
 5                            Plaintiff, 06 Civ. 3834 (JGK) (THK)
 6                  -against-
 7
 8   AMERICAN EXPRESS,
 9
                              Defendant.
10   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
11                               Federal Courthouse
                                 500 Pearl Street
12
                                 January 15, 2009
13                               10:43 a.m.
14
15             DEPOSITION of QING LIN, a Defendant
16   herein, taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, held
17   pursuant to Court Order, before a Registered
18   Professional Reporter and Notary Public of the State
19   of New York.
20
21
22
23
24
0002
 1   A P P E A R A N C E S :
 2               PETER W. LINDNER
                     One Irving Place #G-23-C
 3                   New York, New York 10003
                 PRO SE
 4
 5
                 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
 6               Attorneys for Defendants
                     101 Park Avenue
 7                   New York, New York 10178
                 BY: JEAN Y. PARK, ESQ.
 8
 9   ALSO PRESENT:
10             Dmitry Zvonkov, Videographer
11
12                            oOo
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0003
 1             IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and
 2   between the attorneys for the respective parties
 3   herein that the sealing, filing and certification of
 4   the within deposition be waived; that such
 5   deposition may be signed and sworn to before any
 6   officer authorized to administer an oath with the
 7   same force and effect as if signed and sworn to
 8   before a Judge of this court.
 9             IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that
10   all objections, except as to form, are reserved to
11   the time of trial.
12
13                            oOo
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0004
 1                            Lin
 2   Q  I N  G    L  I  N,
 3            having been first duly sworn by Marian
 4            Pender O'Neill, a Notary Public of the State
 5            of New York, was examined and testified as
 6            follows:
 7   EXAMINATION BY
 8   MR. LINDNER:
 9             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We are on the
10        record at approximately 10:46 a.m.  This is
11        tape number one in the deposition of Qing
12        Lin In The Matter of Peter Lindner versus
13        American Express, Case Number 06 Civ. 384
14        (JGK) (THK).
15             MS. PARK:  It's 3834, is the actual
16        Civil Action Number.
17             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  It's in the United
18        States District Court, Southern District of
19        New York.  The deposition is being held at
20        500 Pearl Street, on the 9th floor, on
21        January 15, 2009.  My name is Dmitry
22        Zvonkev of Chait Digital and I am the legal
23        video specialist.
24             Will counsel, and all present, please
0005
 1                            Lin
 2        introduce yourselves for the record.
 3             MS. PARK:  Jean Park of Kelly, Drye
 4        and Warren for defendant's American Express
 5        and Qing Lin.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I'm Peter Lindner.  I'm
 7        the plaintiff Pro Se and I represent
 8        myself, no law firm.
 9             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Would the reporter
10        please swear in the witness?
11             THE COURT REPORTER:  Can you raise
12        your right hand, please?
13                       (Whereupon the witness
14                       raises his right hand.)
15             THE COURT REPORTER:  Do you swear the
16        testimony you are about to give is the
17        truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
18        truth, so help you God?
19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Doesn't the deposition
21        (sic) have to identify his name?  Can he --
22             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, start your
23        deposition.
24             MR. LINDNER:  I wish to start the
0006
 1                            Lin
 2        deposition.  We are on the record right
 3        now.
 4             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Put on the
 5        microphone.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I'm sorry.  We are on
 7        the record right now.  We have already
 8        sworn in the witness and the videographer
 9        has stated the case number.  Unfortunately,
10        the case is slightly differently titled.
11        It's Peter Lindner versus American Express
12        and Qing Lin.  Qing Lin is being deposed
13        here today.  The date is January 15th at
14        10:48 a.m. and the court reporter is going
15        to make a copy of the record.  We will
16        begin the questioning now.
17   Q  I N  G    L  I  N,
18            having been first duly sworn by Marian
19            Pender O'Neill, a Notary Public of the State
20            of New York, was examined and testified as
21            follows:
22   EXAMINATION BY
23   MR. LINDNER:
24        Q    So, Mr. Lin, do you know me?
0007
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    How do you know me?
 4        A    You use to be an employee of American
 5   Express and we used to work together.
 6        Q    Can you go in a little further about how
 7   we use to work together?
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9        Q    Can you please explain that statement,
10   about working together?
11             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12             MR. LINDNER:  Objection noted.  Please
13        answer the question.
14             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park?
15             MS. PARK:  Sure.  Well, Mr. Lindner,
16        one of the ground rules is, you are here
17        today for a deposition.  To the extent that
18        you do not understand or require a
19        clarification, with respect to any question
20        that Mr. Lindner asks you, you need to ask
21        Mr. Lindner for that clarification.  From
22        time to time I will make an objection on
23        the record.  That doesn't mean that you
24        shouldn't answer the question.  Go ahead
0008
 1                            Lin
 2        and answer the question, I'm just noting my
 3        objection on the record.  So, unless I
 4        direct you not to answer a question, you
 5        should go ahead and answer.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
 7        A    Peter, could you state your question
 8   again?
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Stenographer, Marian,
10        could you state your name for the record?
11                       Off the record.
12                       (Discussion held off the
13                       record.)
14                       (Record read)
15        A    When you were an employee in CCSG
16   Underwriting team I was the vice-president of CCSG
17   Underwriting.
18        Q    Was that the first time we met?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        A    I do not remember.
21        Q    Do you have an approximate idea of when
22   we met?
23        A    I do not remember.
24        Q    Do you remember when you joined American
0009
 1                            Lin
 2   Express?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Can you tell me when that was?
 5        A    1990, September.
 6        Q    Do you know which day?
 7        A    September 17, 1990.
 8        Q    Do you know what day of the week that
 9   was?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection.  What's the
11        relevance of that?
12             MR. LINDNER:  Objection noted.
13        A    I do not remember.
14        Q    Do you remember who your manager was
15   when you started?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    What was his or her name?
18        A    Debora Stabile.
19        Q    Do you remember what the group was
20   called?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22        A    Score --
23             MR. LINDNER:  S-c-o-r-e.
24        A    -- Development.
0010
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Let me ask a different question.  I
 3   remember Deborah Stabile at American Express.  Did
 4   you work for her at any time?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 6        A    Please clarify your question.  Did I
 7   work for her any time?
 8        Q    Yes, any time in your life?
 9        A    Yes.
10             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.  I have some
11        introductory questions, which I can't find,
12        but, when I do find it, I'm going to --
13        Excuse me, I just found them.
14        Q    So, let me ask this.  I meant to ask it
15   earlier.  I'm new at this.  I've done this before
16   actually.  I have done this ten years ago but if
17   you don't ask me to rephrase a question I ask,
18   then for all future purposes we will know that you
19   understood the question in giving an answer.  Is
20   that clear to you, Qing?
21        A    I understand what you said.
22        Q    Thanks.  It's clear to you; correct?
23        A    Yes.
24             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much,
0011
 1                            Lin
 2        sir.
 3        Q    Now, continuing on on your history.  You
 4   worked for America Express starting in 1990.  What
 5   is your current company?
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Your current
 7        company?
 8        Q    What company do you work for currently?
 9        A    American Express.
10        Q    Do you have the same title now that you
11   had then?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  When he
13        was hired?
14             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
15        A    No.
16        Q    Do you remember what the position is
17   when you were hired, what your title was?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    What is it?
20        A    Manager of Score Development.
21        Q    Did you have people reporting to you as
22   a manager?
23        A    Could you clarify the question?
24        Q    Yes.
0012
 1                            Lin
 2        A    At the time --
 3        Q    When you were hired?
 4        A    When I was hired, no.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you, that's what I
 6        meant.  Thank you very much.  Sometimes I
 7        don't ask the right question.  I don't have
 8        the right form.  Ms. Park, if you could
 9        help me on that, I'd appreciate that.
10        Q    But your title now is different than
11   Manager for Development?  Can you tell me what
12   your current title is?
13        A    Senior Vice-President and Chief Credit
14   Officer of Open.
15        Q    What is the last word?
16        A    Open, O-p-e-n.
17        Q    What's Open?
18        A    Open is a business unit at American
19   Express.
20        Q    Is it an acronym or what?
21        A    No, it is a planned name.
22        Q    O-p-e-n?
23        A    O-p-e-n.
24        Q    Like an open and shut case.  So, are you
0013
 1                            Lin
 2   at liberty to reveal what Open is?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Can you please say what it is?
 5        A    Open is servicing the small business
 6   customers.
 7        Q    Who do you report to?
 8        A    Ash Gupta.
 9        Q    What is his title?
10        A    Chief Risk Officer of American Express
11   and the President of Risk Information and Banking.
12             MR. LINDNER:  Alright, thank you very
13        much.
14        Q    Back when you started working at
15   American Express was Ash Gupta already in American
16   Express?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    Do you know who he worked for or who
19   worked for him?  Was he related to your group?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  That's
21        two questions.  Which one do you want him
22        to answer?
23        Q    You said you remembered that Ash Gupta
24   was in American Express when you arrived on the
0014
 1                            Lin
 2   scene.  That is correct; yes?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    So, when -- Do you know whom -- You said
 5   you reported to Debora Stabile; correct?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    Do you know who she reported to?
 8        A    At the time --
 9        Q    Yes.
10        A    -- when I joined American Express?
11        Q    Correct.
12        A    She reported to Yosha Maha (sic.)
13        Q    Can you spell that name, please?
14        A    No, I do not know how to spell that
15   name, sorry.
16        Q    Can you roughly spell it approximately?
17        A    No.  I only now know how to pronounce
18   the name.  She was the Senior Vice-President.
19        Q    She was a Senior VP and it's a woman?
20        A    It's a woman, yes.
21        Q    Do you know who that woman reported to?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    Who would that be?
24        A    Lou Lombardo.
0015
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Do you know Lou Lombardo's title?
 3        A    I do not remember the exact title.  He
 4   --
 5        Q    Do you remember approximately?  I'm
 6   sorry to cut you off.
 7        A    He was the Executive Vice-President.
 8        Q    Do you know which group of people he
 9   would be in charge of?
10             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, I'm going to
11        object at this point.  There is an Order
12        issued by Magistrate Judge Katz restraining
13        your line of questioning to what is
14        relevant to your claim.  You are now asking
15        Mr. Lin about positions and people nineteen
16        years ago.  There is no relevance to your
17        claims.  Move on.
18             MR. LINDNER:  Objection noted.  Thank
19        you very much, Ms. Park.  I'm asking the
20        question anyhow.
21        Q    Do you know which groups reported to
22   him?
23             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Mr.
24        Lombardo?
0016
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    I'm sorry.  Do you know which groups
 3   that Lou Lombardo was in charge of or controlled
 4   or managed?
 5             MS. PARK:  Back in 1990 when Mr. Lin
 6        was hired?
 7             MR. LINDNER:  Correct.
 8             MS. PARK:  To the best of your
 9        recollection, go ahead and answer.
10        A    I remember Mr. Lombardo is the Executive
11   Vice-President responsible for all Servicing
12   Centers of America Express and Credit Risk
13   Management.
14        Q    So, there are two parts here.  One would
15   be the Servicing Centers, and they were not
16   physically located in New York City, is that
17   correct?  Some of them were but some of them were
18   not?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    Can you tell me where they were located?
21        A    Are you asking an exact address?
22        Q    No, just the city or state?
23        A    New York City.
24        Q    Yes.
0017
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Queensborough, North Carolina.
 3        Q    Yes.
 4        A    Phoenix, Arizona.
 5        Q    Yep.
 6        A    Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and I might
 7   remember Jacksonville Florida.  There could be
 8   other centers I do not remember.
 9        Q    Could another city be Salt Lake City?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    It could be or you think it is?
12        A    I think it is.  I remember, yes.
13             MR. LINDNER:  It is easy to forget
14        things under all this pressure.  I
15        understand.
16        Q    So, he had quite a number of people
17   working for him.  He had, like, literally hundreds
18   of people at four or five different United States,
19   states?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Who is
21        "He?"
22             MR. LINDNER:  Oh, sorry, Mr. Lombardo.
23        Hopefully, the VP was in charge of hundreds
24        of people in several different states?
0018
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  How was Mr. Lin going to
 3        know that.  He was the manager.  How was he
 4        supposed to know what Mr. Lombardo was
 5        supervising?
 6             MR. LINDNER:  He might know.  I'm
 7        asking.
 8        Q    Do you know?
 9        A    Are you making a statement?
10        Q    I'm asking a question.  Do you know if
11   Lou Lombardo had control of servicing people
12   across several different states encompassing
13   hundreds of people?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  I'm
15        also going to repeat, Mr. Lindner, this
16        line of questioning is completely
17        irrelevant to your actions right now.
18             MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is --
19             MS. PARK:  You continue at your own
20        pearl.
21             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.  Your
22        objection is noted.
23        Q    Can you answer the question though,
24   Qing?
0019
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Go ahead and answer it the
 3        best that you can.
 4        A    Your statement is true.
 5        Q    That there are hundreds of people?
 6        A    Maybe more than that.
 7        Q    Maybe thousand?
 8        A    Yes.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.
10        Sometimes it's not the exact address of an
11        operation center.  You know, I don't need
12        the street address.  Sometimes the state or
13        better even a city, you know.  You know,
14        knowing that it's thousands is different
15        than small.
16        Q    So, let me just iterate it here.  That
17   you had a title of manager, and you had no people
18   working under you, and then you reported to Debora
19   Stabile, who was a manager, and then she reported
20   to a woman senior VP, whose name I hope we can
21   figure out, and she reported to Lombardo who was
22   in charge of thousands of people.
23             So, let's see.  If you are the manager,
24   so your third level manager was in charge of
0020
 1                            Lin
 2   thousands of people.  That's pretty high up on the
 3   food chain.  Would you say that's pretty high up
 4   in the organization?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  First
 6        of all, you have grossly mischaracterized
 7        Mr. Lin's testimony.  He didn't testify
 8        that Ms. Stabile was a manager.
 9        Furthermore, he had testified Yosha Maha
10        (sic), whatever, was a manager.  He has
11        testified that she was a senior
12        vice-president and he further testified
13        that Mr. Lombardo was an executive
14        vice-president and I'm going to ask you to
15        move on at this point.  This has no
16        relevancy to your claim --
17             MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that
18        your --
19             MS. PARK:  Move on.  Move on
20        Mr. Lindner.
21             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, you are not
22        controlling this.  If you wish to make an
23        objection you have --
24             MS. PARK:  I've made my objection.
0021
 1                            Lin
 2        Move on.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.  I'm not
 4        going to move on.  I'm doing what I'm
 5        doing.  Please do not interrupt me again or
 6        I'll cite you to the judge for being
 7        obstructionist.
 8             MS. PARK:  Fine, call the judge.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is noted.
10        At the next break you can call the judge.
11        Q    So, Qing, let me see if I get this
12   right.  I put down on my notes here that Debora
13   Stabile was your manager.  Would you agree with
14   that assessment, now having thought about it?
15        A    I'm sorry, what is the question?
16        Q    Was Debora Stabile your manager in 1990,
17   at any point in 1990?
18        A    At the time when I joined American
19   Express she was my manager.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, I think, Ms. Park,
21        your objection was that I
22        mischaracterized --
23             MS. PARK:  You called her a manager.
24        She wasn't a manager.  She was a director.
0022
 1                            Lin
 2             THE WITNESS:  Can I clarify?
 3             MS. PARK:  Sure.
 4             THE WITNESS:  If you are asking me,
 5        "What is Debora Stabile's title?"  I
 6        answered that.  Do you want me to clarify
 7        that?
 8             MS. PARK:  Sure.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  You can, if you want to.
10        That is very nice.
11        A    Deborah Stabile was the vice-president
12   of Score Development.
13        Q    So -- But you used the term manager and
14   you meant it just like you would say, the
15   Secretary of Defense his manager is the president.
16   It's not saying it is a low level job, you are
17   just saying say whom they directly report to?
18        A    So, it would be more accurate to say she
19   was my supervisor.
20        Q    Okay, and I wouldn't say Debora Stabile
21   is a supervisor at American Express, but I get
22   what you mean.
23        A    But in American Express terminology she
24   was my leader.
0023
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    So, your leader was Deborah Stabile,
 3   that's a first level.  Her leader was the senior
 4   VP, who was a woman, that's a second level and her
 5   leader was Lou Lombardo, that's a third level, and
 6   he was the third level leader of you.  In business
 7   school parlance they would say the third level
 8   manager.  Is that correct?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Thank you.  So then three levels up you
11   have a person who is in charge of hundreds and
12   perhaps thousands of people; correct?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    Thank you.  I just want to clarify that.
15   You also said that he was not only in charge of
16   Servicing Centers, Lou Lombardo was also in charge
17   of Risk Management, and that is a different type
18   of animal than the people who work in an Operation
19   Center; is that correct?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  There
21        is no testimony about Operation Center.
22        What do you mean by animal?
23        Q    It's a different type of organization to
24   have an Operation Center than a Risk Management?
0024
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  There
 3        is no testimony about an Operation Center.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Objection noted.
 5        Q    When I said, "Operation Center," I think
 6   you used the term Servicing Center.  Do you
 7   understand what a Servicing Center is, Qing?
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 9        answered.
10        Q    Do you understand what it is?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    Can you explain what the difference
13   between a Servicing Center and an Operation Center
14   is?
15             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16        Q    Qing, do you know what an Operation
17   Center is?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Can you explain the difference between a
20   Servicing Center and an Operation Center?
21        A    There is no difference.  People use
22   these two terms interchangeably.
23             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much,
24        Qing.  Ms. Park, I note for the record you
0025
 1                            Lin
 2        were saying that I was calling it an
 3        Operation Center when it was a Servicing
 4        Center --
 5             MS. PARK:  Move on.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I shall.  -- when those
 7        terms are used synonymously.  You objected
 8        before that I called Debora Stabile a
 9        manager when she was a VP, but in business
10        school parlance that's how it is used.
11        Sometimes these terms are used casually --
12             MS. PARK:  Move on.
13             MR. LINDNER:  I shall move on.  I just
14        need to point out, please, when you make
15        your objections, sometimes I know what I'm
16        talking about, not all the time, but in
17        this case -- in these two cases, I did.
18        Alright?  Thank you very much.
19        Q    So, can you characterize the Risk
20   Management Group and how they differ from, let's
21   say, an Operations Group?
22        A    Could you be more specific?
23        Q    I surely can.  In an Operations Group
24   what do you feel would be the minimum educational
0026
 1                            Lin
 2   requirement to be interviewed or to be accepted
 3   for a job?
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Are you
 5        asking him back in 1990?  Are you asking
 6        his understanding now?
 7             MR. LINDNER:  I'll break it into two
 8        parts.
 9        Q    Back in 1990, as you understand the
10   business, what do you feel the educational
11   background is needed to be in operations at one of
12   the Operation Center?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14        A    Could you clarify your question?  What
15   job in the Servicing Center?
16        Q    Any job.  Any job that is not the type
17   of job that is like a janitorial job.  Any job
18   that is working at a desk.  Can you characterize
19   the educational requirements?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Mr. Lin
21        has just testified he was a manager of
22        Score Development.  How is he supposed to
23        have knowledge back in 1990, of what
24        positions existed for people in the
0027
 1                            Lin
 2        Operations Center.
 3        Q    Mr. Lin, were you aware of what the
 4   people in the Operations Center did in 1990?
 5        A    Could you clarify at what time?  If you
 6   are asking --
 7        Q    In 1990?
 8        A    -- my knowledge now.
 9        Q    In 1990?
10        A    When I joined the company?
11        Q    Yes?
12        A    The first day when I joined the
13   company --
14        Q    First day.
15        A    -- I was not aware of that.
16        Q    How about after a few months?  Were you
17   aware of what the Operations Center did?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Were you aware of the type of people who
20   were there?  Had you met them?  For instance,
21   let's break it into parts, had you met any people
22   in the Operations Center?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    Had you visited an Operation Center at
0028
 1                            Lin
 2   that time?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Did you see what type of jobs the
 5   Operation Center people were doing?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    If you were promoted to do the same job
 8   as they were doing, would you consider that to be
 9   a good promotion or a bad promotion?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11             MR. LINDNER:  Noted.
12        A    Could you please specify what job in the
13   Operation Center.  There are different level of
14   jobs.  There are a wide range of jobs.  So, I
15   cannot answer a general question about thousands
16   of jobs in the Operation Center.
17        Q    Oh, that's true.  But maybe we can break
18   it down into pieces.  I always talk about the
19   algorithm Divide and Conquer.  Are you familiar
20   with the divide and Conquer Algorithm in Computer
21   Science, Qing?
22        A    No.
23        Q    Well, it's basically, you break
24   something down into pieces and then you try to
0029
 1                            Lin
 2   solve the individual pieces.  So, I'm going to try
 3   to employ the technique right now and that is why
 4   I'm going to ask you:  Were you aware that there
 5   are some people who didn't graduate high school
 6   who were working at the Operations Center
 7   answering phones?
 8        A    No, I was not aware of that.
 9        Q    So, do people at the Operation Center
10   answer phones?
11        A    Some people do.
12        Q    But that would not be a type of job that
13   you would aspire to; correct?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  You can
15        answer.
16             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, can you tell
17        me what part of the form you did not like?
18             MS. PARK:  My objection is noted.  I'm
19        not having an argument with you about my
20        objection to form.
21             MR. LINDNER:  I just want to know.
22             MS. PARK:  No, let's move on.
23             THE WITNESS:  Can I hear the question
24        again.
0030
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  Can you reread the
 3        question, Marian, please?
 4                       (Record read)
 5        A    I have not thought of taking that job.
 6        Q    Do you have any idea, rough numbers, of
 7   what salary you got back in 1990?
 8             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park, this is my
 9        privacy income information.  Do I have to
10        release it?
11             MS. PARK:  No.  I'm going to direct my
12        client not to answer that question.
13             MR. LINDNER:  Please, note it on the
14        record that the client refused to answer,
15        and it was directed by the attorney, and
16        that I wish to get a Ruling from the judge
17        on that.
18        Q    Did you apply for a position that was
19   publicly advertised?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21        Q    Did you apply to American Express for a
22   job?
23             MS. PARK:  When?
24             MR. LINDNER:  In 1990.
0031
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Before or after he got the
 3        job?
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much
 5        Ms. Park.
 6        Q    Do you understand my question?
 7        A    No, I do not.
 8        Q    In 1990 you started working for American
 9   Express, you said on September 17, 1990.
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    Prior to 1990, how did you find out
12   about the job, prior to September 17, 1990.
13        A    I find out through Debora Stabile.
14        Q    How did you know Debora Stabile?
15             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16             MR. LINDNER:  I'm not sure what your
17        objection is but it's noted.
18             MS. PARK:  You haven't established
19        that he knows Debora Stabile.  You are
20        assuming information that hasn't been
21        testified to.
22             MR. LINDNER:  He just said -- Can you
23        read back what he just said?
24             MS. PARK:  He just testified he found
0032
 1                            Lin
 2        out about the job through Debora Stabile.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Can you read back Qing
 4        Lin's answer on what he said about Debora
 5        Stabile?
 6                       (Record read)
 7        Q    Did you know Debora Stabile prior to
 8   September 17, 1990?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Thank you.  How did you know her?
11        A    She was the Assistant Commissioner of
12   Sanitation Department of New York City.
13        Q    How --  Did you meet her there?
14        A    No, I was employed at Sanitation
15   Department of New York City.
16        Q    You were a New York City employee or
17   were you a consultant?
18        A    I was a New York City employee.
19        Q    How long did you work for New York City,
20   approximately?
21        A    Be more specific, because I have two
22   periods of working for New York City.
23        Q    That would be good.  You can tell me the
24   two periods.
0033
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Collectively, the total length I work
 3   for New York City is somewhere between -- I don't
 4   remember exactly.  Somewhere between 20 months to
 5   22, 21 months.
 6        Q    Okay.  And can you tell me the first
 7   period and the second period?
 8        A    The first period is from 1986 to -- End
 9   of 1986 to the middle of 1988.  Second period is
10   from, I think, first half of 1990 to September of
11   1990.  So, my calculation of 20 to 22 months might
12   be off a little bit.
13        Q    But it sounds more accurate than most
14   people, I would say.  So, you are pretty good at
15   numbers and computing; would that be fair to say?
16             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  You can
17        answer.
18        A    That is your observation.
19        Q    Have you ever had a test that evaluated
20   your mathematical abilities relative to other
21   people?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23        A    Clarify your question.  What type of
24   test?
0034
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Have you ever taken the Scholastic
 3   Aptitude Test, which is a college entry test in
 4   the United States?
 5        A    Do you mean SAT?
 6        Q    SAT, that is correct, yes?
 7        A    No.
 8        Q    Did you attend a college?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Did you graduate from a college?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    Can you tell me the name of the college?
13        A    Tsing Hua University.
14        Q    The first word of that, is that the same
15   as your first name?
16        A    No.
17        Q    Can you spell the name of the
18   university?
19        A    T-s-i-n-g H-u-a.
20        Q    And you graduated in what year?
21        A    1982.
22        Q    Do you remember what your subject was,
23   your specialty, your major?
24        A    Automation.
0035
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Automation?
 3        A    Yes, A-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-o-n.
 4        Q    Is that computer controls?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 6        Q    Can you describe what Automation is?
 7        A    Automation is study, control theory and
 8   applied it in industry settings.
 9        Q    Do they use computers in that field?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11        Q    But you can answer.
12        A    Yes.
13        Q    Do you use computors in your job now?
14        A    Yes.
15        Q    So, would it be fair to say that you
16   have been using computers in one form or another
17   from 1982 or earlier till 2009?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Would it be fair to say that even as
20   recently as this week you have used a computer?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    I appreciated your answer but I'd like
23   to go back to your Tsing Hua background.  That
24   college is located in what country?
0036
 1                            Lin
 2        A    China.
 3        Q    Were you in any -- Since you didn't take
 4   the SAT had you taken any test in China that
 5   ranked people according to ability?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    Can you describe any of those tests and
 8   were any of them noteworthy?
 9        A    College Entrance Exam.
10        Q    How did you do in that?
11        A    I do not remember my exact scores but I
12   was admitted by the university.
13        Q    Admitted by the --
14        A    Tsing Hua University.
15        Q    Do they have, in China, any test that
16   ranked the entire nation or contests?
17             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Are you
18        asking his knowledge now or at the time he
19        took the test?
20             MR. LINDNER:  At the time.
21        A    At the time of the test, no.
22        Q    Prior to 1990, had you taken any test in
23   China that was a nationwide test?
24        A    Nationwide test?
0037
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    In other words more than just a
 3   university test but a test that was given at
 4   several high schools or several universities?
 5        A    Your question is nationwide, that's
 6   whole country.
 7        Q    Well, for instance, if one part of the
 8   country was not included.  For instance, like, if
 9   you'd say it's a nationwide test, even if Texas
10   were not included, Texas is part of the nation, so
11   therefore you wouldn't say, "I'm not taking a
12   nationwide test because it was only done in 49
13   states not in 50 states."  So, I'm asking -- I
14   would hope if there were a test admitted in 49
15   states and I said, "Had you taken a nationwide
16   test?"  You would say, "Yes," and not say, "No."
17             So, let me ask --
18             MS. PARK:  You know what, I'm
19        directing my client not to answer.  Move
20        on.  This is not relevant.  Move on.
21             MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is --
22             MS. PARK:  Mark the transcript for a
23        ruling.  Move on.
24             MR. LINDNER:  Please mark --
0038
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  I'm directing my client not
 3        to answer.  Move on.
 4        Q    I understand that.  However, I'm asking,
 5   was there a test that was administered among
 6   thousands of people, among hundreds of miles that
 7   you took?
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection.  I'm directing
 9        my client not to answer.
10        A    I'm following my attorney's advice.
11             MS. PARK:  That's fine.  You don't
12        have to say anything Qing.  Move on.
13        Q    When you applied to American Express,
14   did you give them any documents?
15             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16        A    Could you clarify what you mean by
17   document?
18        Q    Were you accepted to American Express
19   and started working there without any paper
20   documents being given to American Express?
21        A    I'm sorry.  So, what do you mean
22   document, my resume?
23        Q    Did you have a resume?
24        A    Yes.
0039
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  I'm requesting --
 3        Ms. Park, have you produced that resume?
 4             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, Document
 5        Discovery is closed.  You are not getting
 6        anymore documents and you are not getting
 7        any documents from Mr. Lin, okay?  So, that
 8        is a standing objection.  Go ahead and
 9        request all you want.  You are not getting
10        anything.
11             MR. LINDNER:  I request it.
12        Q    So, what I am asking here is do you have
13   a resume from 1990.  Do you physically still have
14   that resume or that is no longer existing or you
15   would you have to look to find it?  Can you please
16   tell me the status --
17        A    I do not believe it still exists.
18        Q    Now, if you had your resume you gave it
19   to Debora Stebile?
20        A    I do not remember who did I give it to.
21        Q    Did you perhaps give it to American
22   Express?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    You were a manager and you are in a
0040
 1                            Lin
 2   charge of -- Let me ask it in a question.  Are you
 3   in charge of some people?
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Now or
 5        when he was hired?
 6             MR. LINDNER:  Now.
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
 8        didn't testify he was a manager.  He
 9        testified that he is a Senior
10        Vice-President and Chief Credit Officer.
11        Q    I think you are no more a manager than
12   Debora Stabile or Lou Lombardo is a manager. I'm
13   not talking about the specific title but I'm
14   asking, do you manage people?
15        A    As of today?
16        Q    Yes.
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    Can you give me an approximate idea of
19   how many people you manage?
20        A    Could you clarify the question in terms
21   of my direct report or the people in my
22   organization?
23        Q    Well, I appreciate that you broke it
24   down.  Let's do the direct report.  How many
0041
 1                            Lin
 2   people directly report to you, roughly?
 3        A    Five.
 4        Q    Five people, okay.  And how many people
 5   do you directly report to?
 6        A    I'm sorry.  How many people who are my
 7   leader?
 8        Q    Yes.  But you might have dotted line
 9   responsibilities.  You might say "Ten."  You might
10   say, "One."  You might say, "Two."  I don't know
11   what your answer is.  So, how many people do you
12   directly report to?
13        A    So, including dot line?
14        Q    Well, let's break it up into two parts.
15   Who do you directly report to and how many do you
16   have dotted line responsibility, as I understand
17   the term?
18        A    One direct line reporting-ship.
19        Q    And that was Ash Gupta that you
20   previously testified to; correct?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    And dotted line?
23        A    One.
24        Q    And who is that?
0042
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Susan Sobbat.
 3        Q    And you can you spell her last name?
 4        A    S-o-b-b-a-t.
 5        Q    Do you know her title?
 6        A    President of Open.
 7        Q    Do you know who she reports to?
 8        A    Al Kelly.
 9        Q    Do you know what the L stands for --
10        A    Al.
11        Q    Oh, Al, as in Al Kelly.
12        A    A-l, yes.  Al Kelly.
13        Q    Do you know what his title is?
14        A    President of American Express Company.
15        Q    I guess I haven't looked at my Annual
16   Report for a while.  I didn't realize he was
17   president.  Who is chairman of American Express?
18        A    Ken Chenault.
19        Q    And how does Al Kelly and Ken Chenault
20   relate to each other?
21        A    Objection to form.
22        Q    Does one report to the other or are they
23   the same level, or what?
24        A    Al Kelly reported to Ken Chenault.
0043
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    And your direct boss is Ash Gupta.  Now,
 3   who does he report to?
 4        A    Al Kelly.
 5        Q    Okay.  So, your third-level manager is
 6   Ken Chanault.  You report to Ash, Ash reports to
 7   Al, Al reports to Ken, your third-level manager.
 8   So, your third-level manager, when you joined the
 9   company, was in charge of perhaps a thousand
10   people, several hundred maybe, several thousand
11   people.  Ken Chenault is in charge of roughly how
12   many people?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  You
14        know, in fact, I'm going direct my client
15        not to answer that.  This is not relevant,
16        Mr. Lindner.  Why is this relevant to you?
17             MR. LINDNER:  The objection --
18             MS. PARK:  Why is this relevant to
19        you?
20             MR. LINDNER:  I don't think I have to
21        answer to you.
22             MS. PARK:  Then fine.  Mark it for a
23        ruling.  I'm directing my client not to
24        respond.
0044
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  It is leading to
 3        discoverable evidence.
 4        Q    I wish to know how many people in
 5   American Express who Ken Chenault -- you've told
 6   me Lou Lombardo was in charge of roughly a
 7   thousand people maybe.  Ken Chenault is in charge
 8   of roughly how many people?
 9             MS. PARK:  Objection.  I'm going to
10        direct you not to answer.
11             MR. LINDNER:  Can we request a ruling
12        on not answering on number of people
13        employed at Amex?
14             MS. PARK:  That wasn't your question.
15        Q    How many people were employed at Amex?
16        A    I do not know the exact number.
17        Q    How about the approximate number?
18        A    Approximately 70,000.
19        Q    Seven zero?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    So, about 70,000, and you could say
22   that, of those 70,000, approximately 70,000 report
23   directly or indirectly to Ken Chenault.  Would you
24   say that?
0045
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  In
 3        fact, no.  Don't answer that question.
 4        Mark it for a ruling.
 5        Q    If somebody were to say that Ken
 6   Chenault was in charge of about a 70,000 person
 7   organization, would that be accurate or
 8   inaccurate?
 9             MS. PARK:  Don't answer that question.
10        Move on.
11             MR. LINDNER:  I wish to have the
12        answer on record.  Your objection is noted.
13        I wish to have Qing please answer it.
14             MS. PARK:  No, I'm directing him not
15        to answer.  Move on.
16             MR. LINDNER:  I wish to note that I
17        feel that Ms. Park is acting
18        obstructionist.  We will continue.  I'm
19        going to move onto a different area.
20        Q    You stated that your name is Qing Lin.
21   Is that your full name or do you have a middle
22   name or do you have any other -- Can you tell me
23   what your full name is?
24             MS. PARK:  I'm directing my client not
0046
 1                            Lin
 2        to answer.  Move on.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Can you state what your
 4        objection is --
 5             MS. PARK:  It's not relevant.  Judge
 6        Katz issued an order saying that he is to
 7        limit his questioning of the witnesses to
 8        matters relevant to the complaint.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  I wish to know his name.
10             MS. PARK:  You have his name.  Move
11        on.
12             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking can -- You
13        refuse to have him say what his full name
14        is?
15             MS. PARK:  Correct.  Move on.
16             MR. LINDNER:  Can you please note that
17        objection.  Marian, I'm going to ask you a
18        technical question here.  Every time an
19        objection is noted, if we were on the phone
20        with the judge, would you be able to get
21        all the locations where an objection was
22        noted and we requested a ruling from the
23        judge, Marian?
24             THE COURT REPORTER:  If I have time to
0047
 1                            Lin
 2        look through it, yes.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Would it take you, like,
 4        a minute or would it take you like ten
 5        minutes or half an hour?  You don't know?
 6        Do you know, Dmitry, how long it would
 7        take?
 8             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  I don't know.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  No experience.  Could
10        you do it in two minutes?  Can you look for
11        objections or not?
12             THE COURT REPORTER:  I can look
13        through the transcript for the objections.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, thank you very
15        much.  Whew!  I think it is highly unusual
16        when somebody doesn't allow the person to
17        give his name.
18        Q    Do you have an alias, Qing?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        Q    Do you go by another name?
21        A    No.
22        Q    Is Qing Lin the name you were born with?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    When you were in China?  Does that mean
0048
 1                            Lin
 2   you were born in China?
 3             MS. PARK:  Move on.  I'm directing not
 4        to answer that question.  Where he was born
 5        has nothing to do with the claim.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking where he was
 7        born.
 8             MS. PARK:  No, and I'm directing my
 9        client not to answer.
10        Q    When you worked for American Express I
11   asked you if you had any documents that you gave
12   them and you said your resume.  Did you also show
13   them a passport?
14        A    I do not remember.
15        Q    Do you know if you showed them a Green
16   Card?
17        A    I did not have a Green Card at the time.
18        Q    Was the reason for you not having a
19   Green Card because you were already a citizen?
20        A    No.
21        Q    Are you a citizen now?
22        A    Please clarify your question.
23        Q    Are you a citizen of the United States
24   of America right now?
0049
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing my
 3        client not to answer.  This is harassment.
 4        What does Mr. Lin's citizenship have to do
 5        with your claims?  I'm directing my client
 6        not to answer and, if you continue, I'm
 7        calling the judge because you are harassing
 8        him.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  I wish to continue and
10        so I'll note the objection that Ms. Park
11        refuses to allow Qing Lin to state whether
12        he is a U.S. Citizen or not.
13        Q    Do you have a passport now?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Move on.
15             MR. LINDNER:  Objection and I direct
16        the witness to --
17             MS. PARK:  Move on.  I'm directing my
18        client not to respond.  Move on.
19        Q    When you applied to American Express for
20   the job are there any other documents that you
21   gave?  For instance, did you give a letter of
22   reference?
23        A    I do not remember.
24        Q    That's fair.  Have you interviewed
0050
 1                            Lin
 2   people for jobs when they were working for you?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        Q    Currently, right now, it is 2009.  In
 5   the past two years, let's say, have you hired
 6   anyone who works directly for you?
 7        A    Could you clarify your question in terms
 8   of hiring externally or hiring within the company?
 9        Q    Good distinction.  Let's do internally
10   within the company.  In other words, you have
11   vendors and then you have Amex employees.  Is that
12   a correct distinction that you were making?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14        Q    When you said --
15        A    I do not understand your question.
16             MR. LINDNER:  Can you read his answer
17        from before, Marian, where he said,
18        directly or vendor or something like that?
19                       (Record read.)
20        Q    What do you mean, "Hiring externally?"
21        A    People who are not employed with
22   American Express and were hired into American
23   Express.
24        Q    So, to become an American Express
0051
 1                            Lin
 2   employee and before they were not?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    And the other one hired internally, can
 5   you explain what that means?
 6        A    People transferred from one job within
 7   American Express to another job within American
 8   Express.
 9        Q    Do you hire anybody who might be a third
10   category?  Is there another category that you call
11   vendors?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  What
13        are you asking him, if there is something
14        called vendors?
15             MR. LINDNER:  At American Express,
16        yes.
17        A    I do not understand your question.
18   Could you restate it?
19        Q    Yes.  Some companies everybody who works
20   for them is an employee.  Other companies have a
21   lot of jobs out sourced or do things on a contract
22   basis, so they hire people.  Those people
23   typically are called vendors.  Can you
24   characterize whether American Express hires
0052
 1                            Lin
 2   vendors?
 3        A    Do you mean whether American Express
 4   selects a vendor to do a task?
 5        Q    Correct.
 6        A    Yes.
 7             MS. PARK:  We stipulate American
 8        Express hires vendors, i.e. consultants to
 9        perform various tasks.  Move on.
10             MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that
11        stipulation.
12        Q    So, you personally approved vendors?
13        A    Have I personally approved vendors?
14        Q    Yes.
15        A    I do not understand your question,
16   because to be a vendor of American Express you
17   have to be going through a different department
18   who would be on the vendor list, and I do not
19   approve -- I do not have the authority to approve
20   that list.
21        Q    So, if somebody wanted to be on the
22   vendor list, that you have no to authority to.
23   But, if somebody is already on the vendor list, do
24   you have authority to engage them or hire them or
0053
 1                            Lin
 2   give them a contract?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Thank you.  And have you used that
 5   hiring or contract vendor or vendor in the past?
 6   Let's say five or ten years?
 7        A    Have I engaged a vendor to perform a
 8   task for American Express?
 9        Q    Correct?
10        A    Is that the question?
11        Q    Yes.
12        A    Yes.
13        Q    Can you describe some of those vendors?
14        A    McKensie & Company, as an example.
15        Q    What are they?  Can you describe what
16   sort of company they are?  What sort of tasks you
17   had them do?
18             MS. PARK:  Which question are you
19        asking him?  You have asked two.
20        A    Do you mean McKensie & Company?
21        Q    Correct.
22        A    McKensie is a Management Consulting
23   Firm.
24        Q    Are you at liberty to tell me what you
0054
 1                            Lin
 2   asked them to consult on?
 3             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park, this relates
 4        to American Express proprietary
 5        information.
 6             MS. PARK:  Then I direct you not to
 7        answer.
 8        Q    Can you say it in a non-proprietary way?
 9   For instance, you might have people to sweep the
10   floors, they be vendors.  You might have people
11   who help on outsourcing.  You might have people
12   who help on consulting on new products.  So, can
13   you say -- You would agree that those descriptions
14   would not be proprietary; correct?
15        A    So, let me say this:  We have engaged
16   McKensie & Company to perform Management
17   Consulting.
18        Q    Alright.  So, was this involved in the
19   personnel aspect or the product aspect?  Would you
20   feel, for instance, that there is a difference
21   between personnel consultants and product
22   consultants?
23             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, which question
24        are you asking him?  You have asked two
0055
 1                            Lin
 2        questions.  Which one do you want him to
 3        answer.
 4        A    Since I --
 5             MS. PARK:  Just let him clarify.  What
 6        question are you asking?
 7             MR. LINDNER:  I'll allow Mr. Qing
 8        Lin --
 9             MS. PARK:  No, what question are you
10        asking?
11             MR. LINDNER:  -- to reply as best he
12        can to --
13             MS. PARK:  To your two questions?
14        Which question are you asking him to
15        respond to?
16             MR. LINDNER:  Can you read back the
17        first question, Marian?
18                       (Record read)
19        Q    Were they involved in personnel?
20        A    Could you specify what do you mean
21   personnel?
22        Q    Well, yes.  I surely can.  When you have
23   a temporary agency, such as a Secretary Agency,
24   they are involved with personnel.  So, if you need
0056
 1                            Lin
 2   a secretary for a short stint for, you know, an
 3   employee is pregnant and has to leave and then
 4   will come back, so you wish to have somebody take
 5   over, that would be called a personnel.  You'd go
 6   to a Temp Agency.  So, that would be personnel.
 7             Now, if you were coming out with a new
 8   credit card, and there was a consulting company
 9   that had expertise in how to roll out a new card
10   and how to design it and what factors are
11   important in it, that would be a product type
12   consulting.  Do you understand those two
13   distinctions?
14        A    Yes.
15        Q    Can you put that in your own words
16   instead of my words?
17             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  What
18        are you asking him to do?
19        A    Both descriptions does not fit into what
20   McKensie is doing.
21        Q    Can you describe what McKensie does in
22   non-proprietary terms?
23        A    I can say they are doing Management
24   Consulting.
0057
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Yes, you did say that already.  Okay, we
 3   will move on.  You have stated before that your
 4   title had several different components.  I believe
 5   two, maybe more.  You said you were a senior VP,
 6   senior vice-president and you were the Chief
 7   Credit Officer of Open; correct?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    What does a chief credit officer do?
10        A    Chief Credit Officer is responsible for
11   the profitability and the credit provisions and
12   the credit performance of the portfolio.
13        Q    When you were first hired you were in
14   Score Development; correct?
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    Are those two fields related?
17             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
18        Q    What you are doing now and what you were
19   doing in 1990?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Which
21        question are you asking him?
22        Q    Is what you are doing now related to
23   what you were doing in 1990?
24        A    Yes.
0058
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    And how do they differ?
 3        A    Score Development is a function of
 4   Credit Risk Management.
 5        Q    What do you mean by -- If we go to a
 6   jury trial there are going to be people there from
 7   all walks of life and so there are several
 8   different parts.  You said credit and function and
 9   risk management.  So, perhaps you can explain
10   those terms in a way that you might explain it.
11   I'm going to ask you a few questions.  I'm going
12   to ask you to explain it several times.  One way
13   would be, how you would explain it to an eight
14   year old child, who is interested in what you do.
15   Another way is, how to explain it to a smart
16   thirteen year old.  Another way to a college
17   student.  Another way to a technical person who
18   works in your field.  So, you have the some
19   shorthand way of explaining it, and finally, how
20   you would explain it to somebody who is pretty
21   old.  Who -- I always say to your mother.  But,
22   you know, a relative who is interested in what you
23   do and might not understand technical talk but
24   wants to get a feel.  You know, are you doctor,
0059
 1                            Lin
 2   are you a lawyer, are you a street sweeper?  What
 3   do you want to do.
 4             So, let me start at the beginning.  So,
 5   you want to explain and we will move up the scale
 6   in age.  If you want to explain to an eight year
 7   old child what your job is, would you be able to
 8   do that?
 9        A    I think I can.
10        Q    Can you please do that?
11             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park, is this
12        relevant?
13             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, what is the is
14        purpose of this?  There is no juror who is
15        going to be an eight year old child.  Why
16        are you asking him these questions?  Move
17        on.
18             MR. LINDNER:  I'd like to get the
19        answer.
20             MS. PARK:  No, move on.
21             MR. LINDNER:  Are you refusing to let
22        him answer?
23             MS. PARK:  Yes, I'm directing him not
24        to answer and I'm directing you to move on.
0060
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  First of all, Ms. Park,
 3        you cannot direct me.  You can object and
 4        your objection is noticed.
 5             MS. PARK:  And I can direct my client
 6        not to answer and I will.
 7             MR. LINDNER:  You can direct your
 8        client not to answer and I think you are
 9        acting obstructionist again.  I have to use
10        that term at 11:45 a.m.
11        Q    So, can you explain what those three
12   terms mean that you said your title is?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Noted.
15             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  That
16        wasn't his testimony.
17        Q    You said that you handled functions of
18   credit and risk management, is that something that
19   you -- Can you rephrase what you said?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  That
21        was not his response.  You asked him what
22        the difference was between what he is doing
23        now and what he was doing when he was first
24        hired as a manager of Score Development.
0061
 1                            Lin
 2        Mr. Lin then testified that Score
 3        Development is a function of credit risk
 4        management.  That's his testimony.
 5        Q    Okay, can you explain what function of
 6   credit risk management means?
 7        A    Manage the credit provision line.
 8        Q    Can you explain that, please?
 9             MS. PARK:  What don't you understand,
10        Mr. Lindner?
11             MR. LINDNER:  I'm not asking you, Ms.
12        Park.
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14        Q    I'm asking if you were to tell somebody,
15   "I'm handling the provision line."  Do you feel
16   that's self explanatory and needs no further
17   explanation?
18             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
19             MR. LINDNER:  I called for an opinion.
20        I think Qing Lin --
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22        Q    Qing, let me ask you a question:  Do you
23   consider you're an expert in the field of risk
24   management?
0062
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Do you feel that you've worked at risk
 4   management for a number of years?
 5        A    I'm sorry, I didn't get your question.
 6   Do I feel?
 7        Q    Have you worked in the field of risk
 8   management for several years?
 9        A    Have I worked in the field of risk
10   management for several years?
11        Q    Correct.
12        A    Yes.
13        Q    Do you work in the field of risk
14   management now?
15             MS. PARK:  Yes, we stipulate he does.
16        Q    So, how many years have you worked in
17   the field of risk management?
18        A    More than eighteen years.
19        Q    Thank you very much.  So, it's fair to
20   say that you are an expert at risk management;
21   correct?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
23        answered.
24        Q    Part of being an expert is the ability,
0063
 1                            Lin
 2   I feel, to explain your job to others.  Can you
 3   explain what risk management is?
 4        A    Yes, I can.
 5        Q    Can you please do so?
 6             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park?
 7             MS. PARK:  Go ahead and answer.
 8        A    Credit Risk Management is managing the
 9   risk of the customers default, not fulfilling
10   their credit obligation on a credit product.
11        Q    Okay.  And believe it or not, I
12   understood it all.  However, there are some people
13   who would have a little trouble with that and some
14   people, I would say -- Recently credit has been in
15   the news.  So, people are understanding it now.
16   But there is a whole bunch of things in the news
17   these day's about the economic turmoil.  Are you
18   familiar with that?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Is he
20        familiar with economic turmoil?  Fine, we
21        stipulate he is familiar with the economic
22        turmoil.
23        Q    Is that economic turmoil affecting
24   American Express business?
0064
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  I'm going to direct you not
 3        to respond.  You are not going to respond,
 4        Mr. Lin.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  Can you tell me why?
 6             MS. PARK:  Plaintiff is advised that
 7        he is to limit his questioning of the
 8        witnesses to matters relevant to the
 9        Complaint, Mr. Lindner.  That was Judge
10        Katz's express order.
11             MR. LINDNER:  This is leading to
12        discoverable.
13             MS. PARK:  No, it's not.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Well, you don't know,
15        but let me move on.
16        Q    You say you hire vendors on the approved
17   vendor list; is that correct?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Have you ever recommended somebody to be
20   put on the approved vendor list?
21        A    I do not remember.
22        Q    Do you recall -- When you say you are
23   working in risk management --
24        A    Yes.
0065
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    -- is there another way to describe it
 3   in simple terms, other than saying default?  You
 4   had a credit -- Can you say it in a simple way?
 5   Is there a way you can say it?
 6             MS. PARK:  Say what?
 7             MR. LINDNER:  What risk management is.
 8        A    So, let me take an example of American
 9   Express Card.
10        Q    Thank you.
11        A    People borrow and spend money on
12   American Express Card and then they have, based on
13   the product, they have the right to revolve.  It's
14   a revolving product.  Then based on product term,
15   they have to minimum dues every month and some
16   people do not fulfill their obligation, and then
17   American Express is facing the risk of the money
18   we leant is not going to get paid back and that is
19   the credit risk we are facing.
20        Q    So, credit risk is when people don't pay
21   back money that they owe American Express?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    And evaluating who is not going to pay
24   back the money is part of risk management?
0066
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Any evaluating the total impact of those
 4   people not paying back is part of risk management;
 5   correct?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    And would you say that that is the
 8   principal component of your job to come up with
 9   the number of how many people will pay, and not
10   pay, and what the net effect will be upon American
11   Express?
12        A    You have a pretty good description, yes.
13        Q    Thank you very much.  I note that I used
14   to work with you in risk management.  Okay, we
15   have your title.  We don't have your full name
16   because you refuse to answer but I don't have --
17             MS. PARK:  No, I directed my client
18        not to answer.
19             MR. LINDNER:  I understand that.
20        Q    Can we have the address of where you
21   work?
22             MS. PARK:  200 Vesey Street.
23             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.
24        But in the future, Ms.  Park, I'd
0067
 1                            Lin
 2        appreciate if you will allow your witness
 3        --
 4             MS. PARK:  No, let's move it along.
 5        We stipulate he works at 200 Vesey Street.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that, but I
 7        really would appreciate if you would allow
 8        him to answer.  I think he could have
 9        answered that.  I think I trust Qing on the
10        ability to answer those questions.
11        Q    Can you give me what your phone number
12   is?
13             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park?
14             MS. PARK:  You can give him your work
15        telephone number and that's it.
16        A    (212)640-3603.
17        Q    What is the last digit?
18        A    3603.
19        Q    Okay, (212) 640-3603?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    That phone is paid for by American
22   Express; correct?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    Do you have any other phones that are
0068
 1                            Lin
 2   paid for by American Express?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Can you describe those phones?
 5             THE WITNESS:  Do you want me to
 6        release?
 7             MS. PARK:  No, just describe what the
 8        phone is.  What other phone --
 9        A    The phone is a cell phone.
10        Q    Do you recall what make or model it is?
11        A    It is a Blackberry.
12        Q    A Blackberry phone, thank you.  So, you
13   have a home phone, which you will not give the
14   number for; right?
15             MS. PARK:  No, under no circumstance.
16        Q    And you have a Blackberry and you have a
17   work phone?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Do you have any other cell phones?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    Can you describe them?
22        A    My personal cell phone.
23        Q    Is that it?
24        A    Yes.
0069
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    And the personal phone, let's go to the
 3   Blackberry phone.  That's a Blackberry cell phone.
 4   Can you describe what a Blackberry cell phone
 5   does?  How it is different than a regular phone?
 6             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, what is the
 7        purpose of this line of questioning?  Move
 8        on.  You are wasting time.
 9        Q    Can you please describe --
10             MS. PARK:  No, I'm directing my client
11        not to answer.  Move on.
12        Q    Do you receive messages on your
13   Blackberry cell phone?
14        A    What do you mean messages?
15        Q    E-mail?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    Do you get text messages on your
18   Blackberry phone?
19        A    No.
20        Q    So, no text messages but you do get
21   e-mail?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    Do you surf the web on your Blackberry
24   phone?
0070
 1                            Lin
 2        A    No.
 3        Q    On your personal phone, do you get
 4   e-mail on it?
 5        A    Yes.
 6        Q    On your personal phone do you get text
 7   messages on it?
 8        A    No.
 9        Q    Do you surf the web on your personal
10   phone?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    The Blackberry phone, does American
13   Express pay for some of it?
14        A    Yes.
15        Q    Do they pay for all of it?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    Do they pay because that is one of the
18   perks of the business?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        Q    Do you do any work on your Blackberry
21   phone, Amex work?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    Is that one of the reasons why American
24   Express pays for it's charge?
0071
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Have you provided
 4        Ms. Park or Ms. Park have you provided me
 5        with the e-mail on that Blackberry phone
 6        that are relevant to this case?
 7             MS. PARK:  Ms.  Lindner, there are no
 8        e-mails, and we have been through this
 9        before and the judge has ruled on this
10        issue.  There are no e-mails.  There are no
11        electronic communications concerning Mr.
12        Lin that have not already been produced
13        and, furthermore, that are relevant in any
14        way to your claims, which you are
15        constrained to by Order of Judge Katz.
16        Q    So, let me ask that question directly --
17             MS. PARK:  No, move on.
18        Q    So, Qing --
19             MS. PARK:  Move on.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is noted.
21        Please, Ms.  Park.
22        Q    Have you sent any e-mail or received any
23   e-mail that uses the name Peter Lindner in it?
24        A    No.
0072
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Have you --
 3        A    First, let me clarify --
 4             MS. PARK:  Let me just clarify.  You
 5        are not supposed to testify to any e-mails
 6        that you and I have exchanged or any
 7        e-mails of any communications you've had
 8        with an attorney.  That is protected by the
 9        Attorney/Client Privilege and you are not
10        obligated to --
11        A    Let me answer the question for the
12   question before.
13        Q    Sure.
14        A    Not as of now.  During what time period?
15        Q    It's a good question and I'm not sure
16   what the answer is.  But can you give me an
17   approximate date when you got the Blackberry?
18        A    I do not remember.
19        Q    Would it be, like -- Now, it is 2009,
20   January 2009.  So, do you think you got it five
21   years ago?  Let's say in 2004?
22        A    Probably, yes.
23             MR. LINDNER:  And we have five minutes
24        left on the tape, so we are going to be
0073
 1                            Lin
 2        finished soon.
 3        Q    Did you send a message to Ms. Park but
 4   also, you know, to a lawyer, but also to some
 5   other people at American Express?
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection.  He is not going
 7        to answer.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  He can answer if he sent
 9        a message.
10             MS. PARK:  No, he can't.
11             MR. LINDNER:  He doesn't have to
12        reveal --
13             MS. PARK:  No, he does not have to
14        divulge if he sent me any e-mails,
15        Mr. Lindner, that's protected by the
16        Attorney/Client Communication.
17        Q    First of all, have you met with Ms. Park
18   prior to today?
19             MS. PARK:  You can answer that, yes or
20        no.
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    Have you sent e-mail to Ms. Park?
23             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Don't answer
24        that question.
0074
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Have you sent e-mails to other people
 3   and Ms. Park would be one of them on that e-mail?
 4   In other words, --
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection, I direct you not
 6        to answer that question.
 7        Q    -- as a blind carbon copy or a copy?
 8             MS. PARK:  No, direct you not to
 9        answer that question.
10             MR. LINDNER:  And can you answer why?
11             MS. PARK:  Yes, that is protected by
12        the Attorney/Client Privilege, Mr. Lindner.
13             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, as best I know,
14        Attorney/Client Privilege doesn't stop you
15        from saying whether you sent it, it just
16        says that I can't know what you sent.
17             MS. PARK:  That's your
18        characterization.
19             MR. LINDNER:  I know that's my
20        characterization.  I'm not a lawyer.
21        Q    Did you send any e-mails that discussed
22   Fisher Jordan but not to Ms. Park?  Do you know
23   who Fisher Jordan is?
24        A    Yes.
0075
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Have you ever discussed them, via
 3   e-mail, to Fisher Jordan?
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 5        Q    Have you sent an e-mail to or from
 6   Fisher Jordan on your Blackberry?
 7             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, are you asking
 8        about e-mails --
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Please --
10             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, your first
11        question was:  Have you sent an e-mail on
12        it, that has a reference to me on it.
13             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, I'm asking about
14        Fisher Jordan.
15        Q    Have you communicated with Fisher Jordan
16   via e-mail on your Blackberry?
17             MS. PARK:  During what time period?
18        Q    At all in your life?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    Have you done it in 2005?  Do you know
21   when --
22        A    2005?
23        Q    Yes.
24        A    I do not remember.
0076
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  That's fair.  You don't
 3        have to remember.  I'm going to request
 4        here that we get the log of messages that
 5        Qing sent to Fisher Jordan.  Ms. Park have
 6        you introduced those e-mails.
 7             MS. PARK:  Request all you want.  You
 8        are not getting anymore discovery.  Move
 9        on.
10             MR. LINDNER:  But have you --
11             MS. PARK:  Move on.
12             MR. LINDNER:  Provided them?
13             MS. PARK:  Move on.  Move on.
14             THE WITNESS:  Can I state one fact?
15             MS. PARK:  No, there is no question
16        pending.
17             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, you can.  Please,
18        I'm asking you, Qing, can you please state
19        one fact?
20             MS. PARK:  Go ahead, Mr. Lin.
21        A    The e-mails on my Blackberry is
22   duplicated on the Lotus Note, it's exactly
23   identical, the exact duplication of the Lotus
24   Note.  That is company's e-mail system.  I just
0077
 1                            Lin
 2   want to state that fact.
 3             MS. PARK:  Sure.  There is no other
 4        question pending.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that.
 6        Q    And you used -- So, you used your
 7   Blackberry to communicate with Fisher Jordan or
 8   you've only passively observed it or have you
 9   actually used it to communicate with him?
10        A    Use of my Blackberry?
11        Q    Yes?
12        A    I do not remember.
13        Q    Okay, on your personal phone, have you
14   ever sent a message to or an e-mail to Fisher
15   Jordan or received one?
16        A    No.
17             MS. PARK:  You are out of tape, Mr.
18        Lindner.  Will you please note the time.
19             MR. LINDNER:  We have one minute left
20        and, Ms. Park, I'd appreciate it -- You're
21        not in control of this.  If you wish to
22        break we can break.
23             MS. PARK:  No, we can go on for one
24        minute.
0078
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much
 3        Ms. Park.  Okay, we will take a break now
 4        so that Dmitry can change the tape --
 5             MS. PARK:  Could you note the time?
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I have 12:02.  What time
 7        do you have?
 8             THE COURT REPORTER:  Same.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  12:02 and we will take a
10        five minute break.  Would that be
11        acceptable to Qing?
12             THE WITNESS:  That's fine.
13             MR. LINDNER:  And Ms. Park is that
14        acceptable to you?
15             MS. PARK:  That's fine.
16             MR. LINDNER:  Can you call the judge
17        now and talk to him?
18             MS. PARK:  Yes.
19             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.
20        Okay --
21             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're going off the
22        record?
23             MR. LINDNER:  We will go off the
24        record now.
0079
 1                            Lin
 2             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This ends tape
 3        number one.  We are off the record at
 4        12:03.
 5                       (Whereupon at 12:03 p.m. a
 6                       recess was taken.)
 7                       (12:15 p.m. back on the
 8                       record.)
 9             THE COURT CLERK:  It is not my
10        deposition.  I recommend you proceed with
11        your deposition.
12             MR. LINDNER:  I'm unable to do that
13        because Ms. Park objected and directed the
14        deponent, who is a named person in the
15        suit, not to answer a question.  She did
16        that several times.  The court reporter is
17        here.  She can state what those times were.
18        One of the questions was, I asked Qing to
19        state his full name, in case there were any
20        other things, and Ms. Park refused to let
21        him answer the question.  I could be wrong.
22        However, we have a video tape and we have a
23        stenographer.  So, Ms. Park, will you
24        respond to that?
0080
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Yes, and I will respond by
 3        saying that I confirm, as stipulated that
 4        Mr. Lin's name is Qing Lin.  I then allowed
 5        you to ask Mr. Lin if you went by an alias,
 6        and I allowed Mr. Lin to answer that
 7        question.  I believe that any further
 8        questions Mr. Lindner that you are
 9        proposing to my client are tantamount to
10        harassment, and I have a very strong
11        interest in protecting my client from you,
12        quite frankly.
13             You have been ordered by Judge Katz to
14        limit your questions to matters relevant to
15        the Complaint.  You spent the first hour
16        and a half of Mr. Lin's deposition asking
17        him if he took a national test in China.
18        Where in China he went to university, and
19        what position was he hired into back in
20        1990 and who he reported to back in 1990,
21        and could he state for the record, as if
22        were speaking to an eight year old child,
23        what he does in his capacity as a credit
24        risk management person.  None of these
0081
 1                            Lin
 2        questions is even remotely germaine to any
 3        of the allegations alleged in the Complaint
 4        nor for that matter to American Expresses
 5        defenses.
 6             I will state for the record that I
 7        believe that this Pro Se plaintiff is bent
 8        on doing nothing more than harassing Mr.
 9        Lin.  He has not asked a single question
10        about his claims today.
11             THE COURT CLERK:  So, Mr. Lindner, it
12        sounds like you have a stipulation about
13        the deponent's name.  Are you guys ready to
14        move on and --
15             MR. LINDNER:  No, I'm not ready to
16        move on.  Let me state something on the
17        record.  I apologize for speaking over you,
18        Jason.  I'm pretty upset that Ms. Park is
19        stopping Qing Lin from saying his full
20        name, which might have taken five seconds
21        or ten seconds, but certainly I think I was
22        entitled to know it and if he would have
23        said the answer and we moved that would be
24        fine.  But Ms. Park I feel is being
0082
 1                            Lin
 2        obstructionist.
 3             Now, Ms. Park also made a statement to
 4        you, Jason, that I haven't asked a single
 5        question that was relevant to my Complaint.
 6        Actually, I did ask a single question that
 7        was relevant to the Complaint.  Maybe
 8        several.  I asked if Qing had an e-mail
 9        sent to Fisher Jordan from his Blackberry
10        and I also asked if he had an e-mail sent
11        by his personal phone to Fisher Jordan and
12        he answered both those questions. and I
13        would submit that that's part of the
14        evidence, is if he had a letter to Fisher
15        Jordan, then that is something that we
16        would like to know.
17             THE COURT CLERK:  Okay.  So, it sounds
18        like you have a stipulation from the
19        deponent about the deponent's name.  So,
20        you are aware of the deponent's name.  No
21        I'm not.  He hasn't answered the question
22        and the problem is, Jason, is that her
23        objection stops him from answering, but
24        this is like one example out of a few where
0083
 1                            Lin
 2        she has objected, and now I think you have
 3        also said that Ms. Park is not allowed to
 4        stop her client from answering because it
 5        is not relevant.  She can make an
 6        objection.  I'm not stopping her from
 7        making an objection.  I'm noting it on the
 8        record but I instruct the deponent to
 9        answer and Ms. Park is then stopping the
10        deponent from answering.  I wish a
11        ruling --
12             THE COURT CLERK:  May I stop you,
13        Mr. Lindner?
14             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, you may.
15             THE COURT CLERK:  The question that is
16        on the table though is the deponent's full
17        name, which I heard Ms. Park say that she
18        stipulated to what the deponent's full name
19        was.
20             MS. PARK:  Correct, and allowed Mr.
21        Lindner to ask Mr. Lin if he had an alias,
22        and, I believe, I further allowed Mr.
23        Lindner to ask if he had a Chinese name
24        that is different from Qing Lin, and
0084
 1                            Lin
 2        allowed Mr. Lin to answer that as well, and
 3        he answered no.
 4             THE COURT CLERK:  So, it sounds like
 5        your questions have been asked and
 6        answered.  Can you move on to asking
 7        relevant questions about your Complaint,
 8        Mr. Lindner?
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Well, Jason, you know
10        I'm Pro Se; right?  If somebody says,
11        "Asked and answered," are they then free
12        from having to answering it again?
13             THE COURT CLERK:  Well, you have been
14        ordered to --
15             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking you to answer
16        that question.
17             THE COURT CLERK:  Well, you have
18        perceived an answer to your question --
19             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking --
20             THE COURT CLERK:  It is not in your
21        interest to belabor this issue.  I mean,
22        you are consuming time here that --
23             MR. LINDNER:  I'd like to speak to the
24        Judge.
0085
 1                            Lin
 2             THE COURT CLERK:  It is your
 3        deposition and I suggest strongly that you
 4        try to move on --
 5             MR. LINDNER:  I understand.
 6             THE COURT CLERK:  -- without having to
 7        bring the relevance of a particular
 8        question to the judge's attention.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  I am not bringing that
10        to the judges attention, Ms. Park is by
11        directing her client not to answer.
12             Now, if Ms. Park directs her client
13        not to answer a question, cause she feels
14        it is not relevant, and I wish to get that
15        answer, today is my day to do it.  Is it
16        not?
17             THE COURT CLERK:  Yes.  Can I make a
18        recommendation?  Can the parties agree to
19        try to move forward and not take up any
20        more of the Court's time?
21             MS. PARK:  Yes.
22             THE COURT CLERK:  Mr. Lindner, can you
23        ask relevant questions?
24             MR. LINDNER:  Sure.  I've asked a
0086
 1                            Lin
 2        relevant question and I think his name is a
 3        relevant question --
 4             THE COURT CLERK:  And you got an
 5        answer.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  No, I didn't and--
 7             THE COURT CLERK:  Can you move
 8        forward.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Sir, I have many
10        questions to move forward.  I'm calling you
11        during the break.  I wish to speak to the
12        Judge please.  Can we do that, yes or no?
13             THE COURT CLERK:  You're entitled to
14        speak to the Judge but --
15             MR. LINDNER:  I'd appreciate it.
16             THE COURT CLERK:  I would like you to
17        take any suggestion --
18             MR. LINDNER:  I understand your
19        suggestion and you are saying, can we
20        continue and not speak to the Judge, and I
21        am saying that, unless Ms. Park says that
22        she will not say something is irrelevant
23        and direct her client not to answer, I
24        would like a Ruling from the Judge.
0087
 1                            Lin
 2        Ms. Park you did before say that something
 3        was not relevant and directed your client
 4        not to answer; is that correct?
 5             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, if I directed
 6        my client not to answer on the grounds of
 7        relevancy alone --
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
 9             MS. PARK:  -- guess what?  The entire
10        morning would have gone with no
11        testimony --
12             MR. LINDNER:  Have you ever --
13             MS. PARK:  Let me finish my statement.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Please.
15             MS. PARK:  You have spent the hour and
16        fifteen minutes asking nothing but
17        irrelevant questions.  Mr. Lin has answered
18        that.  Where I feel that your questions are
19        completely inappropriate and bent solely on
20        harassing my client, I can and I will
21        direct my client not to respond.  I believe
22        that there is a real serious risk to you
23        attempting to do personal harm to my
24        client, based on basically your stated wish
0088
 1                            Lin
 2        to harm Mr. Lin, and when you ask questions
 3        that are personal, that expose my client to
 4        potential harm from you, I will take that
 5        risk of directing my client not to answer
 6        your question.
 7             THE COURT CLERK:  Basically, you have
 8        to stick to relevant topics.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, but if I ask a
10        question and Ms. Park says it is not
11        relevant and directs her client not to
12        answer, is that correct or not.
13             THE COURT CLERK:  If you want to play
14        this out, if you insist on asking a
15        question that really has nothing to do with
16        your claims --
17             MR. LINDNER:  But it is Ms. Park's
18        view and not my view.  In other words,
19        should Ms. Park be the decider of relevance
20        or not?  If I'm saying I'll note her
21        objection but she is directing her client
22        not to answer; is that okay?
23             THE COURT CLERK:  If you play this out
24        to the end and ask the Judge to rule on the
0089
 1                            Lin
 2        relevance of it otherwise you are not going
 3        to get what you need.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  I'm not asking that,
 5        Jason.  Please don't misconstrue me.  I'm
 6        saying --
 7             THE COURT CLERK:  You have to stick to
 8        relevant--
 9             MR. LINDNER:  I'm saying, what I
10        thought you were just telling me is that
11        Ms. Park cannot say, "That is not a
12        relevant question.  I'm directing my client
13        not to answer."  And then ceases to answer.
14             THE COURT CLERK:  Eventually, if you
15        end up having to talk to the Judge and he
16        has to tell you that it is okay for Ms.
17        Park to direct her client not answer
18        questions that are not relevant, because
19        you are simply harassing her and you have
20        been directed --
21             MR. LINDNER:  She didn't say --
22             THE COURT CLERK:  -- to ask relevant
23        questions --
24             MR. LINDNER:  Jason, please, please,
0090
 1                            Lin
 2        please, I didn't say it with a knife in my
 3        hand.  I'm threatening.  I'm not harassing.
 4        She didn't say, "You were harassing my
 5        client."  She said, "It is not relevant."
 6        Please focus, Jason.
 7             THE COURT CLERK:  That is not all she
 8        said.  I heard her say those words --
 9             MR. LINDNER:  But you didn't hear
10        correctly then.  You hear correctly.  There
11        were many different times.  At one of those
12        times she said, "Harassing."  But at
13        another one of those times she didn't say
14        harassing she just said it wasn't relevant
15        and that's what I want a ruling from the
16        Judge On can I get that ruling, yes or no?
17             THE COURT CLERK:  Can you hold on a
18        minute, please?
19             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.
20                       Off the record.
21                       (Recess taken 12:25 p.m..)
22                       (Back on the record with
23                       Judge Katz at 12:30 p.m.)
24             JUDGE KATZ:  What is the issue
0091
 1                            Lin
 2        Mr. Lindner?
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Well, the issue is that
 4        I feel that Ms. Park is being
 5        obstructionist and specifically she is
 6        deciding that some of the questions I am
 7        asking are not relevant, which I note her
 8        objection and I'm glad to do so.  However,
 9        then she instructs her client not to answer
10        those questions and some of them she might
11        well be right but I thought -- One of the
12        questions was, I asked for Qing's full
13        name, and that's on the record, we could
14        find a quote from that, and Ms. Park
15        directed him not to answer.  She felt it
16        was sufficient, one stipulation or another,
17        but I wanted to get his full name, in case
18        he had a middle initial or anything like
19        that and she directed him not to answer.
20             Another time I asked for how many
21        people were employed at American Express
22        and she told him not to answer.  Another
23        point I asked Qing whether he was a U.S.
24        citizen or not and she directed him to
0092
 1                            Lin
 2        refuse to answer.  There might have also
 3        been a question when I asked whether he had
 4        a passport or not and she refused to have
 5        him answer.  Another time he stated that he
 6        was working in Risk Management and it was a
 7        function of, I think, a phrase something
 8        like, a function of the Credit Risk
 9        Management, and I said, can you explain
10        that phrase in a way that different people
11        could understand it?  Let's say, an eight
12        year old child, if you want to tell them
13        what you do; and then a thirteen year old
14        who is intelligent; then a college student
15        who is considering a job; or then to a
16        technical person in your field and then
17        explain what risk management is to, let's
18        say, a relative, an older relative who
19        wants to know what you are doing, and how
20        would you explain it, and she directed him
21        not to answer that.
22             I'm not positive on that, but that's
23        how I see the transcript, and I think that
24        is what indeed was happening.
0093
 1                            Lin
 2             JUDGE KATZ:  Why is it that you were
 3        interested in answers to those questions?
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Well, first of all, the
 5        job I was applying for uses many of the
 6        skills of Risk Management.  It was a Risk
 7        Management job.
 8             JUDGE KATZ:  Right.  But you weren't
 9        applying for a job with American Express.
10             MR. LINDNER:  Correct.  I was applying
11        for a job with Fisher Jordan, who was a
12        vendor and was a vendor working, or wanted
13        to work with American Express in his Risk
14        Management Group.  So, that's how it ties
15        in, but I felt it would lead to the
16        discovery of relevant information,
17        admissible evidence at trial.
18             For instance, one of the questions,
19        which I think Ms. Park objected to was when
20        I asked about did he have any phones that
21        were paid for by American Express, which he
22        said, "Yes," and he identified one as a
23        Blackberry, and he said that was paid for
24        by American Express, and that he gets
0094
 1                            Lin
 2        e-mails on it, and that he has indeed sent
 3        e-mails to Fisher Jordan on that Blackberry
 4        and so I asked:  Well then I'd like to get
 5        a list of what those e-mails are and, if I
 6        recall, Ms. Park saying, "No, Mr. Lindner,
 7        Discovery, that question is finished and
 8        you are not entitled to get any e-mails
 9        that he might have sent to Fisher Jordan on
10        his Blackberry.  Request all you want."
11             JUDGE KATZ:  Okay, but that doesn't
12        have to do with the deposition question.
13             MS. PARK:  Correct, your Honor.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Wait, wait, I'm sorry, I
15        didn't understand what you just said.
16             JUDGE KATZ:  That is not a deposition
17        question, getting the documents.  That is
18        outside the deposition.
19             MR. LINDNER:  During the deposition I
20        said, "I'd like to make a request."  I
21        thought when I was being deposed that I
22        would mention a document, she said, "What
23        would refresh your remember?" and I'd say,
24        such and such, and then she would say,
0095
 1                            Lin
 2        "Well, then I request that document."  So,
 3        I thought if he would say, "I sent e-mails
 4        to Fisher Jordan."  Then I would like to
 5        say, "I request that document."
 6             MS. PARK:  And, Judge, Mr. Lindner
 7        proceeds to want an answer from me on the
 8        record, in terms of his requests for
 9        records.  He wants to have an entire
10        colloquy about what those records are and
11        whether I'm going to produce them.
12             MR. LINDNER:  That is actually a
13        mischaracterization, you Honor. I think
14        what I asked is, "Ms. Park, have you turned
15        over such e-mails to me?"  And I think that
16        is a simple yes or no or I don't know I'll
17        have to find out and then get back to you.
18        I don't think she answered like that.
19             JUDGE KATZ:  Let's get back to the
20        question of the deposition.
21             MR. LINDNER:  Sure.
22             MS. PARK:  Your Honor, may I respond
23        to Mr. Lindner?
24             JUDGE KATZ:  Yes.
0096
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Okay.  So, Your Honor, this
 3        deposition was scheduled to start at 9:30.
 4        It didn't get off the ground until
 5        10:46 a.m., largely because of the time it
 6        took the videographer to get set up.  We
 7        just spent this hour and fifteen minutes
 8        with Mr. Lindner asking Mr. Lin questions
 9        revolving around what his position was, and
10        who he reported to back in 1990 when he was
11        hired.  Mr. Lindner then asked him
12        questions about where he was educated in
13        China and several questions about whether
14        Mr. Lin took some kind of test, an
15        examination test that was nationwide in
16        China to test his mathematical or computer
17        aclement (sic) and Mr. Lindner asked
18        questions such as -- I did not direct Mr.
19        Lin not to answer how many employees are at
20        American Express, but what Mr. Lindner
21        wanted Mr. Lin to do is to confirm that Ken
22        Chenault, chairman of the firm, is
23        responsible or is in charge of those 70,000
24        employees.
0097
 1                            Lin
 2             There were also asked questions such
 3        as, if he submitted a passport. You know,
 4        if he has an alias, which I allowed Mr. Lin
 5        to answer.  You know, does he have a
 6        Chinese name?  Does he have a different
 7        Chinese name?  Which I also allowed Mr. Lin
 8        to answer.  And, again, Your Honor could
 9        not have been more clear in your order of
10        yesterday, which limited Mr. Lindner to
11        questioning witnesses about matters
12        relevant to the Complaint.
13             I believe, based on statements
14        Mr. Lindner has made about Mr. Lin, that
15        these questions, Your Honor, are bent on
16        nothing more than harassing Mr. Lin.
17        Harassing Mr. Lin and getting as much
18        personal or sensitive information as he
19        can, so he can disseminate that information
20        to the public, Your Honor.  He has not
21        asked a single question about what Mr. Lin
22        said or didn't say to Fisher Jordan and
23        here we are an hour and fifteen minutes in.
24             MR. LINDNER:  Well, actually, Your
0098
 1                            Lin
 2        Honor, Ms. Park made a few misstatements --
 3             JUDGE KATZ:  Mr. Lindner, I don't want
 4        to waste anymore time --
 5             MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that.
 6             JUDGE KATZ:  -- because you have to
 7        get through this deposition.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Right.
 9             JUDGE KATZ:  And if you don't start
10        asked questions about the matters in issue,
11        you are never going to get through it.  So,
12        why are you spending so much time on all
13        these extraneous matters?
14             MR. LINDNER:  First of all, they are
15        not extraneous, Your Honor.  I feel that
16        giving his name is not extraneous --
17             JUDGE KATZ:  Well, no but --
18             MR. LINDNER:  Can you please amplify
19        when --
20             JUDGE KATZ:  We don't have to amplify.
21             MR. LINDNER:  Well, then please --
22             JUDGE KATZ:  Matters related to his
23        passport and immigration status are
24        extraneous.
0099
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  So, I should not
 3        have asked if he had a U.S. passport.
 4             JUDGE KATZ:  I think it's a waste of
 5        time, Mr. Lindner.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I understand it is a
 7        waste of time but I should not have asked
 8        it?
 9             JUDGE KATZ:  Yes, correct.
10             MR. LINDNER:  Your Honor, the reason I
11        asked that is that, at one point, Qing Lin
12        said, "Peter can't work here."
13             JUDGE KATZ:  Okay.
14             MR. LINDNER:  And so, what does it
15        mean if you say somebody can't work here?
16        To some people that would mean you don't
17        have a U.S. passport or you don't have a
18        Green Card and you don't have the ability
19        to work here.
20             JUDGE KATZ:  Mr. Lindner, why don't
21        you ask him if he said that and what he
22        meant.
23             MR. LINDNER:  Because we are not up to
24        that, Your Honor.  It's a seven hour
0100
 1                            Lin
 2        deposition which we are an hour and a half
 3        into it.  So, if you want, I can just jump
 4        to the end and have him say, "I don't
 5        know," and then the whole deposition is
 6        over.  I am building up and I'm trying to
 7        use his information.  So, will you please
 8        direct the deponent to answer the question
 9        of his full name.
10             MS. PARK:  I have already stipulated
11        his full name, Your Honor, Qing Lin.
12             MR. LINDNER:  I'd like to hear it from
13        Mr. Lin.
14             JUDGE KATZ:  He can answer that
15        question.
16             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.  We
17        will ask that question later.  I appreciate
18        that.  Then when Ms. Park feels the
19        question is not relevant she directs Qing
20        not to answer.
21             MS. PARK:  That is not accurate, Your
22        Honor.  If I were to direct Mr. Lindner not
23        to answer on the grounds of relevancy then
24        guess what, I don't know that even one
0101
 1                            Lin
 2        question would have been answered in the
 3        first hour and fifteen minutes.  I have sat
 4        here.  My client has sat here.  We have
 5        answered questions.  When I feel like Mr.
 6        Lindner is attesting to do nothing more
 7        than harassing my client, and based upon
 8        his stated intent to harm Mr. Lin in
 9        whatever way he can and in whatever power
10        he has, Your Honor, I have serious and
11        grave concerns.
12             JUDGE KATZ:  Okay.
13             MR. LINDNER:  The point is that, if I
14        ask a hundred questions, the point is not
15        what is my least relevant question.  The
16        point is what is my most relevant question
17        and I felt some of my questions were indeed
18        relevant.  So, I will note Ms. Park's
19        objection on the record but I'm asking for
20        a Ruling on this.  If Ms. Park says, "Not
21        relevant," and I say, "Your objection is
22        noted but wish the deponent to answer," can
23        I get the deponent to answer the question?
24             JUDGE KATZ:  Well, not if Ms. Park
0102
 1                            Lin
 2        thinks you are harassing the client.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  So, if she says, "I feel
 4        you're harassing him," then we should ask
 5        for a Ruling; correct?
 6             JUDGE KATZ:  Correct, but I don't
 7        expect to have that happen all day long.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Well, I don't either,
 9        but I don't feel I was harassing when I
10        asked him his name, and don't feel I was
11        harassing when I asked how many people
12        worked at American Express.
13             JUDGE KATZ:  And I don't think that
14        she claimed that that was harassing.
15             MS. PARK:  Well, Your Honor, he
16        actually answered.  Mr. Lin answered that
17        question.  He said, "70,000 employees."
18             MR. LINDNER:  That's because I asked
19        it a different way.  But there were several
20        other ones and Your Honor we have a
21        stenographic record of this.  So, I think
22        Ms. Park is not telling you the full truth
23        on these matters.  So, if she says, Peter
24        you are harassing the deponent by asking a
0103
 1                            Lin
 2        question about such and such a personal
 3        area, that would be one thing, but when she
 4        says it's not relevant, I don't want to
 5        have to explain the relevancy to her, but
 6        in this case I did explain the relevancy
 7        and that is that when Qing said to Fisher
 8        Jordan, "I don't think he can work here."
 9        If you ask a person about an employer and
10        they said, "I don't think he can work
11        here," the question is what does "Here
12        mean?"  Here might mean at this company.
13        Here might mean in this city or here might
14        mean in this country, because of passport
15        reasons.  You know, not having a Green
16        Card.  So, that is why I asked that
17        question.
18             But I don't if I have to explain my
19        whole thing to Ms. Park when he could just
20        say yes or no.
21             JUDGE KATZ:  Look, I don't follow your
22        logic on some of this but --
23             MR. LINDNER:  I'm sorry.
24             MS. PARK:  Judge --
0104
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking for a
 3        specific ruling on this and the specific
 4        ruling is.  If Ms. Park says something is
 5        not relevant and I note her objection on
 6        the record, can I compel the deponent to
 7        answer?
 8             JUDGE KATZ:  If she doesn't think you
 9        are harassing her client.
10             MR. LINDNER:  Right.  I understand if
11        she says, "You're harassing my client.  I'm
12        directing him not to answer," then I will
13        object, and we will note that on the
14        record.  But, I'm saying, if she doesn't
15        say that, "harassing," if she just says,
16        "It is not relevant question, I'm directing
17        you not to answer, Qing," and then he
18        refuses to answer, I'd like a ruling on
19        that, please.
20             MS. PARK:  Judge, you don't need to
21        rule because I will not object.  It is Mr.
22        Lindner's deposition.  We are here for
23        seven hours.  I will not object on the
24        ground of relevancy, unless I feel he has
0105
 1                            Lin
 2        gone over the line and is now doing nothing
 3        but attempting to harass my client.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Can I get a ruling on
 5        that, Your Honor?
 6             JUDGE KATZ:  Mr. Lindner --
 7             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
 8             JUDGE KATZ:  Your case is not the only
 9        case this court has responsibility for, and
10        the way you are behaving you act like you
11        think that you have all of the Court's
12        attention be dedicated to your case.  It
13        can't.  You are a smart enough man to know
14        what needs to be done in order to get
15        discovery about the specific claim in this
16        case, which are very limited.  They are
17        very limited.  That has nothing to do with
18        the merit of the claim.  All I'm saying is
19        the issues and contention are very narrow.
20        Essentially, whether he breached the
21        agreement by saying something negative
22        about your ability to be employed there and
23        what consequences that had --
24             MR. LINDNER:  Your Honor, can I say --
0106
 1                            Lin
 2             JUDGE KATZ:  No.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  -- that is not what it
 4        says on paragraph 13?
 5             MS. PARK:  Judge, we have just now
 6        wasted forty minutes.
 7             JUDGE KATZ:  I think what we will do
 8        is, if there are significant disagreements
 9        over areas like this and you can't resolve
10        them, then I would suggest you just go on
11        and I will deal with them at the end of the
12        deposition not throughout the middle of it.
13             MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate it and in
14        the meantime the deponent will be
15        instructed to answer, right, and you can
16        always strike it from the record; correct.
17             JUDGE KATZ:  Unless Ms. Park feels
18        that you are harassing the witness.
19             MR. LINDNER:  I understand fully.
20             MS. PARK:  Thank you, Judge.
21             MR. LINDNER:  Now, the other thing
22        that Ms. Park said is that we started at
23        10:45 because the videographer had to set
24        up.  The answer was that Ms. Park received
0107
 1                            Lin
 2        an e-mail from me about the video on
 3        Friday, which was six days ago, and again
 4        on Monday, and I told her that we were
 5        going to start at 9:30 on 42nd Street, at
 6        the place, and she objected last night at
 7        6:45 p.m. from going there.  So, she knew
 8        this a week ago and they would have been
 9        set up instantly.  At 9:30 they would have
10        started on the dot.
11             She wrote me an e-mail, which can be
12        produced.  I have a copy of it here.  That
13        she said that if --
14             JUDGE KATZ:  I'm not ruling on this
15        matter.  Go on with the deposition.
16             MR. LINDNER:  I understand, Your
17        Honor, I wish to go on --
18             MS. PARK:  Thank you, Your Honor.
19             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.
20             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Stand by.  This
21        begins tape number 2 in the deposition of
22        Qing Lin.  We are on the record at 12:47.
23             MR. LINDNER:  This Peter Lindner, I'm
24        continuing -- This is Peter Lindner and I'm
0108
 1                            Lin
 2        continuing the deposition of Qing Lin.
 3        Q    So, Qing, earlier I asked you a question
 4   of what your full name was and Ms. Park --
 5             MS. PARK:  Just ask him what his full
 6        name.  He can answer the question.
 7             MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is noted,
 8        Ms. Park?
 9             MS. PARK:  I'm not objecting.  Just
10        ask him.
11             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, your objection
12        is noted.  Please do not interrupt again.
13        Q    And Ms. Park directed you not to answer
14   and to refuse to answer.  We just got a ruling
15   from the Judge and the Judge instructed that you
16   should be ordered to give your name.  So, let me
17   ask you a question before I ask you the answer
18   (sic).  Do you understand what it means when a
19   judge orders something?
20             MS. PARK:  We stipulate that he does.
21        Move on, Mr. Lindner.
22             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you, Ms. Park.
23             MS. PARK:  Move on.
24             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I will move
0109
 1                            Lin
 2        on.  I wish to get an answer from Mr. Lin.
 3        Q    Qing, do you understand what it means
 4   when a judge orders something?
 5        A    Could you explain?
 6        Q    Sure.  You have a judge who is in a
 7   court and supposedly they have control of the
 8   court.  You understand what it means to have
 9   control of an environment; correct?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry?
12             MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is noted.
13        Q    Can you answer?  Do you understand what
14   it means to have control of an environment?
15        A    I do not understand the technical legal
16   meaning of control of the court.
17        Q    I wasn't using a legal term.  I was
18   using environment in the sense -- For instance, if
19   American Express has certain standards of what you
20   wear or what you say or what things you can carry.
21   For instance:  You cannot bring alcohol into the
22   work place, then they have control over that
23   office.  Do you understand that?
24             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0110
 1                            Lin
 2        A    In that form, I understand what you
 3   said.
 4        Q    Very good.  So, in a similar way a judge
 5   has control over this environment, over the
 6   courthouse.  In other words, the judge can decide
 7   what he allows and does not allow.  Let me give an
 8   example.  I had a cell phone --
 9             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
10             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
11        Q    I had a cell phone.  I wasn't allowed to
12   bring it up.  Ms. Park has a cell phone.  She is
13   allowed to bring it up.  The judge specifically
14   ordered that.  Do you understand what it means
15   when a judge orders something?
16             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
17        answered.
18        Q    Do you understand what it means?
19        A    I understand in this example what it
20   means.
21        Q    Can you tell me, in the best of your
22   ability, how you understand what a judge's order
23   is?
24             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He is
0111
 1                            Lin
 2        not a lawyer, Mr. Lindner.
 3        Q    As a layman, I understand that you are
 4   not a lawyer and I understand that I'm not a
 5   lawyer, even though I play one in this trial, but
 6   nonetheless do you understand what -- what is your
 7   understanding of what a judge's order is.
 8        A    I don't know because I usually consult
 9   with Ms. Park.
10             MS. PARK:  Fine, just say, "I don't
11        know."
12             MR. LINDNER:  If you don't know,
13        that's fine.
14        Q    So, if somebody was to say, for instance
15   at American Express, that there is a rule that you
16   cannot bring liquor into the facility you would
17   understand what that means; correct?
18        A    So, first, I'm not aware that American
19   Express has that rule.
20        Q    That's true.  They may not have that
21   rule.  Let me ask you another thing.  Suppose
22   somebody were drinking on the job, does American
23   Express have rules on that?
24        A    I don't remember.
0112
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    So, for instance, can you bring in some
 3   liquor and when you go down for your lunch bring
 4   it up to your desk and drink it, like a rum and
 5   coke, or some drink like that?  Orange juice and
 6   vodka, and do your work.  Is that acceptable
 7   American Express policy?
 8        A    I'm not aware of American Express policy
 9   but I have not seen people do that.
10        Q    Alright.  You are a manager of many
11   people.  So, do you feel that there is a document
12   that tells whether you can or cannot, in fact,
13   consume liquor on the premises while you are
14   working?
15             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
16        answer.  You can answer.
17        A    So, I have seen incidents, that happens.
18   For example, there could be receptions, company
19   host inside the building.  Alcohol would be
20   served.
21        Q    Sure.
22        A    I have seen that.
23        Q    Right.
24        A    So, that's why I cannot especially say
0113
 1                            Lin
 2   which is rule.
 3        Q    And, actually, I have been to some of
 4   those but typically they are social type things as
 5   opposed to business meetings.  Would you
 6   characterize it as such?
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 8        Q    How would you characterize the
 9   difference when they serve and when they don't
10   serve?
11             MS. PARK:  Okay to form.
12             MR. LINDNER:  Noted.  Please answer.
13        A    It is business related meeting.
14        Q    Okay.  Do you think that this -- Do you
15   know of any document at American Express that
16   would actually state what the policy is or not?
17        A    Regarding to what?
18        Q    Alcoholic beverages?
19        A    I do not know.
20        Q    Do you think there would be anything
21   that would refresh your memory?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
23        didn't say he can't remember.  He said he
24        doesn't know.
0114
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    If you had a question on that, who would
 3   you go to?
 4        A    I would go to Human Resources.
 5        Q    And what would Human Resources probably
 6   do?
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
 8        can't testify to what someone in HR would
 9        do.
10        Q    Have you ever spoken to HR before?
11        A    In general?
12        Q    Yes.
13        A    In my 19 years or 18 years?
14        Q    Yes.
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    Do people or have you ever asked a
17   specific question of HR?
18        A    Have I ever asked a question to HR?
19        Q    Yes.
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    Have they ever gotten back to you with
22   an answer?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    When they give you an answer do they
0115
 1                            Lin
 2   couch it in terms of specific documents?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        Q    Do they ever say, "Here is a document
 5   that answers your question."
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7        A    They would typically say by policy or by
 8   something and that's what is acceptable or not
 9   acceptable.  I do not know the document handed to
10   me.
11        Q    It would be a document; correct?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13        A    I don't know.
14        Q    Are there documents at HR?
15        A    They are documents.
16        Q    They have documents, right.  For
17   instance, in America you typically walk on the
18   right side of the sidewalk.  There is no law about
19   walking on the right side of the sidewalk.  You
20   could walk on the left side.  I don't think, if
21   you want to find a document, there would be.
22             Do you think there is a document at
23   American Express -- Do you have any opinion
24   whether there is a document or whether HR would
0116
 1                            Lin
 2   know if there is a document about drinking at
 3   work?
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Objection to form.
 5        Asked and answered.
 6        A    I do not know whether document exists or
 7   not.  HR may know but I do not know such document
 8   exists.
 9        Q    Let's assume for a moment that somebody
10   who is in control of a group, a senior
11   vice-president or president, manager or whatever
12   said, "I'm not going to allow such and such to
13   happen."  Do you understand -- Have you been in
14   such experiences in your time at American Express
15   where a manager says, "I don't want such and such
16   to happen."
17             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
18        A    So, you are asking a very general
19   question.  I don't know how to answer.  Be
20   specific.
21        Q    Has a manager ever said something that
22   he will not allow in a group which he had the
23   authority to either allow or not allow?
24             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0117
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  Noted.
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Can you give an example?
 5        A    If you are stealing on company property
 6   that's not allowed.
 7        Q    Correct.  That's a good example.  In
 8   some cases stealing a computer might be considered
 9   a bad thing and in some cases stealing a pencil
10   might be considered a bad thing.  At American
11   Express is stealing a pencil considered a bad
12   thing?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14        A    I don't know.
15        Q    Have you ever taken a pencil from
16   American Express from work to home?
17        A    A pencil?
18        Q    A pencil.
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    If somebody called you to their office
21   and said, "We are firing you for stealing company
22   property, namely a pencil," what would your
23   reaction be?
24        A    So, you are asking me my judgment --
0118
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Yes.
 3        A    -- whether taking a pencil home from
 4   work constitute to stealing company property or
 5   not?
 6        Q    Correct.
 7        A    Is that your question?
 8        Q    Correct.
 9        A    It is a hypothetical question.  You are
10   asking my judgment now?
11        Q    Yes.
12        A    I just want to understand your question.
13        Q    You understand it perfectly.
14        A    In that particular case, I would not in
15   general rule say this person is stealing company
16   property.
17        Q    If you were to say why, what reason
18   would you give for that?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        A    That is my judgment.
21        Q    Could a manager then say, "Okay, let
22   bygones be bygones, but from this point forward I
23   don't want you ever to take a pencil home again."
24   Can you imagine that happening?
0119
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3        A    Again, that is a very hypothetical
 4   question.
 5        Q    Yes, it is a hypothetical question.
 6        A    First, I do not think a manager would
 7   say that.  It's a different matter if someone
 8   order a large case of pencils, say big case of
 9   pencils and take it home, then that would be
10   stealing company property.
11        Q    Right.  Or a computer perhaps; right?  I
12   mean there are times when you take a computer home
13   but it's the exact opposite of stealing.  You're
14   stealing your personal time to help out American
15   Express by doing work at home.  So, sometimes
16   stealing would be the completely wrong word.  But
17   anyhow, a manager could say -- For instance, can
18   you imagine a manager saying, "Do not take a
19   computer home with you?"  Have managers ever said
20   that to anybody?
21             MS. PARK:  Which question are you
22        asking him.  You asked five questions in --
23             MR. LINDNER:  Let me clarify, Ms.
24        Park.
0120
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Can you imagine a manager saying to a
 3   person, "Do not take your laptop home with you?"
 4        A    Can I imagine?
 5        Q    Yes.
 6        A    It depends on the case.
 7        Q    So, you can imagine it?  You just can
 8   imagine cases where they can and you can also
 9   imagine cases where they cannot; is that correct?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    Okay.  So, can you give me an example
12   where a manager would say, "Do not take a laptop
13   home," and he would be totally right on that?
14        A    You are asking me a judgment without
15   substance of situation.  I cannot answer that
16   question.
17        Q    Let me clarify it.  American Express has
18   a lot of customer information; is that correct?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    Some of that information is
21   confidential; correct?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    Some of that information is stored on
24   laptops; correct?
0121
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    If there were an incident of personal
 4   accounts being found out by what are called
 5   hackers, that would be upsetting to American
 6   Express; would that be correct?
 7        A    You mean a data compromise?
 8        Q    Correct.
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Yes.  So, if an incident like that
11   happened and a manager said, "For a period of time
12   I'm saying do not take a laptop home," that would
13   make sense, correct or not?
14        A    I do not know because they are data
15   security procedures of American Express.  I do
16   know -- I do not know enough of hypothetical
17   situations to form a judgment to say whether you
18   should or should not take that laptop home.
19        Q    Right.  But if a manager made a decision
20   that he felt that the situation called for no
21   laptops being taken home --
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    -- that would be within his province of
24   making a decision; correct?
0122
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    And suppose, even if you were told that,
 4   you took a laptop home would that be a problem?
 5        A    Yes.
 6        Q    I agree with you.  So, you wonder where
 7   I'm going with this and I will tell you.  The
 8   judge just now said that previously Ms. Park told
 9   you not to answer a question, and she in fact
10   instructed you to do that and the judge, as I
11   understand him, ordered you to answer.  So, that
12   means that if you refuse to answer you're
13   disobeying a direct order of the judge.
14             MS. PARK:  That's your
15        characterization.
16        Q    So, let me ask you now, in light of how
17   I understood the judge to say that you are
18   directed to answer, can you give me your full
19   name?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    What is it?
22        A    Qing Lin.  I have answered that before
23   but I'll repeat.
24        Q    I appreciate it.  That's what I'm asking
0123
 1                            Lin
 2   you.  So, on your Birth Certificate it would also
 3   say, Qing Lin; correct?
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 5        Q    Do you have a Birth Certificate?
 6        A    No.
 7        Q    Oh, okay.  I didn't know that.  Do you
 8   have any documents that has your name as it was
 9   from the earliest that it's recorded?  Typically
10   in America, not everybody, but most people have a
11   Birth Certificate to prove for voting or various
12   things, to prove that they can drink for instance.
13   A trivial example.  But for very important things.
14   Like there was a question about where Barrack
15   Obama was born or where Senator John McCain was
16   born and if their Birth Certificate said some
17   other country then they would not be eligible --
18        A    Peter, I understand it.
19        Q    Okay.
20             MS. PARK:  What's your question?
21        What's your question?  What's your
22        question?
23             THE WITNESS:  I was going to ask that.
24        Q    Please answer, Qing.
0124
 1                            Lin
 2        A    What's your question?  So, you ask me
 3   what's my name, I just stated.
 4        Q    Did you ever have a different, slightly
 5   different, name?
 6        A    No.
 7        Q    I say that because I had a roommate at
 8   college who had a name Ben Fung, but his real name
 9   was Fung Ben Lee, and the Immigration Service
10   changed it and I'm asking you if you had a name
11   prior to this that was slightly different?
12        A    No.  But I will state one fact.
13        Q    Thank you.
14        A    In U.S. we put family name after the
15   given name.  In China we put family name before
16   given name.
17        Q    Okay.
18        A    So, that will be the only difference.
19   You will note in China people will typically call
20   me Lin Qing.  In U.S., because of the law, because
21   we are required to family name last, so I'm Qing
22   Lin.
23        Q    Okay, so Qing is your first name?
24        A    Yes.
0125
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Thank you and I appreciate that you went
 3   and --That's good.
 4        A    Does that answer your question?
 5        Q    Yes, it did.  You know, if we had that
 6   before we would have been saved a lot of time and
 7   trouble.  So, let us continue.  We had talked a
 8   little bit about that you had e-mail, right before
 9   the break, on your Blackberry; and that's correct?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    That you have sent or received e-mails
12   to or from Fisher Jordan on that Blackberry;
13   correct?
14        A    I do not remember.
15        Q    I think, if I can characterize your
16   answer as active and passive, you were sort of
17   implying that your Blackberry passively gets all
18   your e-mail and you don't know whether you sent
19   one directly to Fisher Jordan, but the Blackberry
20   might contain on it a Fisher Jordan e-mail by the
21   virtue of how it worked.  Is that correct?
22        A    The Blackberry is linked and replicated
23   in the way the company's e-mail system.
24        Q    Okay.
0126
 1                            Lin
 2        A    And whatever is on the company's e-mail
 3   system the Blackberry will get it.
 4        Q    So, now you tell me that you can access
 5   a lot of your e-mail, maybe all of your e-mail,
 6   from your Blackberry.  Is that true?
 7        A    No.  All the company e-mail on the
 8   company e-mail system.
 9        Q    And that e-mail system, I think you said
10   was Lotus notes; is that correct?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    Do they have a retention policy for
13   e-mails at American Express?
14        A    I think so.
15        Q    Can you describe that policy?
16        A    I do not know.
17        Q    If you were -- You are a pretty high up
18   manager at American Express.  When I worked there
19   there were a lot of statements about what a
20   retention policy would be.  How long you could
21   keep your information whether it is germaine.  Are
22   you aware of any such policies or not?
23        A    I'm aware of such policy exist but I am
24   not familiar with that policy.
0127
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    That's okay.  So, now, let me ask you
 3   further.  Are you familiar with any policy of
 4   American Express on retention as regards this
 5   case?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    Can you tell me what that policy is?
 8        A    There would be a specific order of hold
 9   any document and that was supposed to be.
10        Q    By retain, can you describe a little bit
11   more what that means?
12        A    Means I cannot delete or change those
13   information.
14        Q    Do you understand the reason for that?
15        A    I think so.
16        Q    Can you tell me what you think the
17   reason is for that?
18        A    Because we want to maintain the
19   evidence.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Very good.  That is how
21        I interpreted it too, by the way.  I'm not
22        a lawyer but that's how I interpreted it.
23        Q    So, Fisher Jordan spoke with you in
24   2005?  Is that correct or not?
0128
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3        Q    Did you speak to Fisher Jordan ever in
 4   your life?
 5        A    Fisher Jordan is the name of company.
 6        Q    Correct.
 7        A    So, your question is:  Did I speak with
 8   some person in Fisher Jordan?  Is that your
 9   question?
10        Q    That is exactly it?
11        A    Yes.  Cause I cannot speak to a company.
12        Q    Well, if somebody said, I called
13   American Express," and they told me I exceeded my
14   credit limit or I'm thirty days overdue --
15        A    Okay, I just wanted to understand the
16   question.
17        Q    People do say that; right?  People say,
18   "I called Amex" --
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        Q    -- and they said, "I'm overdue," would
21   that be a phrase that you would hear in American
22   Express for instance?
23        A    Yes.  I just wanted to be clear because
24   --
0129
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    I understand.  Fisher Jordan could be
 3   two people but it's not.  It's the name of a
 4   company.  Alright, so you have spoken to people in
 5   Fisher Jordan.  Do you remember speaking to them
 6   in 2005?
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 8        A    Yes.  Sometime in the 2005, yes.
 9        Q    So, sometime in 2005 you spoke to people
10   at Fisher Jordan?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    Did you speak to them socially or did
13   you speak to them on a work related matter?
14        A    On the a work related matter.
15        Q    Can you describe approximately when in
16   2005?
17        A    Some time early 2005.  I do not remember
18   exact time.
19        Q    You don't have to remember the exact
20   date but early 2005 means, what?  The first --
21        A    I don't know.
22        Q    -- three months -- six months of the
23   year?
24        A    I would say, maybe, second quarter of
0130
 1                            Lin
 2   the year.
 3        Q    Second quarter of the year, okay.
 4   Second quarter begins on what date?
 5        A    You are asking my knowledge of when the
 6   second quarter starts?
 7        Q    Yes.
 8        A    Second quarter started April 1st.
 9        Q    Right.  So, if it --
10        A    Maybe before that.
11        Q    -- occurred March 15th or April 15th,
12   it's just a range?
13        A    I don't remember specific date you are
14   asking me.
15             MR. LINDNER:  That's fine.  So, think
16        we are going to move onto the line of
17        questioning.  We finished most of the intro
18        questions and so now we are going to talk a
19        little bit about Fisher Jordan; okay?
20        Q    Now, how did you first know or get to
21   meet anyone at Fisher Jordan?
22        A    One person I know in Fisher Jordan is
23   Boaz Salik.
24             MR. LINDNER:  B-o-a-z, new word
0131
 1                            Lin
 2        S-a-l-i-k, and I note for the record that
 3        he has a brother named Omer Salik, O-m-e-r
 4        Salik, and he is the lawyer for Fisher
 5        Jordan, and he has been admitted to this
 6        case pro hac bice, which is pro (p-r-o) hac
 7        (h-a-c) bice (b-i-c-e).  So, sometimes when
 8        we said Salik, it will be confusing but if
 9        we say Boaz and Omer it will be less
10        confusion.
11        Q    Boaz is the one you are familiar with;
12   correct?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    And do you remember how you first met
15   him?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    Can you tell me about that?
18        A    Boaz was a consultant in Mitchell
19   Madison Group, which is a management consulting
20   firm.
21        Q    What was the name of the group?
22        A    Mitchel Madison.
23        Q    Mitchel Madison?
24        A    Yes. I don't remember how to spell that
0132
 1                            Lin
 2   name, so.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  I think it is
 4        M-i-t-c-h-e-l-l new word Madison, like
 5        Madison Avenue, (M-a-d-i-s-o-n).
 6        A    He was engaged.  He worked with American
 7   Express on a marketing project.  I was partially
 8   involved in that project.  That's how I know Boaz
 9   Salik.
10        Q    Was he part of Mitchell Madison or was
11   he Fisher Jordan working for Mitchell Madison
12   working for American Express?
13        A    My recollection is he was part of
14   Mitchell Madison.
15        Q    Okay.  And how long did you know him in
16   the Mitchell Madison capacity as opposed to the
17   Fisher Jordan capacity?
18        A    So, I do not quite understand the
19   question, "How long?"
20        Q    Does Boaz still work for Mitchell
21   Madison?
22        A    No.
23        Q    So, at some point he transitioned from
24   Mitchell Madison to Fisher Jordan.  Do you happen
0133
 1                            Lin
 2   to remember approximately when that was?
 3        A    No, I do not remember.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  I'm a little bit thrown
 5        off here.  I'm sorry, I'm going to go back
 6        to an area that I did before.  My notes are
 7        not the best.  I'm going to go back to the
 8        risk management.
 9        Q    I had asked at one point that you
10   describe what risk management is to a series of
11   different people and you, in a humorous way -- The
12   reason I'm asking you that question is because
13   sometimes we know words, and it means we use them
14   all the time, like the word finance.  You use the
15   word finance all the time.  It means you have no
16   trouble understanding it.  When you talk to
17   certain people and you say, "I'm in finance," and
18   they won't have a clue as to what you do.
19             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
20             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, there is.
21        Q    Have you ever met somebody who, as an
22   adult, did not know what finance meant?
23             MS. PARK:  Objection form.
24        A    I do not remember I have met anyone who
0134
 1                            Lin
 2   do not know what finance is.
 3        Q    That's good.  Have you ever met an
 4   adult, an average adult, who did not understand
 5   what risk management was?
 6        A    I do not remember.  I might have.
 7        Q    Does risk management only apply to
 8   credit card companies?
 9        A    No.
10        Q    What other field does it apply to?
11        A    There are many fields risk management
12   could be applied to.
13        Q    Can you give a few different examples,
14   aside from the field of finance?
15        A    Aside from the field of finance?
16        Q    Yes?
17             MS. PARK:  Objection.
18        A    I don't understand the question.
19        Q    You are expert on risk management and
20   you are an expert in financial risk management; is
21   that correct?
22        A    I'm an expert on credit risk management
23   for a credit card company.
24        Q    Could you have, let's say, risk
0135
 1                            Lin
 2   management in another field totally unrelated to
 3   credit cards?  Let's say risk management in terms
 4   of explosives?  Risk management in terms of data
 5   security?
 6        A    Operation risk, is that what you're
 7   talking about?
 8        Q    Yes, for instance.
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    It would have nothing to do with
11   finance?
12        A    Yes.  So the question is:  Am I aware
13   of?
14        Q    Yes, are you aware?
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    So, if somebody said -- If you said to
17   somebody you are in risk management, chances are
18   they wouldn't understand it that well that they
19   would know exactly what you do.  You would have to
20   explain it to them.  So, that's what I'm asking
21   you to do.  Can you explain, to an average person,
22   without using terms like credit operations or
23   function, can you do it in simple terms what risk
24   management is?
0136
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3        Q    Can you explain that?
 4        A    So, you are asking hypothetical question
 5   on -- The first question you've been asking to me
 6   is, what is risk management?
 7        Q    Correct, can you answer that?  I think
 8   you already answered it and you gave a pretty
 9   technical answer and I'm not asking you to repeat
10   that answer.  I'm asking can you give a variation
11   on that answer that uses simpler words?
12        A    So, without a context, I do not know how
13   to answer your question.  You have to give me more
14   specifics of the situation and maybe I could
15   answer in that situation.
16        Q    I appreciate your candor.  Yes, I can
17   give more specifics -- You go to a cocktail party
18   and you meet some colleagues and one of the
19   colleagues, who has a spouse, who was an English
20   Major at a university, a pretty good university,
21   and that spouse asks you, "What do you do," and
22   you said, "I'm in risk management," and that
23   spouse says, "I'm not sure.  I know what risk
24   means.  I know what management means.  I know you
0137
 1                            Lin
 2   are managing some sort of risk.  Can you explain
 3   it?"  And that's what I'm asking you.  Can you
 4   explain in that situation what risk management is?
 5        A    Could you clarify the situation?  Is
 6   that spouse familiar with American Express --
 7        Q    Not at all.  But they are --
 8        A    You're talking about --
 9        Q    They would be familiar about having a
10   credit card.  You know, they know American
11   Express, Mastercard, Visa.  They don't know what
12   the difference is.  They don't know the difference
13   between a credit card or a debit card.  That's all
14   beyond them.  But they do read and write English
15   really well.  They are intelligent people.  I mean
16   they could probably figure it out.  But if you had
17   to explain what risk management is, can you do so
18   now?
19        A    To someone who is familiar with American
20   Express business?
21        Q    No, to somebody who just knows credit
22   cards.  They know credit cards in that even a ten
23   year old knows that you use a credit card, to buy
24   things.  But can you explain what risk management
0138
 1                            Lin
 2   is?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Please do so.
 5        A    Risk management to ensure that we take
 6   the right level of the risk of incomes of people
 7   not paying us back and it is there to maintain
 8   profitability.
 9        Q    How do you do that?
10        A    There are many things.  We manage
11   incomes of credit issuing process.
12        Q    And by credit issuing process, do you
13   mean deciding whether to give a person a credit
14   card at all?
15        A    Yes, so we decide who to give a credit
16   card.  We decide what is the credit line on the
17   credit card.
18        Q    And credit line would mean what?
19        A    Credit limits.  You are familiar with
20   credit limit on a credit card?
21        Q    I'm familiar with all of it but I'm just
22   trying to do it --
23        A    As a layman --
24        Q    Yes, I guess when you say, "You," you
0139
 1                            Lin
 2   meant the hypothetical spouse at the party," I'm
 3   sorry.  I lost it.
 4             MS. PARK:  I just want to clarify.
 5        The court reporter cannot transcribe both
 6        of you speaking at the same time.  So, Mr.
 7        Lin, please, you know, don't talk when Mr.
 8        Lindner is talking, and visa versa, so the
 9        record is clear.
10             THE WITNESS:  Okay, I appreciate that.
11             MR. LINDNER:  And I appreciate that
12        too. Okay, so, go ahead, Qing.
13        A    So, risk management involve deciding
14   what is the credit line on the credit card.  Risk
15   management involve when do we start calling
16   customer to remind them their bill is due.  Risk
17   management involve when do we call customer to
18   collect the past payments.
19        Q    Okay.
20        A    Risk management also involve when do we
21   start serious collection effort, including legal
22   actions to collect the balance.
23        Q    Well, thank you.  Actually, you went
24   further than I thought and I'm glad you did
0140
 1                            Lin
 2   because -- Actually, I worked in collections in
 3   Richard Cohen and I forgot that part.  Let's talk
 4   a little bit about collections.  When they do
 5   collections, how do they decide whom to go after
 6   in collections?
 7        A    Every past due customer we attempt to
 8   collect.
 9        Q    Everyone?
10        A    Everyone.
11        Q    Are there some that you don't attempt to
12   collect?  You are implying that -- There are none
13   that you don't bother with?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15        A    There are different level of past due.
16   So, when people reach certain level past due, we
17   always attempt to collect.
18        Q    Have you ever heard of the term
19   "probability tree?"
20        A    I have heard probability.  I have heard
21   tree.  I do not know what you mean probability
22   tree.
23        Q    How do you interpret the phrase to mean?
24             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0141
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Different events with certain
 3   probability of happening and then you draw a tree
 4   diagraph to highlight what is a possibility and
 5   what is a probability.
 6        Q    And your answer seems to imply that you
 7   know quite a bit about probability trees; correct?
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9        Q    Do you know a lot about probability
10   trees?
11             MS. PARK:  Objection, asked and
12        answered.
13             MR. LINDNER:  Objection noted.  Please
14        answer.
15        A    Yes.  I know what do you mean
16   probability trees.
17        Q    Pardon?
18        A    I know what do you mean probability
19   trees.
20        Q    And have you had experience with
21   probability trees?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    Is it at all related to risk management?
24        A    Yes.
0142
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Is it centrally related to risk
 3   management?
 4        A    Not necessarily.
 5        Q    Okay.  You see I would have thought the
 6   whole point of risk management is building a
 7   probability tree but you would say that's an
 8   incorrect characterization?
 9        A    Probability tree could be a tool.  Could
10   be a representation of risk management but that is
11   not an entire risk management.
12        Q    Is it a large part of risk management?
13        A    It's a tool.
14        Q    What are the other tools?
15        A    There are many other tools.
16        Q    Can you name some of the other tools?
17        A    Optimization, statistics.
18        Q    Are there other tools beyond that?  I'm
19   sure there are but, I mean, can you think of any
20   offhand?
21        A    I can think many.  I just gave you two
22   examples.
23        Q    Would probability trees be related to
24   statistics?
0143
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Could be.
 3        Q    Are they?
 4        A    I do not know in what context?  What do
 5   you mean relate?
 6        Q    You have bankruptcy models at American
 7   Express; is that correct?
 8        A    We might have.  I don't remember
 9   specifically.
10        Q    Do you have any models at American
11   Express?
12        A    Could you clarify model?
13        Q    Do you have any mathematical models for
14   the credit card modeling?
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    Can you tell us what a mathematical
17   model for credit card modeling is?
18             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park?
19             MS. PARK:  Go ahead and answer.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Without giving away --
21        A    You know, so --
22             MR. LINDNER:  Without --
23             MS. PARK:  The two of you cannot be
24        speaking at the same time.
0144
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    I'm sorry.  Let me clarify this.  There
 3   is certain information that Mastercard would love
 4   to get from American Express about their
 5   probability models.  I want you to think of what
 6   that information is and do not say it.  In other
 7   words, if you want to say, "We use a such and such
 8   tree," whatever it is, I do not want you to say
 9   it.  That is not what I'm after here. I'm asking
10   you to just explain how you use these tools, okay?
11   Without giving the proprietary information.  Does
12   that make sense, Qing?
13        A    Based on a situation, if you ask me a
14   specific question, I would decide whether I could
15   answer or not.  So, but if you asking me to make a
16   general statement and I just have to say we use
17   statistic models, we use optimization models, we
18   use economic models, and we could use other
19   mathematical models which is a long list.  I don't
20   on top of my hat --
21        Q    No, it's --
22             MS. PARK:  Don't talk over each other,
23        please.
24        Q    That's pretty good.  Alright.  So, when
0145
 1                            Lin
 2   you looked at a group of people -- When I used to
 3   work there it would be that there would be a
 4   probability tree that you would assign the
 5   probability for each class of people having a
 6   default, and what would happen if they would
 7   default, and what the dollar affect would be, and
 8   you would sum that up over all the people to get a
 9   total dollar value of what the loss or gain would
10   be on a credit card portfolio.  Is that an
11   accurate representation of what risk management is
12   about?
13        A    You have a description of something you
14   are familiar with risk management and I have to
15   acknowledge that but I cannot say that is entire
16   risk management.
17        Q    I know.  You said economics for
18   instance, and I didn't even include that, and
19   that's a big factor.  When you were working at
20   American Express in 1990, did they have economic
21   models?  Would that be proprietary information?
22        A    I believe so.
23             MR. LINDNER:  Then I withdraw the
24        question.
0146
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Again.  I'm not trying to wheedle out
 3   information from you.  I just want a general
 4   thing.  As best I know, back then American Express
 5   did not have economic models which were time
 6   series models, but they might have had in the mean
 7   time.  So, that is what I was trying to find out
 8   the answer.
 9        A    I cannot comment on that.
10             MR. LINDNER:  You do not have to
11        comment on that.  Thank you.  I didn't
12        realize it was proprietary.
13        Q    Now, there was a question I asked you
14   before.  I just notice that I didn't get the
15   answer.  I have written down in my notes and maybe
16   you answered it later.  What were the number of
17   people employed at American Express?
18             MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.  He
19        said 70,000 approximately.
20        Q    How many people is Ken Chenault in
21   charge of?
22             MS. PARK:  We stipulate that Mr.
23        Chenault is in charge, as chairman of
24        American Express, is ultimately -- strike
0147
 1                            Lin
 2        that.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Can we have Qing answer,
 4        please, instead of you stipulating?
 5        A    Can I ask a clarifying question?
 6        Q    Yes?
 7        A    What do you mean, "In charge of?"
 8        Q    In other words, in his reporting
 9   structure.  So, if he had people reporting to him,
10   and those people are people reporting to them,
11   that if you add all those people up, and that is
12   in effect like a tree, right?  Where he is at the
13   top and all the little branches are different
14   managers and the leaves would be the people.  I'm
15   saying, how many total people are there in the
16   organization that Ken Chenault has reporting to
17   him directly or indirectly, what number would that
18   be?
19        A    It is the same answer because -- Same
20   question you ask me how many employees?
21        Q    Is he is in charge of all the employees?
22        A    Is that your question?
23        Q    I'm asking you, yes.
24        A    Is he in charge of all the employees of
0148
 1                            Lin
 2   American Express?
 3        Q    Yes.
 4        A    I don't think so.
 5        Q    Okay, thank you.  That's good.  That's
 6   what I was asking you before.
 7             Let's go back to the trees again.  You
 8   can also use risk management in applications other
 9   than credit cards; right?  You can use them, for
10   instance, in legal circumstances; correct?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    For instance, you could say the
13   probability of winning a case and the probability
14   of losing a case and if you -- Is that correct?
15        A    So, you are asking me a hypothetical
16   question?
17        Q    Yes.
18        A    I have not dealt with that problem, so.
19        Q    Can you consider it?  If somebody were
20   to say, can you do a probability tree for a trial
21   that can win or can lose, would that be something
22   that, even if you have never seen it before in
23   your life, that you might be able to deal with
24   that?
0149
 1                            Lin
 2        A    In general?
 3        Q    Yes.
 4        A    I think so but I have to know the
 5   specific to see whether I can do it or not.
 6        Q    Well, for instance, I would say -- If I
 7   say there is a new car out, can you drive it?  And
 8   you'd say, well, I've never seen that car.  I
 9   don't know what sort of car it is.  But being that
10   you have a driver's license and you have driven
11   for ten or twenty years, you might say, chances
12   are, in most cases, I can drive the car.  If it is
13   an average car.  So, I'm asking, if this is an
14   average legal case and somebody told you, said,
15   can you use risk management to analyze a legal
16   case?  What would your answer be?
17        A    I do not know.
18        Q    Would you be able to bring your talents
19   to bear upon that?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21        A    The question is, from you, Peter, to me.
22   Asking me whether I can do it, or the question is,
23   you as the client, are you asking someone seeking
24   help, to analyze the risk of legal case?  So I do
0150
 1                            Lin
 2   not know what context --
 3        Q    If somebody said there is a legal case
 4   how would I go about doing a risk management
 5   analysis?
 6        A    My answer would be, I do not know.  I
 7   need to know more context to see whether I can
 8   apply my knowledge and exp,e,rience.
 9        Q    Can you give an example of what
10   questions you would ask?
11        A    No, I do not know.  Someone would have
12   to bring the situation to me.  Given such a
13   general question, I do not know how to proceed
14   from here, Peter.
15        Q    So, let me try to help you.  Let's look
16   at this case.  This case is called Peter Lindner
17   versus American Express and Qing Lin, O6 CV (sic).
18   3834 in the Southern District of New York.  And
19   somebody would say, you know, one side can win or
20   the other side could win and when they win -- When
21   one side wins or the other side wins there would
22   be a certain dollar value and there is a certain
23   probability to one side winning or the other side
24   winning.  First of all, can you characterize a
0151
 1                            Lin
 2   legal case like that?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4             THE WITNESS:  Ms.  Park.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  To the extent that you
 6        can understand.
 7             THE WITNESS:  No, because the question
 8        is specific to this case.
 9             MS. PARK:  Are you asking him a
10        specific --
11             MR. LINDNER:  I'm giving an example.
12             MS. PARK:  Hang on.  Mr. Lindner, are
13        you asking him to opine about the
14        probability in this litigation?
15             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
16             MS. PARK:  No, I'm going to direct him
17        not to answer.
18             MR. LINDNER:  And can you give the
19        reason?
20             MS. PARK:  It's inappropriate.  It's
21        harassing my client.  You're asking him to
22        opine, as to as what, whether he thinks you
23        are going to win or not?  That is
24        inappropriate.
0152
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking whether he
 3        can apply that analysis to this situation.
 4             MS. PARK:  Apply what analysis?
 5             MR. LINDNER:  Risk management to a
 6        legal situation and he wanted it specific.
 7        Q    So, could you apply it, this specific
 8   case of Lindner versus American Express, Qing Lin,
 9   probably winning, probably losing, probably -- and
10   what the pay offs are?
11             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park?
12             MS. PARK:  Just answer, yes or no.
13        Could you apply whatever expertise you have
14        in risk management and give some
15        probability in this particular case?
16        A    So, let me clarify question.  Could I or
17   would I?
18             MS. PARK:  Could you?
19             THE WITNESS:  If I have the skill to
20        analyze this?
21             MS. PARK:  Yes.
22        A    Yes, I do have a skill to analyze it.
23   But would I do that?  I would have to seek legal
24   advice --
0153
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    You have to what?
 3        A    Seek legal advice because this case is
 4   related to me.  So, --
 5        Q    You would seek legal advice on what
 6   question?
 7        A    On whether I should analyze use of risk
 8   management and analyze in front of you.
 9        Q    In front of me?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    Would you have to seek permission to
12   analyze it on your own?
13        A    I do not know.  I have not thought of
14   it.
15        Q    I'm asking you to think of it now.
16   Suppose you wanted to, in your head, think about
17   it as a risk management case, would you have the
18   skills to do that?
19        A    I don't know.  I have a basic analytical
20   skill but I do not know if I possess all the
21   skills and knowledge to analyze this case.
22        Q    I'm not talking about all the skills.  I
23   mean, it's like asking about a race car.  You
24   know, you might not be able to race in the Indy
0154
 1                            Lin
 2   500, but if you had to go to the corner store to
 3   pick up a newspaper and a quart of milk you'd have
 4   the skills to the drive a car.
 5             So, I'm asking, do you have the skills
 6   to evaluate the risk management of this case?
 7        A    I do not know.
 8        Q    Okay.  Let me ask a different question.
 9   Have you ever thought about the probability of
10   winning and losing this case?
11        A    No.  I have not thought of that.
12        Q    Have you ever thought about the
13   consequences of you winning or losing this case?
14        A    Consequences?  No, I have not thought of
15   it.
16        Q    You have not thought about it?
17             MS. PARK:  You have to keep your voice
18        up, Mr. Lin.
19        A    I have not thought of it.
20        Q    Okay, let me ask you another question.
21   If you had a probability tree and they had the
22   probability of different outcomes, which would be
23   the chances of winning or losing, and then the pay
24   out?  How much you would get if you win, how much
0155
 1                            Lin
 2   you would get if you lose, could be positive,
 3   could be negative, would that be what risk
 4   management is?
 5        A    And are you still talking about this
 6   case?
 7        Q    Yes.
 8        A    So, if I understand your question, what
 9   would be the payout?  I have not thought of it.  I
10   cannot answer this question.  You are asking me to
11   model in front of you what is the outcome come of
12   this case?
13        Q    I'm asking if you can do that.  I'm not
14   asking you to model right now.  I'm asking can it
15   be done?  Can it be done by anyone?
16             MS. PARK:  That wasn't your question.
17        Now you are asking him can anyone?
18             MR. LINDNER:  That's right.  I'm
19        clarifying it.
20        Q    First, can it done by anyone?  Does
21   there exist a person, as best you know in the
22   United States, who can estimate risk management
23   for a trial?
24        A    I don't know.
0156
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Could you do that, if you wanted to?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection, asked and
 4        answered.
 5        A    I do not know because I'm not a lawyer.
 6   So, I do not know enough of the legal proceeding.
 7        Q    Well, you make many estimates in
 8   American Express on people paying or not paying;
 9   correct?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    And quite often you don't know their
12   individual circumstances; correct?
13        A    No.
14        Q    No, you don't know?
15        A    I do not know.
16        Q    In fact, you can get incredibly detailed
17   information about a person and you wouldn't even
18   know their name; is that correct?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    Is that typical?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22        Q    Is it typical to get incredibly detailed
23   information about people and not even know their
24   name?
0157
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I do not understand this question.  Are
 3   you asking a privacy question or American Express
 4   practice of getting information.  So, I do not
 5   know your question.
 6        Q    Does your field of risk management get
 7   very detailed information without knowing the
 8   basics, such as a person's name?
 9        A    First, let me repeat the question to see
10   if I got it.
11        Q    Sure.
12        A    Does risk management get personal
13   information without knowing person's name?
14        Q    Yes.
15        A    The answer is, depends.  So,
16   technically, I think you are asking me, based on
17   your knowledge of a field of American Express.  In
18   some cases American Express allowed to get
19   personal information with person's consent.
20   Personal information, meaning credit bureau
21   information, with people's consent and then make
22   credit decision based on that.
23        Q    Would you have their name?
24        A    Yes.
0158
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    All the time?
 3        A    So, let me explain.  Not all the time.
 4   In some cases.  I think you are referring to
 5   pre-approval process, which we're prospecting
 6   people who do not have relationship with American
 7   Express.  In that case we buy data records without
 8   person's name and we rely on third-party vendors
 9   to conduct the direct mail.  In that case --
10        Q    She understood it, but I didn't.  Can
11   you say that word again?  The what?
12        A    Direct mail.
13             MR. LINDNER:  Direct mail.  Yes, I'm
14        sorry.  It's embarrassing for me.  I'm
15        sorry.
16             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.  It's my
17        voice.
18             MR. LINDNER:  Yeah, yeah.  If you want
19        a drink of water.  You can take a break.
20             THE WITNESS:  I'm fine.
21        A    So, if you are asking that question, it
22   depends.
23        Q    And that's what I was asking.  Is that
24   you can get Credit Bureau Reports on ten or twenty
0159
 1                            Lin
 2   million people but you will not have their name,
 3   you will just have how many credit cards, what
 4   their credit line is, what their three digit Zip
 5   code -- A whole bunch of information on that?
 6        A    I will not call it report reports.  I
 7   will call it data.
 8        Q    Data?
 9        A    Prospect data.
10        Q    Prospect data?
11        A    Credit reports are associated to a
12   specific person.
13        Q    And what I was talking about would be
14   handled by a third-party vendor; right?
15        A    Yes.
16             MR. LINDNER:  I hope to wind this up
17        in a few minutes so we can take a break.
18        Q    Do you recall what this case is about?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        A    What case?
21        Q    We are in the case Lindner versus
22   American Express and Qing Lin.  Do you know what
23   the case is about?
24        A    Roughly, yes.
0160
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Can you tell me what it is?
 3        A    The case is about, you complained about
 4   me breaching an agreement between you and American
 5   Express by giving a bad reference of you.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  So, I'd like to enter
 7        this into evidence, and we will use one of
 8        my tags but then it will be officially
 9        entered by the court reporter.  So, let me
10        put a tag on it and then I will give you a
11        copy.  Marian, can you put this into the
12        record.
13                       (Whereupon Plaintiff's
14                       Exhibit 1 was received and
15                       marked for identification,
16                       as of this date.)
17             MR. LINDNER:  Here is a spare copy.
18             MS. PARK:  No, I need a copy, Mr.
19        Lindner.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Here is a spare copy.
21        You can take a look at the official copy.
22        Wait, one of these is mine, right?  Thank
23        you.  And this is a spare copy for you.
24             MS. PARK:  No.  Mr. Lindner, you are
0161
 1                            Lin
 2        supposed to give the witness the originally
 3        marked document.  You're supposed to give
 4        me a copy, so I know what the witness is
 5        looking at, and you are supposed to be
 6        referring to your own copy.
 7             MR. LINDNER:  So, how many copies are
 8        there total?
 9             MS. PARK:  Three.  The originally
10        marked exhibit, which goes to the witness.
11             MR. LINDNER:  Can you please give it
12        to the witness, Marian?
13             MS. PARK:  You just took it.
14             MR. LINDNER:  I gave you two
15        documents, didn't I?  Oh, no.  Sorry, here,
16        sorry.
17             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, give the
18        witness the originally marked document.
19             MR. LINDNER:  I'm sorry.  Here you go.
20        This is Number 1.  I think by Number 18
21        I'll get it down, okay.
22             MS. PARK:  Sure look at it.
23             MR. LINDNER:  And I gave you my copy
24        by mistake.  No, I'm serious.  Number 1,
0162
 1                            Lin
 2        I'm better at Number 18.  I'm describing
 3        the document.  This is about a seven page
 4        document and it is titled Settlement
 5        Agreement and General Release, and I note
 6        that on the last page it has a signature of
 7        Peter Lindner Pro Se, dated June 15, 2000.
 8        Q    Qing, do you have that document in front
 9   of you?
10        A    This document you are referring to?
11             MR. LINDNER:  This is called Exhibit
12        1?
13             THE STENOGRAPHER:  Yes.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Is it called, like,
15        Plaintiff 1, or Plaintiff Qing or how do
16        you --
17             THE STENOGRAPHER:  Plaintiff's Exhibit
18        1 as of today's date.
19        Q    Qing, have you ever seen this document
20   before?
21        A    Let me read it first.
22                       (Witness perusing)
23             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lin, in the interest of
24        time, if you could just go through it and
0163
 1                            Lin
 2        just see if you just recognize it.  I
 3        believe that was the initial question.
 4        A    I'm sorry, I forgot about the question.
 5   Your question is, have I seen this before?
 6        Q    Yes.
 7        A    No.
 8        Q    Okay.  That's fair.
 9        A    Do you want me to continue reviewing it?
10        Q    No.  I'm just going to direct you to
11   different parts of it; okay?  I'd like you to look
12   at the first paragraph and it says that the
13   agreement is between American Express Travel
14   Related Services, also known as The Company and
15   Peter W. Lindner, also known as Peter Lindner, for
16   the purpose of resolving matters in dispute
17   between the parties.  Are you familiar with the
18   company American Express Travel Related Services?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    Do you work for them?
21        A    Yes.  I do not know whether Travel
22   Related Services Organization.  So I have not
23   heard that term for a while, so.  But it was a
24   division or subsidiary of American Express
0164
 1                            Lin
 2   Company.
 3        Q    So, to the best of your knowledge, does
 4   it exist today?
 5        A    I do not know legally if TRS is the
 6   legal entity or not.  I do not know.
 7        Q    But you know that it used to be part of
 8   American Express?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Did you ever work for, I call it TRS?
11        A    Yes.  By the way, so did I.  So, this is
12   a dispute that has been settled.  Now, if you read
13   the first paragraph it says -- Can you read it out
14   loud.
15             MS. PARK:  No, we stipulate that it
16        says what it says.  He is not reading the
17        whole document into the record.
18             MR. LINDNER:  Not the whole document.
19        I just want him to read the first two
20        sentences.
21        Q    Can you read "Whereas," Qing?
22        A    I can read it.
23        Q    Please read it out loud?
24        A    Do I have --
0165
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Yes.
 3        A    This Settled Mentioned Agreement --
 4        Q    No, no.  Jump to the second paragraph
 5   "Whereas?"
 6        A    You want me to read the whole second
 7   paragraph?
 8        Q    Correct?
 9        A    "WHEREAS, Mr. Lindner, a former employee
10   of the Company, has made allegations that he was
11   discriminated against based on his sex, subjected
12   to Sexual Harassment and Retaliation, and defamed,
13   has filed a charge of discrimination against the
14   Company with the Equal Employment Opportunity
15   Commission ("EEOC")  (Charge Number 160992838),
16   asserted certain claims for damages, and has
17   commenced a civil action in the Civil Court of the
18   City of New York, Index No. 038441-CVN-1999,
19   against American Express Corporation, Richard
20   Tambor and Ash Gupta (the foregoing are herein
21   collectively referred to as "Mr. Lindner's
22   Claims').
23             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you, very much.  I
24        appreciate that.  You took the extra effort
0166
 1                            Lin
 2        to do that.  That's very nice.
 3        Q    Alright.  Well, you know Peter Lindner
 4   and that is me.  That is correct?
 5        A    Yes.
 6        Q    And, of course, you know American
 7   Express Corporation because you worked for them
 8   since 1990.  Is that correct?
 9             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    And you previously mentioned Ash Gupta;
12   correct?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    And he is your boss now; correct?
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    Do you know if he was your boss in 1999
17   or 1998?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Did you report directly to him?
20        A    There is a period of time, as you
21   mentioned, in 1999 I'm not directly reporting to
22   him.  I was not directly reporting to him.
23        Q    But there was a time where you were
24   directly reporting to him?
0167
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Do you know Rich Tambor?
 4        A    Yes.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  T-a-m-b-o-r.
 6        Q    Who is he?
 7        A    He used to be an employee of American
 8   Express.
 9        Q    Did he work with you, for you, under you
10   or over you, what?
11             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12        Q    How was Richard Tambor related to you?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
14        hasn't even testified that there is any
15        relation.
16        Q    Do you know Richard Tambor?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    How do you know him?
19        A    He was an employee of American Express.
20        Q    Was he in the same group as you?
21        A    Define same group.
22        Q    If you had to say how Richard Tambor and
23   you were related, would there be some sort of
24   document that you could find that would indicate
0168
 1                            Lin
 2   the relation between Richard Tambor and Qing Lin?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        A    I do not understand the question.
 5        Q    Did Richard Tambor work for Ash Gupta?
 6        A    Yes, at point of times.
 7        Q    And you worked for Ash Gupta at a point
 8   in time?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    So you both worked for Ash Gupta?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    Is there any document that would
13   indicate that?
14        A    There could be.  I do not know.
15        Q    What would such a document be called?
16        A    Organization Chart.  Human Resource may
17   have different documents.
18             MR. LINDNER:  No, that's fine. I
19        hereby request the Organization Chart from
20        1998/1999 to show what the relation is.
21        Ms. Park, have you already provided that
22        document?
23             MS. PARK:  Move on, Mr. Lindner.
24             MR. LINDNER:  I'm directing this
0169
 1                            Lin
 2        question to you, Ms. Park.
 3             MS. PARK:  You have been provided with
 4        all documents that relate to your case.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  Can you --
 6             MS. PARK:  You've been provided with
 7        all documents relevant to your case.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Is that one of the
 9        documents.
10             MS. PARK:  You have been provided with
11        all documents relevant to your case.
12             MR. LINDNER:  I understand your
13        answer, Ms. Park.
14             MS. PARK:  Go back and why don't you
15        look?  Why don't you review?
16             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking you a direct
17        question.
18             MS. PARK:  I'm not answering your
19        direct question.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Are you refusing to
21        answer.
22             MS. PARK:  I'm refusing to answer.
23             MR. LINDNER:  Marian, can you please
24        note that I wish to ask the Judge, that I
0170
 1                            Lin
 2        want a specific answer from Ms. Park on
 3        whether a specific document is in exhibit
 4        or not and whether it has been turned over.
 5        Q    Qing, do you feel it would be relevant
 6   whether Richard Tambor and Ash Gupta, you know, if
 7   you had an organization chart, that it would be
 8   relevant to know what their relationship is to
 9   each other?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11        A    I don't understand your question.  What
12   do you mean?
13        Q    I'll be glad to reword it.  Is an
14   organization chart very important in an
15   organization?
16             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17        Q    Is it important in American Express to
18   have an organization chart?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, objection noted.
21        Q    Is it important to have an organization
22   chart?
23        A    Define what do you mean important?  In
24   general, yes.  It's a document that shows
0171
 1                            Lin
 2   organization.
 3        Q    Amex has millions of documents.  Suppose
 4   Amex decided we were not going to have an
 5   organization chart.  Would that be a typical thing
 6   or would that be basically impossible for a
 7   company of 70,000 employees not to have an
 8   organization chart?
 9             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
10        A    So, are you referring to the
11   organization chart as a piece of paper showing a
12   chart structure or, what you call, a tree
13   structure?
14        Q    Yes.
15        A    That particular document?
16        Q    Yes.
17        A    I do not know how important it is.  I
18   think Human Resource Department have official
19   document.  It may or may not be in that form.  So
20   --
21        Q    It might, in an electronic form, for
22   instance.  It might not be on paper.  It might be
23   a tree structure in a data base; correct?  Is that
24   what you mean?
0172
 1                            Lin
 2        A    That's what I mean.  So, what you call
 3   organization chart.  So, I do not know.  Do you
 4   mean specific piece of paper with a tree structure
 5   or do you mean in general organization structure?
 6        Q    But you are aware that you can convert
 7   the tree structure into a data base and a data
 8   base into a tree structure.  Are you aware of that
 9   or not?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    Have you ever seen yourself on an
12   organization chart?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    If you looked at an organization chart,
15   that would be handy to tell who reports to you and
16   whom you report to, direct and dotted line?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    In fact, if somebody said, "Who reports
19   to, and who else reports to them?"  If you had the
20   organization chart they could instantly find out,
21   right?
22        A    So, Peter, if you want to ask me whether
23   an organization chart is typically drawn by a
24   local team as official document?  I'm not sure
0173
 1                            Lin
 2   organization chart would constitute as official
 3   document.  The reason I cannot answer your
 4   question is --
 5        Q    Yes.
 6        A    -- if you have to refer to official
 7   organization structure at the time, I don't recall
 8   any piece drawn by someone at the organization as
 9   the official reference for the organization at the
10   time.
11        Q    But it would be a good clue, right?  It
12   would be a good first approximation, as they would
13   say in mathematics, correct?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15        A    I don't know what is first
16   approximation.
17        Q    If somebody wanted to know, have a rough
18   idea of how people related in your group, an
19   organization chart would be one of the first
20   things you would show in order to know that, yes?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    Thank you.  Can you turn to paragraph
23   13.  Do you see your name there?
24        A    Let me read it.
0174
 1                            Lin
 2                       (Witness perusing)
 3             Yes, I do see my name.
 4        Q    In fact, it is the second name after Ash
 5   Gupta, correct?
 6             MS. PARK:  We stipulate it's the
 7        second name after Ash Gupta.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, thank you.
 9        Q    The first sentence, the first sentence
10   on paragraph 13, can you read it out loud?
11        A    "The Company agrees to instruct and
12   direct the following Company employees not to
13   disclose any information regarding Mr. Lindner's
14   employment or termination of employment from the
15   Company to any person outside of the Company and
16   to direct all requests for references or
17   inquiries, received by such employees regarding
18   Mr. Lindner to the appropriate Human Resources
19   individuals."
20        Q    At that time point it lists a number of
21   people of which you were one, correct?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    Does it use the word negative in there?
24             MS. PARK:  We stipulate that the word
0175
 1                            Lin
 2        negative does not appear in paragraph 13.
 3        Q    Qing, I'd like to know, did you give any
 4   information about -- and that's the second line of
 5   paragraph 13, it says, "The following Company
 6   employees did not disclose any information
 7   regarding Mr. Lindner's employment to any person
 8   outside the company --
 9             MS. PARK:  That is not what that
10        document says, Mr. Lindner.
11        Q    As you understand it, were you
12   instructed and directed by American Express on
13   this topic?
14             MS. PARK:  On the topic set forth in
15        paragraph 13?
16             MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park, I'd
17        like Qing to answer.  If you have an
18        objection, raise your objection.
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        Q    Qing, have you ever been instructed and
21   directed, as you understand it, as you read
22   paragraph 13?  Yes or no?
23        A    About paragraph 13?
24        Q    What it says, yes.  Have you ever been
0176
 1                            Lin
 2   instructed and directed?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Did they tell you not to disclose any
 5   information?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    Did you disclose any information?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    To whom did you disclose it?
10        A    Boaz Salik.
11        Q    B-o-a-z S-a-l-i-k?
12        A    Yes.
13        Q    Did you do that after I was hired by
14   them or before I was hired by them?
15             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  You
16        haven't even established that he knows if
17        you were hired.
18        Q    Do you know if I was hired by them?
19        A    No.
20        Q    Do you know if they talked to you before
21   I was hired by them?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He has
23        already testified he doesn't even know if
24        you were hired.
0177
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Did they ask you for a reference?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Did you provide them information?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Who is
 6        "Them?"
 7        Q    Did you provide "Any information," to
 8   Boaz Salik?
 9             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
10        answered.
11        Q    I'm asking you to please answer it
12   again.
13        A    Yes.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, you did.  Okay,
15        thank you.
16        Q    I'd like to ask you one more thing, and
17   then we will break for lunch.  It says, "And to
18   direct all requests for references or inquiries
19   received by such employees regarding Mr. Lindner,
20   to the appropriate Human Resources individuals."
21   Did you direct Mr. Boaz to the appropriate HR,
22   Human Resource individual?
23        A    No.
24             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.  We
0178
 1                            Lin
 2        can break for lunch.
 3             MS. PARK:  Could you note the time?
 4             THE STENOGRAPHER:  2:05.
 5             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This ends tape
 6        number two.  We are off the record at 2:05.
 7             MS. PARK:  Can you note, Ms. Reporter,
 8        that this was a break requested by Mr.
 9        Lindner.
10             MR. LINDNER:  Do you wish to continue?
11             MS. PARK:  Sure.
12             THE STENOGRAPHER:  I have to grab
13        something.  I'm here since 9:30.
14             MS. PARK:  Okay, but it wasn't
15        initiated by me or Mr. Lin.  I want that
16        clear.
17             MR. LINDNER:  I think we have to be
18        sensitive to the fact that we are
19        individuals.
20                       Off the record.
21                       (Luncheon recess:  2:05
22                       p.m.)
23                       ***
24                AFTERNOON SESSION
0179
 1                            Lin
 2                    (2:56 p.m.)
 3
 4             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This begins tape
 5        number 3 in the deposition of Qing Lin.  We
 6        are on the record at 2:56.
 7             MS. PARK:  Note, for the record, that
 8        Mr. Lin and I were ready to proceed at
 9        2:45.  Mr. Lindner returned from lunch late
10        which is why we are recommencing at 2:56.
11             MR. LINDNER:  And how long was I late,
12        Ms. Park?
13             MS. PARK:  2:45 we were supposed to be
14        back on the record.
15             MR. LINDNER:  So, how many minutes is
16        that?
17             MS. PARK:  That is eleven minutes,
18        Mr. Lindner.
19             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.  I
20        appreciate that.  Alright, we will continue
21        the questions.
22
23   Q I N G   L I N,
24            resumed, having been previously duly sworn,
0180
 1                            Lin
 2            was examined and testified further as follows:
 3   EXAMINATION BY
 4   MR. LINDNER: (Continued)
 5             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This begins tape
 6        number 3 in the deposition of Qing Lin.  We
 7        are on the record at 2:56.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  I'm Peter Lindner.  I'm
 9        back on the record.  Ms. Park pointed out I
10        was eleven minutes late.  Did I mention
11        Ms. Park was eleven minutes late this
12        morning?  So, we are going to go over some
13        other documents that I have and I'm getting
14        them out of my brief case right now.  It is
15        actually two different Exhibits, and we
16        will affectionally call them Plaintiff Qing
17        2 and 3, but I'm going to first get them
18        and see if they are right.  I note that
19        Ms. Park is watching me intently.  I've the
20        documents in hand now.  I have to label
21        them and pass it to Marian, who will label
22        it.  Sorry, if I'm talking while I'm doing
23        it.  It is new to me, but this is 2 and 3.
24             The documents I have are entitled --
0181
 1                            Lin
 2        My second one is entitled Amended
 3        Complaint, which is a 16 page document,
 4        filed 12/20/2006, and I'm going to give a
 5        copy to Marian who is going to mark it and
 6        we will take a break while she does that.
 7                       (Whereupon Plaintiff's
 8                       Exhibit 2 was received and
 9                       marked for identification,
10                       as of this date.)
11             And that is the one I give to the
12        witness?
13             THE STENOGRAPHER:  Yes.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Then I have another
15        document to give.  That document I will
16        affectionately call Plaintiff Qing 3 and
17        I'm giving that to Marian to mark.
18             MS. PARK:  And I want to note for the
19        record that Mr. Lindner has his own
20        stickers, which he appears to be appending
21        to the documents that he is having
22        officially marked by the court reporter.
23        I, on the other hand, do not have any
24        copies of any exhibits with Mr. Lindner's
0182
 1                            Lin
 2        stickers on them.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  And I appreciate that
 4        you noted it.
 5                       (Whereupon Plaintiff's
 6                       Exhibit 3 was received and
 7                       marked for identification,
 8                       as of this date.)
 9             So, I have two exhibits and one is
10        entitled Amended Complaint Jury Trial
11        Demanded, filed December 20, 2006, Document
12        Number 17, which is 16 pages, and the other
13        one is called the Answer.  It is 8 pages,
14        filed January 23, 2007, and I'm going to
15        hand both of these to, and I almost knocked
16        out the plug, to Qing.  With my apologies
17        to everyone.
18        Q    So, Qing, will you take a moment and
19   take a look at that document?
20             MS. PARK:  Which one?  You've handed
21        him two.
22        Q    Have you ever seen document Number 2.
23                       (Witness perusing.)
24             MS. PARK:  Qing, as you look at the
0183
 1                            Lin
 2        document, and consider the question:  If
 3        you have ever seen this document, except as
 4        you may have seen it in consultation with
 5        me.
 6        A    So, I do not know the difference between
 7   these two documents --
 8             MS. PARK:  Just focus on Exhibit 2,
 9        and Mr. Lindner has asked you if you have
10        ever seen this document before and you
11        should answer that question, if you have
12        seen this document before other than in
13        consultation with me.
14             MR. LINDNER:  So, I'm going to direct
15        him to answer whether he has seen it at
16        all --
17             MS. PARK:  No.
18             MR. LINDNER:  And --
19             MS. PARK:  That is Attorney/Client
20        Privilege Mr. Lindner.
21             MR. LINDNER:  I think Attorney/Client
22        Privilege is what you said not whether you
23        showed him a document.
24             MS. PARK:  That is not true.
0184
 1                            Lin
 2        Attorney/Client Privilege also extends to
 3        work product privilege and to the extent
 4        that Mr. Lin and I reviewed the Amended
 5        Complaint together that, if it were in fact
 6        the case, would be a privileged fact.  So,
 7        I'm going to direct Mr. Lin to, when
 8        answering the question, not to divulge
 9        whether he reviewed this document with me.
10             THE WITNESS:  Let me restate your
11        statement and see what I saw (sic).
12             MS. PARK:  Okay.
13             THE WITNESS:  I understand this
14        question to say, whether I have seen this
15        document without you -- outside of
16        discussion with you.
17             MS. PARK:  Correct.
18        A    No, I have not seen this document
19   outside of discussion with my attorney.
20        Q    I'm sorry?
21        A    Outside of discussion with my attorneys.
22        Q    Do you have a copy of that document on
23   your own?
24        A    Do I have a copy of this document on my
0185
 1                            Lin
 2   own?
 3        Q    Yes.
 4        A    Obtained outside --
 5        Q    At all?
 6             MS. PARK:  Do you have a copy outside,
 7        same direction.
 8        A    No.
 9        Q    So you may have a copy but, if you do
10   have a copy, it is not on your own, it's only from
11   your attorney?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  That
13        wasn't his testimony.
14        Q    Can you restate what your answer is,
15   Qing?
16        A    Could you restate your question?
17        Q    I was asking a question and Ms. Park
18   said that was not your testimony.  So, what is
19   your testimony regarding you having possession of
20   one of these documents in some format?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  You are
22        on Exhibit 2.  What do you mean, "These
23        documents?"
24             MR. LINDNER:  This document, it's a
0186
 1                            Lin
 2        number of pages.
 3             MS. PARK:  Which document?
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Exhibit 2.
 5        A    So, based on Ms. Park's has advice -- To
 6   clarify the question, the question is:  Have I
 7   owned this document outside of what Ms. Park has
 8   given me?
 9        Q    Right?
10        A    No.
11        Q    This might be the first time you've seen
12   it or you might have seen it with Ms. Park or
13   Ms. Park might have given you a copy to take home;
14   is that correct?
15             MS. PARK:  I'm going to direct you not
16        to answer.  You are soliciting
17        Attorney/Client Privileged information.
18             MR. LINDNER:  I'm not.
19             MS. PARK:  Yes, you are.  You are
20        asking if he reviewed the document with me.
21        That is protected by Attorney/Client
22        Privilege.
23             MR. LINDNER:  I'm not asking that.
24        I'm just saying if he has a copy and it is
0187
 1                            Lin
 2        covered by the Attorney/Client Privilege,
 3        good.  If he has a copy on his own, you
 4        know, I just want to know one of those
 5        things.  Okay, I guess it doesn't make
 6        sense.  I withdraw the question.
 7        Q    Let me ask it this way.  So, that is an
 8   Amended Complaint.  Do you know what an Amended
 9   Complaint is?
10        A    No.
11        Q    Okay, I understand you are not a lawyer.
12   I'd like you to read the part in between the
13   dotted lines.  What does it say?
14        A    Which document?
15             MS. PARK:  Which portion of document
16        --
17             MR. LINDNER:  Document Number 2.
18             MS. PARK:  What dotted line.
19             MR. LINDNER:  The one that says -- Oh,
20        it's a straight line.  Whatever it is.  The
21        one that says, "Peter W. Lindner, Plaintiff
22        --
23             MS. PARK:  We stipulate that the
24        document says, "Peter W. Lindner,
0188
 1                            Lin
 2        Plaintiff, against American Express
 3        Corporation and Qing Lin, Defendants."  We
 4        stipulate to that.  Move on.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.  I
 6        was asking him, but if you want to
 7        stipulate, that's fine.
 8        Q    So, now I'm going to direct you to
 9   Document Number 3.  Document Number 3 has a simple
10   title of "Answer."  Do you see that Qing?
11        A    What is the question?
12        Q    It has a title --
13             MS. PARK:  We stipulate that
14        Plaintiff's 3 is titled "Answer."  Move on.
15             MR. LINDNER:  I think Qing doesn't see
16        how.  Do you maybe want to point it out to
17        your client?
18             MS. PARK:  We stipulate that the
19        document is titled "Answer?"
20        Q    Qing, do you see that?
21        A    I see, "Answer," bold with underline.
22             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, that is what I
23        meant by the title.  I'm glad that you
24        clarified it.  That's exactly what I meant.
0189
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    So, what we are going to do is we are
 3   going to look at these pairs of documents, because
 4   one is when the other side answers it.  It's a
 5   complaint followed by an answer.
 6             MS. PARK:  That's your
 7        characterization.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  That is my
 9        characterization.
10        Q    So, these paragraphs are numbered and
11   I'd like to direct you to, let's say -- We are
12   going to jump ahead here.  We are going to go to
13   the middle of the document.
14             MS. PARK:  Which document, Mr.
15        Lindner?  You haven't even asked him --
16             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, please, I
17        appreciate that you want to get an answer.
18        I appreciate that you want to go quickly
19        but I'm asking you to please let me do it
20        at my own pace and stop interrupting me.
21        Thank you.  Will you please do that?
22        You're acting obstructionist.
23        Q    So, now we are going to go in tandem.
24   What I mean by that is, we are going to compare
0190
 1                            Lin
 2   one document to another document because, as I see
 3   it, and I'm not a lawyer, is that I am making
 4   specific complaints or allegations, and then the
 5   other side, and the other side is American Express
 6   and Qing Lin, which is you, are responding to it
 7   and answering that complaint.  Does that make
 8   sense to you, Qing?
 9        A    I understand what you said.
10        Q    Very good.  That's what I'm asking.
11   Let's go to Document Number 3 and there is
12   paragraph on page 6 of 8 --
13             MS. PARK:  Why don't you just ask him
14        if he has ever seen this document, since
15        you have failed to do that?
16             MR. LINDNER:  Okay.
17        Q    Can you please turn to page 6 of
18   Document 3.  Have you ever seen that before?
19             MS. PARK:  Seen what, paragraph --
20             MR. LINDNER:  Page 6.
21             MS. PARK:  Page 6, paragraph -- Has
22        he --
23             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, please?
24             MS. PARK:  No, no clarification.  Has
0191
 1                            Lin
 2        he ever seen Exhibit 3 or --
 3             MR. LINDNER:  If Qing wants
 4        clarification, he can ask it.  I'm not
 5        asking you the questions.  I'm sure you
 6        understand this question.  I'm sure you
 7        could give very good answers.  I'm not
 8        asking you.  I know I can depose you and
 9        get great answers but I don't want to
10        depose you, I wish to depose --
11             MS. PARK:  Ask your question.
12             MR. LINDNER:  -- Qing Lin.
13             MS. PARK:  Ask your question.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Alright.  So, please do
15        not interrupt me again.
16             MS. PARK:  Ask your question.
17        A    Your question again?
18        Q    Do you recognize that page?
19        A    No.
20        Q    Okay, good.  Look at -- in between
21   paragraph 40 and 41 there is something in bold
22   type, all capitals.  Can you read that, please?
23        A    "As And For A First Affirmative
24   Defense."
0192
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Do you understand what that phrase
 3   means?
 4        A    No.
 5        Q    You know it is a complicated phrase.
 6   I'm not sure that I understand it.  I'm not a
 7   lawyer either.  But if I had to guess, cause I
 8   understand English fairly well, I would say that
 9   somebody is defending themselves, and affirmative
10   it means that they are using positive statements
11   as opposed to negative statements.  That's how I
12   interpret it.  I might be totally wrong.  That's
13   my understanding of English.
14             If you were looking at this, and I'm not
15   going to say if you were looking at this as a
16   graduate of Harvard Law School, I'm asking if you
17   were looking at this as an executive of a large
18   firm and somebody said:  As and for a first
19   affirmative defense."  How would you interpret
20   that phrase.
21             MS. PARK:  Objection.  He has already
22        testified he doesn't know what that means.
23             MR. LINDNER:  Objection noted.
24        Q    How would you interpret that phrase?
0193
 1                            Lin
 2        A    So, Peter, I just do not understand what
 3   you just said.
 4        Q    Okay.  If somebody said to you:  A First
 5   Affirmative Defense.  You understand all three of
 6   those words:  First, affirmative, defense, right?
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 8        answered.
 9        Q    Do you understand any of those words?
10        A    I know what is first.
11        Q    Okay, first, good.
12        A    I know what is defense.
13        Q    That's good.
14        A    I know what is affirmative but I do not
15   know --
16        Q    What first affirmative is.  Okay, I just
17   want to know.  That's all I was asking.  Do you
18   know what that means.  If you can puzzle (sic) it
19   out, just like an English Major can puzzle (sic)
20   out what risk management means.  You know, you
21   don't have to know a field to infer.
22             Now, we are going to say -- We are going
23   read line 41.  Line 41, can you read it out loud?
24        A    "The complaint fails to state a cause of
0194
 1                            Lin
 2   action upon which relief may be granted."
 3        Q    Okay, what is your factual basis for
 4   saying that the complaint failed to state the
 5   cause of objection?
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7        A    I do not understand this sentence.
 8        Q    Let me explain it to you --
 9             MS. PARK:  No, let me explain this to
10        you, Mr. Lindner.  These are legal
11        defenses.  Mr. Lin is not an attorney.
12             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I'm making an
13        objection.  I'm not asking him as an
14        attorney.  Ms. Park, if you object, I
15        appreciate.  It's noted on the record.
16        Please, stop acting obstructionist.
17             MS. PARK:  Why don't you start by
18        asking him if he even knows what it means?
19        Can you frame a proper question?
20             MR. LINDNER:  Maybe I can't, Ms. Park.
21        Unfortunately, I don't have you as my
22        lawyer --
23             MS. PARK:  Why don't you try asking
24        him if he understands what paragraph 41
0195
 1                            Lin
 2        means, before you start asking him for
 3        facts.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Well, write down all
 5        your questions and I'll look at them and
 6        consider asking them.  But in the mean
 7        time, let me ask him the questions and
 8        please don't interrupt me again, or this
 9        time, I'm serious, I am calling the judge
10        if you interrupt me.
11             MS. PARK:  I'd love for you to call
12        the judge.  I'd love to explain to him what
13        you are doing.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Very good.  Please, be
15        quiet. I'm begging you.
16        Q    So, basically, I made an allegation, as
17   I see it.  I said, for instance, that there is a
18   whole bunch of things here.  You know, that Qing
19   did this, or Amex did that, or I did this, or
20   Fisher Jordan did that and American Express, who
21   is a party to this suit, said:  I don't know, that
22   might be true, might not be true.  They didn't use
23   these words.  That is not legalese, but another
24   party to this suite, and as I understand it, it's
0196
 1                            Lin
 2   called a named party, is you, Qing Lin.
 3             So, for instance, if you were
 4   knowledgeable about this event, and I'm assuming
 5   that you are, so, you would have said to your
 6   lawyers:  Such and such, here are the facts, and
 7   they would have written what -- in the appropriate
 8   legal terms what that means.  So, basically, you,
 9   meaning American Express and Qing Lin, have said
10   Peter Lindner's Complaint, that's what they mean
11   by the Complaint, Peter Lindner's Complaint fails
12   to state a Cause of Action upon which relief maybe
13   granted.  Now, basically, if you say something you
14   have to have, like, a factual basis --
15             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
16             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, Ms. Park.
17        Q    So, I'm asking, what is the factual
18   basis for that statement?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        A    So, Peter, I'm sorry.  I just cannot
21   understand what you just said.  You were just
22   reading this -- I understand, when you read the
23   sentence, you try to explain and I cannot
24   understand what you said.
0197
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Let's move on and maybe we will come
 3   back to it later.  Let's go onto number 42,
 4   alright?  Can you read 42, please?
 5        A    "The Complaint is barred, in part, by
 6   the applicable Statute of Limitations."
 7        Q    Okay, is there any part of that sentence
 8   that you understand or you don't understand?
 9        A    I do not understand.
10        Q    Any of it, okay?  Have you ever heard of
11   the Statute of Limitations?
12        A    I don't remember hearing that.  I do not
13   understand it.
14        Q    Do you know what a statute is?
15        A    A statute --
16        Q    As far as I know, it is a law.
17        A    Okay.
18        Q    A book of statutes.  And the
19   limitations, you do understand what that means,
20   right?
21        A    I understand what limitations means.
22        Q    And this Statute of Limitations is a
23   limit on the laws.  For instance --
24             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
0198
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, is there a
 3        question?
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, there is.
 5             MS. PARK:  What's the question?
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I asked him the
 7        question.  He didn't understand it.  So,
 8        I'm explaining it.
 9             MS. PARK:  He doesn't have to take
10        your explanation.  He already testified to
11        it.
12             MR. LINDNER:  He doesn't have to take
13        it but I'm trying to explain it.  So,
14        please, Ms. Park, I understand your
15        objection and it is noted on the record.
16        Q    So, Statute of Limitations is basically
17   how long you can be prosecuted for a crime.  For
18   instance, if you murder somebody the Statute of
19   Limitations is forever.  However, if you shoplift
20   or jaywalk, it might have a Statute of Limitations
21   of one year or five years or ten years.
22             In other words, if somebody goes to you
23   and says:  Qing, you did the following act, and it
24   was a minor act, and the Statute of Limitations
0199
 1                            Lin
 2   had past, you would not be guilty, because the law
 3   says for murder you can go back over 10 years but
 4   for a trivial thing you are only limited to one
 5   year or five years.  Does that make sense?
 6        A    Not entirely, so.
 7        Q    Well, you can see that, if it's a
 8   trivial matter, that at some point the courts
 9   don't want to be burdened with it, but on
10   something as serious as murder they would keep it
11   open for a while.  Do you see that?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13        A    I understand what you said but I do not
14   understand what it means on the --
15        Q    Do you do your own taxes?
16        A    No.
17        Q    No.  But you are familiar with a little
18   bit of Tax Code; correct?
19        A    I'm not sure.
20        Q    Do you keep records for taxes?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    Do you keep them for 19 years?  You have
23   been in American Express 19 years.  Do you have 19
24   years of tax records?
0200
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I don't remember.  Somewhere in the
 3   basement I might have.  I don't know.
 4        Q    Unfortunately, you and I share that
 5   trait.  But actually my accountant says you have
 6   to keep your records for three years or seven
 7   years but then you can throw them out.
 8        A    So, I understand that concept but I do
 9   not understand what do you mean in relation to
10   this.
11        Q    How do you understand the concept?  I'd
12   appreciate your answer.
13        A    The tax form, you just tell me, I only
14   need to keep my 1040's for three years.  I
15   understand that part.
16        Q    So, in other words, if the IRS comes to
17   you and says:  Give me your tax form from last
18   year, and you don't have it, then you are in
19   trouble.  But if they ask for your tax form from
20   20 years ago, it's okay, right?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22        Q    Do you -- How do you --
23        A    Yes, I understand that.
24        Q    So, now, on this -- So, that's what
0201
 1                            Lin
 2   limitations -- As I understand it, again I'm not a
 3   lawyer, and don't base your taxes based upon what
 4   I say, but if you -- The reply here, the answer
 5   from American Express and Qing Lin was that the
 6   Complaint, my Complaint is barred by the
 7   applicable Statute of Limitation.  So, as I
 8   understand it, if I complained at an earlier point
 9   in time, it would have been a valid complaint --
10             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
11             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, there is.
12        Ms. Park, please stop interrupting.
13        Q    So, if I had complained earlier then it
14   would be a valid complaint.  But if you wait too
15   long, you know, if you wait five years, ten years,
16   twenty years, whatever, then the statute of
17   Limitations takes hold and I cannot complain.
18   Does that make sense?
19        A    So, is that your question?
20        Q    Does it make sense?
21        A    Does it make sense?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23        A    I'm not understanding, I don't know.
24        Q    Does it make sense that if you make an
0202
 1                            Lin
 2   objection early you are allowed to do it, but if
 3   you make it too late then the objection is not
 4   valid?
 5        A    I'm not a lawyer.  I cannot judge on
 6   that.  What they can say or not.  I cannot judge.
 7   I just do not understand.
 8        Q    But you understand it for tax receipts,
 9   right?
10        A    You tell me I have to keep my 1040's for
11   three years --
12        Q    Yes.
13        A    I understand that statement but here you
14   are asking me a legal judgment.  I just cannot
15   make it.
16        Q    The lawyers made the legal judgment but
17   what you did was you gave them the factual basis
18   for this statement.  So, do you have a factual
19   basis?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection.
21        A    I do not understand that statement.  So,
22   I do not know what is a factual basis supporting
23   those statements.
24        Q    For instance, if I allege that Qing Lin
0203
 1                            Lin
 2   threw out a 1040 that was a year old, then that
 3   would be within the Statute of Limitations and --
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Objection to
 5        form.  He has repeatedly testified he
 6        doesn't even know what paragraph 40 means.
 7             MR. LINDNER:  Well, I think we are
 8        teasing out the answer.  I think he is an
 9        intelligent man.
10        A    Peter, I just don't know what you said
11   because you are talking about the tax, you are
12   talking about laws --
13        Q    Taxes are laws.  By the way, there are
14   certain laws called tax laws and they have
15   limited --
16        A    Peter, I'm sorry, I'm not a tax lawyer.
17        Q    I understand.
18        A    You tried to explain a piece of law.  I
19   just cannot understand your explanation.  I do not
20   know how to proceed from here.
21        Q    Let's go to the next one.  Can you read
22   Number 43?
23        A    "Plaintiff's -- I'm sorry I do not know
24   this word.
0204
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Culpable.
 3        A    -- culpable conduct and/or failure to
 4   mitigate contributed to any damages allegedly
 5   incurred by him as a result of Defendants' alleged
 6   actions."
 7        Q    Okay.  So, do you know who the defendant
 8   is?
 9        A    Yes.
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  There
11        are two defendants.  It's plural
12        possessive.
13        Q    Do you know who the defendants are?
14        A    American Express and myself.
15        Q    Correct.  Do you know who the plaintiff
16   is?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    Whom?
19             MR. LINDNER:  Let the record show he
20        was referring to the Plaintiff Pro Se,
21        Peter Lindner.
22        Q    If it says, "Plaintiff's culpable
23   conduct contributed to damages allegedly incurred
24   by him as a result of Defendant's alleged
0205
 1                            Lin
 2   actions," do you understand that?
 3        A    No.
 4        Q    Do you understand what failure to
 5   mitigate means?
 6        A    No.
 7        Q    Do you understand what failure means?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    Do you know what mitigate means?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    What does mitigate mean?
12        A    Mitigate means to manage or reduce.
13        Q    To reduce, yes.
14        A    That's my understanding --
15        Q    That's my understanding too.  So,
16   failure to mitigate means --
17        A    I don't know what's the legal meaning.
18        Q    No, but what does it mean in English?
19   You just used the word.  You said failure to
20   mitigate, failure to reduce, correct?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    Ms. Park, would say, asked and answered.
23   But do you understand, failure to mitigate is
24   another way of saying, I failed to reduce?
0206
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I understand what your explanation is.
 3   But I don't know what is the legal meaning.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Believe it or not it is
 5        the same thing.
 6             MS. PARK:  That is your
 7        characterization.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  That's my
 9        characterization.
10             MS. PARK:  Which he doesn't have to
11        accept.
12             MR. LINDNER:  You don't have to accept
13        it.
14        Q    You understand what damages means,
15   right?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    And you understand what allegedly means?
18        A    Alleged?
19        Q    Yes.
20        A    Allegedly, I think I do.
21        Q    Okay, what does it mean?
22        A    It means accused.
23        Q    Well, sometimes, yes.  But also means
24   supposedly.  Perhaps.  But, in other words, if I
0207
 1                            Lin
 2   say, I'm the King of England.  You could say,
 3   Allegedly you are the King of England.  You know,
 4   it sort of implies some sense of scepticism.  So,
 5   when you say, Any damages allegedly occurred, it's
 6   not saying that American Express is even conceding
 7   that there are damages but they are saying that
 8   Peter Lindner is claiming that there are damages.
 9   You understand that?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection.  He understands
11        that's your characterization.
12             MR. LINDNER:  Okay.
13        Q    So, if I say, Plaintiff's conduct failed
14   to mitigate any damages incurred as a result of
15   defendant's actions, does that sentence make
16   sense?
17        A    No.
18        Q    Can you restate this, using, instead of
19   plaintiff's, say Peter.  Instead of mitigate, say
20   reduce and cut out that bit saying culpable
21   conduct.
22             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, my client said
23        he doesn't know what this means.  What are
24        you trying to do?
0208
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  I'm trying to break it
 3        down into pieces.  It's called divide and
 4        conquer.
 5        Q    Qing, can you please say the sentence
 6   and use the names here, okay?
 7        A    Are you asking me a question or are you
 8   asking me to do something?
 9        Q    I'm asking you to do something.  I'm
10   asking you to read Number 43 and I'm asking you to
11   substitute my name or your name, whichever would
12   make it simpler.  Sometimes people get confused.
13   I have say, I get confused --
14             THE WITNESS:  So, Ms. Park, am I --
15             MR. LINDNER:  You don't have to ask
16        Ms. Park.
17             THE WITNESS:  I'm consulting with --
18             MR. LINDNER:  No, I asked a question
19        and you don't have a right to ask any
20        question until you answer my question.
21        Please trust me on this --
22             MS. PARK:  No, Mr. Lindner, he has the
23        right to ask me.
24             MR. LINDNER:  After he answers the
0209
 1                            Lin
 2        question.
 3        Q    My question to you was:  Would you
 4   please read this statement substituting Peter for
 5   plaintiff and Qing for defendant?  Will you do so?
 6        A    I need to consult with my attorney
 7   because you are asking me to do something.  Before
 8   I give the answer as to will do or not I have the
 9   right to consult with my attorney.
10             MR. LINDNER:  I understand what you
11        are saying and, in fact, you are allowed
12        but the rules say, and trust me on this,
13        that the rules say you first have to answer
14        and, after you finish answering the
15        question, then you can consult with your
16        attorney.
17             MS. PARK:  No, no.  At that point I'm
18        directing my client not to answer.  I think
19        you are harassing him, Mr. Lindner.  He has
20        testified that he does not understand what
21        paragraph 43 means.  I have spent seven
22        minutes listening to you repeat the same
23        question over and over again.
24             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, your objection
0210
 1                            Lin
 2        is noted.
 3             MS. PARK:  Good.  Let's move on.
 4        Q    Qing, can you please read that sentence
 5   substituting Peter and Qing instead of the
 6   plaintiff and defendant, and just get rid of the
 7   word mitigate and use the simpler word reduce.
 8   Can you, please, do that?
 9             MS. PARK:  No, I'm directing my client
10        not to answer.  Move on.  You're harassing
11        him.  Move on.
12             MR. LINDNER:  I wish to put an
13        objection in the record that Ms. Park is
14        saying that I'm harassing him when I'm
15        asking him to perform something.  Please
16        note that I wish to raise that with the
17        judge.
18        Q    Okay, Number 44, says, "The Complaint is
19   barred, in part, by the doctrine of unclean
20   hands."
21             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
22        Q    Do you see that Mr. Lin?
23        A    Do I read that on this piece of paper?
24        Q    Yes.
0211
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Do you understand what unclean hands
 4   are?
 5        A    No.
 6        Q    You don't understand what the doctrine
 7   of unclean hands are, but you understand what
 8   unclean hands are?
 9        A    I understand what is unclean.  I
10   understand what are hands.  I do not understand
11   the legal meaning of unclean hands.
12        Q    Right.  But, nonetheless, this is Amex
13   and Qing Lin's affirmative defense, and sometimes
14   there is a basis for that, and I want to know what
15   is a factual basis for you, and I have to ask
16   American Express, whom can I ask, and I can't ask
17   myself, I'm asking you.  You are American Express.
18             MS. PARK:  Objection.
19        Q    You are the named person.  Are you named
20   in this suit, Qing?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
22        answered.  We stipulate he is.
23        Q    So, when I want to find out what facts
24   upon which this is based I'm having a little
0212
 1                            Lin
 2   difficulty finding it out, because you don't seem
 3   to have the answer.  Do you?
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection.
 5        Q    Do you have the answer?
 6             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, these are
 7        legal defenses.  Mr. Lin is not a lawyer.
 8        He has said repeatedly he doesn't even
 9        understand what the affirmative defense is.
10        How he can give you the factual basis for
11        something he doesn't understand, in the
12        first place, is beyond me.  You are
13        badgering my witness.  Move on.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Ms.  Park, I don't need
15        speeches from you.  Do you want to object?
16             MS. PARK:  I object.  You are
17        badgering, harassing my client.
18             MR. LINDNER:  If you want to object,
19        note it on the record and it will be noted,
20        alright?  Please do not give speeches.
21        Thank you very much.
22        Q    So, Ms. Park objected but I'm asking
23   you, as best you can understand, even though you
24   don't know -- You know what a doctrine is, right
0213
 1                            Lin
 2   or not?
 3        A    No.
 4        Q    Do you know what barred means?
 5        A    Prohibit.
 6        Q    Right.  So, if you were to read this
 7   sentence substituting Peter or whatever --
 8        A    Which sentence?
 9        Q    Number 44.
10        A    Yes, I've read it.
11        Q    Can you read it saying out loud, you
12   know, instead of the Complaint you can say,
13   Peter's complaint is prohibited -- How would you
14   say that?  Read the whole sentence.
15        A    I do not know because I do not know
16   whether I have the right not to follow your
17   instructions on reading specific things.
18             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, can you
19        instruct him?
20             MS. PARK:  Just go ahead and read it.
21        It is his time and he is wasting it.
22        A    "The Complaint is barred, in part, by
23   the doctrine of unclean hands."
24        Q    Okay.  But now substitute the simpler
0214
 1                            Lin
 2   words or, you know, the name.  Is it your
 3   Complaint or my Complaint?  Whose Complaint?
 4   Peter's Complaint?  Qing's Complaint?  Can you
 5   please reread that using the names of the people?
 6        A    So, replace which word with which word.
 7        Q    Well, barred, for instance.  You said,
 8   "prohibited;" right?  So, read it with the word
 9   prohibited in there.
10        A    The Complaint is prohibited in part by
11   the doctrine of unclean hands.
12        Q    Right, and would have said it, Peter's
13   Complaint is barred by the doctrine of unclean
14   hands.  It makes it a little simpler.  It may not
15   be crystal clear.  I'm trying to break it down to
16   simpler things.  Do you know the factual basis for
17   saying that?
18        A    I still do not understand what you said?
19        Q    Okay, that's fine.  I'm not asking you.
20   Now, read Number 45.  It says, "The plaintiff
21   failed to exhaust his administrative remedies."
22   Can you tell me what the factual basis is for the
23   plaintiff, and that would mean me?  So it said,
24   "Peter failed to exhaust his administrative
0215
 1                            Lin
 2   remedies.  Can you tell me how I failed to exhaust
 3   my administrative remedies, what the factual basis
 4   for that is?
 5        A    I do not understand your question.
 6        Q    Do you know what administrative remedy
 7   is?
 8        A    No.
 9        Q    Do you know what administration is?
10        A    I think so.  Administration, management.
11        Q    Yes.  As I understand it, and, again,
12   I'm not a lawyer, but, as I understand it, it's
13   something short of a lawsuit.  We are in Federal
14   Court.  Are you aware of that Qing?
15        A    We are in a courthouse, yes.
16        Q    A courthouse.  Do you recognize that
17   there are different types of courthouses?  Not
18   colors and things like that, but that there is a
19   State Courthouse, and a Federal Courthouse, and a
20   local courthouse.  In other words, if you get a
21   ticket for littering on the street, dropping a
22   piece of paper, and a policeman writes you a
23   ticket and you go to the courthouse, you recognize
24   or not, that that's a different type of courthouse
0216
 1                            Lin
 2   than this courthouse is?
 3        A    No, I do not know.
 4        Q    So, let me tell you, this is a more
 5   serious courthouse than the courthouse you would
 6   go to if you dropped a gum wrapper on the street
 7   and got a ticket and had to pay a fine because, as
 8   I understand it, that courthouse handles -- is
 9   handled by a town, like New York City, and there
10   are other courthouses that are State Courthouses,
11   and then there are still others that are Federal
12   Government Courthouses.  This one, do you know
13   which one it is?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
15        answered.
16             MR. LINDNER:  He didn't answer.
17        Q    Do you know which one it is?
18        A    I know it is a courthouse.  I do not
19   know which one.
20        Q    You don't know which one.  Well, I'll
21   tell you.  It's a Federal Courthouse and, if you
22   go to the first page of Document 3, you see the
23   first line there, what it says, the first line in
24   all capitals?
0217
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Can you read it, please?
 4        A    United States District Court, first
 5   line.
 6        Q    And the next line?
 7        A    Southern District of New York.
 8        Q    Yes.  So, that gives you a clue that we
 9   are not talking the Bronx here, we are not talking
10   about, you know, a little town, we are talking
11   about the United States of America Court, but you
12   don't have to know that.  That's a legal term.
13        A    I do not know because it is New York
14   here, Southern District of New York.  I do not
15   know.  It's a courthouse of the Southern District
16   of New York?
17        Q    Yes, yes.
18        A    I don't know.
19        Q    So, I mean --
20             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
21             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, I just wanted to
22        know whether he knew the magnitude of what
23        we are talking about here and the magnitude
24        is that this is not a problem --
0218
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Peter, we are in a courthouse.  I know
 3   how serious it is.  So, you want to ask me, do I
 4   know how serious it is?
 5        Q    Yes?
 6        A    I recognize I was sworn to oath, telling
 7   you everything is true.  So, I have done that.
 8   So, I do not know -- So, you can ask me do I
 9   remember what level court, which district it is?
10   I do not know.
11        Q    Well, if it is any comfort, I didn't
12   know it much before this either.
13             MS. PARK:  Is there a question.
14             MR. LINDNER:  I was just trying to
15        reassure the witness.
16        Q    So, I'm glad that you understand that it
17   is a very serious business; right.  So, part of it
18   is on Number 45, it says that, and I'm going
19   paraphrase it, Peter failed to exhaust his
20   administrative remedies.  So, in other words,
21   instead of going to the Federal Courthouse, which
22   is a very serious thing, there were administrative
23   things I could have done, and that's how I
24   understand it.
0219
 1                            Lin
 2             So, I'm asking you:  Do you have any
 3   factual basis that you think American Express or
 4   you have for making that statement?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Asked
 6        and answered.  He has already said he
 7        doesn't know what it means.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park, I
 9        understand that, but we just had a long
10        discussion, maybe he has clue.
11             MS. PARK:  He doesn't have to accept
12        your characterization of what that phrase
13        means, Mr. Lindner.
14             MR. LINDNER:  That's true.
15        Q    So, do you understand that, Qing?
16        A    No.
17        Q    Okay.  So, then it says, "And to satisfy
18   the jurisdictional of prerequisites under Title
19   7 --
20        A    Where it is?
21        Q    Line 45, the second half of the
22   sentence, that -- I'm just going to jump around
23   it.  It's going to say:  Plaintiff failed to
24   satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite to suit
0220
 1                            Lin
 2   under Title 7 of the Civil Right Acts of 1964.  Do
 3   you know what Civil Rights Act means?
 4        A    No.  I think it is a piece of law.
 5        Q    That's right.  That's exactly right.
 6   You can infer that as past 1964.  Have you had any
 7   training at American Express on discrimination?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    Did they ever talk about Civil Rights?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    Chances are, and I'm not a lawyer, and I
12   didn't attend the particular one you went to, I
13   think, when they talked about it, they were
14   talking about this Civil Rights Act.  And I am
15   suing you under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of
16   1964?
17             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
18             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I'd appreciate
19        it if you would stop doing that just as I'm
20        about to ask a question.  Do you understand
21        what I'm saying?
22             MS. PARK:  Yes, and I'll repeat that.
23        Mr. Lin does not have to accept your
24        characterization.
0221
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  He doesn't have to.  I'm
 3        asking him questions and please stop
 4        saying, "Is there a question?"  There is a
 5        question and if you ask me again -- Please
 6        note on the record that Ms. Park has again
 7        violated my instructions to stop asking if
 8        there is a question.  Of course there is a
 9        question.  So, Ms. Park, I'm going to write
10        down a note to myself.  Ms. Park cut me
11        off, if I had a question or not.  It was
12        just as I was about to get to the question.
13        Q    So, I'm sorry to do this, to you Qing,
14   but I'm going to have to repeat this, and that is
15   it says:  Peter failed to satisfy the
16   jurisdictional prerequisites to suite under Title
17   7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Do you have a
18   clue as to what that means?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        A    No.
21        Q    No clue?
22        A    No.
23        Q    So, if somebody said, My rights were
24   violated, my Civil Rights were violated.  That
0222
 1                            Lin
 2   would mean nothing to you, correct?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        A    I do not understand your question.
 5        Q    If somebody said:  My civil rights were
 6   violated, do you understand what that means?
 7        A    Not entirely in the legal term.
 8        Q    I'm not asking entirely.  But do you
 9   understand, if somebody said:  My civil rights are
10   violated, what does that mean?  Does it have any
11   meaning to you at all?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    What would it mean to you?
15        A    A human right being violated.
16        Q    Can you give an example?
17        A    Say someone lock you up in some room and
18   not give you food.
19        Q    Exactly.  Exactly.  There are certain
20   rights you have as a person and I think it's
21   civil, civil rights.  That's as I understand it.
22   I don't know -- I was alive during this time.
23   1964 is when a lot of blacks had troubles in the
24   South with being accepted and they had a policy
0223
 1                            Lin
 2   where they had to keep separate and they went to
 3   separate schools and they couldn't go into a
 4   "Whites only" school and this law was past in
 5   response to it.  That's why it is not a
 6   coincidence that there was a lot of unrest in 1964
 7   and this law was passed.  That's what the Civil
 8   Rights Act of 1964.
 9             It was meant principally to allow black
10   people to have the full rights of white people.
11   Does that make sense to you?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13        A    I understand what you said.
14        Q    Have they ever covered that in training
15   at American Express?
16        A    I do not remember.
17        Q    Have you been to training at American
18   Express on discrimination?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
20        answered.
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    Can you tell me what you learned in that
23   class?
24        A    What I learned from --
0224
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    From the class on discrimination that
 3   you had at American Express.
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection.
 5        Mischaracterizing the witness's testimony.
 6        Q    Can you please clarify.  Did you have
 7   training at American Express on subjects other
 8   than Risk Management?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Did you have any training on the subject
11   of discrimination?  Do you know what the term
12   discrimination means, let me ask that?
13        A    Yes, discrimination as an English word,
14   yes.
15        Q    Okay, what does it mean?
16        A    As an English definition?
17        Q    Yes.
18        A    Differentiating --
19        Q    Do you have any idea what it means when
20   you take a class about discrimination in American
21   Express.  Do you know what they would talk about?
22        A    I do not understand what you mean,
23   "Class about discrimination."
24        Q    I'll try to explain it.  There are some
0225
 1                            Lin
 2   courses that are taught in the mathematical sense,
 3   and there are courses that are taught on
 4   secretarial, and there are courses that are taught
 5   by Human Relations.  Are you aware of those
 6   different types of classes?
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 8        Q    Does American Express have classes that
 9   are taught by relations?
10        A    Human --
11        Q    Human Resource Department?
12        A    Yes.
13        Q    Can you name some of the titles of those
14   courses?
15        A    Leadership.
16        Q    Okay, that's one.  Any others?
17        A    A lot of situation on leaderships.
18        Q    Anything else?
19        A    Communications.
20        Q    Good.  Do they ever have anything that
21   talks about black people versus white people and
22   things like that?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    What do they call those courses?
0226
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I do not remember the exact name.
 3        Q    How about approximately?
 4        A    I don't remember the exact names.  Like,
 5   racial discrimination.
 6        Q    Yes, racial discrimination.  That is
 7   exactly what I mean.  What does racial
 8   discrimination mean?
 9        A    You treat people differently simply just
10   based on the race of the people.
11        Q    Right, exactly, exactly.
12        A    If you asked me that question I could
13   have answered it --
14        Q    I'm not that good at, you know, framing
15   the question.  I don't know what you know and
16   don't know.  A lot of times --
17             MS. PARK:  Could you just ask the
18        question.  Let's move on.
19             MR. LINDNER:  We are having a moment
20        here.
21        Q    Let's jump back to Exhibit Number 2,
22   sentence 1?
23        A    Sentence marked 1?
24        Q    Yes.  It's called Nature of the Action?
0227
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Can you read that, please?
 4        A    This is an Action for Breach of a
 5   Settlement Agreement Retaliation, in violation of
 6   Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and
 7   tortuous interference with plaintiff's contractual
 8   relationships."
 9        Q    Do you understand roughly what that
10   means?
11             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12        Q    Do you understand what it means at all?
13   Do you know what a Breach of a Settlement
14   Agreement is?
15        A    I do not know exactly what's the legal
16   meaning.
17        Q    Do you know what a Settlement Agreement
18   is?
19        A    I know what is settlement, I know what
20   is agreement, so --
21        Q    Can you hand Qing -- Could you give me
22   the Exhibit Number 1, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.  I
23   have in my hands Plaintiff' Exhibit 1.  Can you --
24   You have looked at it earlier.
0228
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Are you referring to the --
 3        Q    Can you read what the first two words
 4   are?
 5        A    Settlement Agreement.
 6        Q    Do you understand what Settlement
 7   Agreement is?
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 9        answered.
10        A    This refer to this document, it say,
11   Agreement.
12        Q    It's an Agreement?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    And you settled something.  That's a
15   Settlement Agreement?
16        A    Yes.
17             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
18        Q    I'm asking, do you understand what that
19   means now, Settlement Agreement?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection, asked and
21        answered.
22        Q    I understand it.  So, Qing do you
23   understand it?
24        A    Settlement Agreement refers to this
0229
 1                            Lin
 2   document.
 3        Q    Correct. yes.  Okay.  So, Let me just
 4   clarify it.  When I asked you a few minutes ago
 5   what was a Settlement Agreement, you didn't know
 6   it.  But, when I refreshed your recollection with
 7   this document it made more sense, right?
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  That
 9        wasn't his testimony.
10        Q    Did it make more sense after seeing
11   this?
12        A    So, Peter, you asked me what is the
13   general definition of a Settlement Agreement?
14        Q    Yes.
15        A    I do not know what's a general legal
16   definition of it.
17        Q    Okay.
18        A    If you say, The Settlement Agreement,
19   referring to this document, then I will
20   understand, yes.  You have to show me that
21   document.
22        Q    Okay.
23        A    So, that is why I was answering this
24   way.
0230
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    So, before when I asked you, like five
 3   minutes ago, and, if you want, we could have the
 4   court reporter read the question back, you said
 5   you answered, you didn't know what a settlement
 6   agreement was --
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection.
 8        Mischaracterizing his testimony.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Marian, can you read
10        back --
11             MS. PARK:  Move on.
12             MR. LINDNER:  Can you read back --
13             MS. PARK:  Move on.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, your objection
15        is noted.  Please, read back my question
16        about the Settlement Agreement.  It was
17        about five minutes ago.
18                       (Record read)
19        A    So, you were asking what is a Settlement
20   Agreement.  So, If I understood it wrong,  I
21   understood it as, in general, what is a Settlement
22   Agreement.  I do not know what's a definition.  If
23   you refer to the Exhibit 1, these things called
24   Settlement Agreements?  I said, yeah, I recall
0231
 1                            Lin
 2   seeing that.
 3        Q    So, if you were to reask this question,
 4   if I were to say -- Let's say we start afresh and
 5   I said:  Qing, I have a document here that's
 6   called Exhibit 2, and it's an Amended Complaint,
 7   and it starts off with Paragraph 1 on the nature
 8   of the action.  It says:  This is an action for
 9   breach of a Settlement Agreement, and if I were to
10   ask you now, do you understand what that means,
11   how would you answer?
12        A    Breach the Settlement Agreement you had
13   with American Express?
14        Q    Yes.
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    Yes, you do?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    At an earlier point you didn't
19   understand; is that true?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    By talking back and forth and showing
22   you Exhibit 1 you understood it; right?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    I point it out only because Ms. Park
0232
 1                            Lin
 2   used an objection, which was called, "Asked and
 3   answered."  It's like if I ask you what's the
 4   answer and you said; I don't know, and then I
 5   said:  What's the answer, and you said:  I don't
 6   know.  That would be, "asked and answered."  You
 7   already answered it.  I wasn't trying to badger
 8   you.  I was just trying to move along and give you
 9   additional information so that you --
10             MS. PARK:  Ask him a question.
11             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, you have been
12        warned.
13        Q    I'm trying to give you additional
14   information so that you could say it.  So,
15   sometimes "asked and answered" is true, but
16   sometimes, you know, you are a smart guy, I'm a
17   smart guy, and we can learn on the spot.  Did you
18   learn something by having me show you Exhibit 1 in
19   reference to Exhibit 2?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21        A    I don't feel that.
22        Q    Why did you change your answer from not
23   understanding the breach of a Settlement Agreement
24   to understanding it now?
0233
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  You're
 3        mischaracterizing his testimony.
 4        Q    Do you understand what an action for a
 5   breach of a Settlement Agreement means?
 6             MS. PARK:  Let the record reflect Mr.
 7        Lindner appears to be reading or quoting
 8        from a portion of his amended Complaint.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  That's correct.
10        Otherwise known as Exhibit 2.
11        Q    Do you understand the first phrase in
12   sentence 1 of Exhibit 2?  You could read it out
13   loud.
14             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, we stipulate
15        that you are claiming that American Express
16        and Mr. Lin breached your Settlement
17        Agreement.  Okay, let's move on.
18             MR. LINDNER:  Does he understand it?
19             MS. PARK:  Does he understand that
20        this is what you are claiming.
21             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I understand
22        you answer every question.
23             MS. PARK:  No, we stipulated that that
24        is what you are claiming.
0234
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  I understand it, but
 3        please, I'd like an answer from Qing.
 4        Q    Do you understand it?
 5        A    I understand it.
 6        Q    Thank you very much.  And you are not
 7   just saying that because Ms. Park said it, you
 8   truly understand it; right?
 9        A    I recall that before lunch you asked me
10   what are you suing me for?
11             MS. PARK:  Wait --
12        A    I mentioned that you were complaining
13   about me violated the agreement between you and
14   American Express.
15             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, you asked, "Do
16        you know what this case is about?"  And he
17        said, "Roughly."  And you said, "Why don't
18        you tell me what you know."  Mr. Lin said,
19        "You complained about me breaching your
20        agreement by giving a back reference about
21        you."  Asked and answered.
22             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, please, the
23        court reporter can only handle one person
24        at a time --
0235
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Because you keep talking
 3        over me.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  And I was speaking here
 5        and I don't -- I mean, maybe we need your
 6        speeches and they are certainly delightful
 7        but not for me.  So, one at a time.
 8             MS. PARK:  Ask a question.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  I need to get an answer
10        from Qing.
11             MS. PARK:  Ask a question.
12             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, you have cut
13        me off again by saying, "Ask a question."
14        I wish you wouldn't do that.
15        A    Peter, the question was, do I learn
16   something --
17        Q    Yes?
18        A    -- by what you said.  I say, no, because
19   I think what could happen here is I probably
20   misunderstood your question, in terms of what is
21   generally a Settlement Agreement, or what is the
22   agreement you referred to.  So, that's it.
23        Q    Sometimes learning comes in small bits.
24   So, now we will go to Number 6.
0236
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Which document are you
 3        referring to?
 4        A    Which document?  There are two documents
 5   -
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I know we are going to
 7        have three documents.  This is fun.  This
 8        is document Number 3 and there are only two
 9        more left.  There are only two more left.
10        So that will be pleasant for you two to
11        realize.
12        Q    It says --
13        A    Number 3, yes.
14        Q    Document Number 3, item Number 46.
15        A    Okay.
16        Q    Alright. Plaintiff's claims are barred
17   by his breach of the agreement prior to any
18   alleged breach of agreement -- alleged breach by
19   defendants upon which we've sought.  I'm going to
20   reread this question and ask you if you understand
21   it.  I'm going to say, Peter's claims are stopped
22   by Peter's breach of the agreement, prior to any
23   breach by Qing.  Do you understand that?
24        A    Not quite.  Your statement is kind of
0237
 1                            Lin
 2   convoluted.
 3        Q    It is convoluted but that's why they pay
 4   the lawyers the big bucks.  So, can you tease any
 5   information out of that?
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7        A    No.  Reading this, I cannot understand.
 8        Q    So, you don't -- Do you have any factual
 9   basis for saying that I violated the agreement
10   before you violated the agreement, if indeed you
11   did violate the agreement?  Maybe you didn't
12   violate the agreement but this says that Peter
13   violated the agreement before this time.
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15        A    I understand what you said.
16        Q    Do you have any facts that says that I
17   violated the Settlement Agreement?
18        A    I do not know how this linked to this
19   paragraph 46 here.
20        Q    I will try to explain it.  We had a
21   Settlement Agreement, American Express and I, and
22   it wasn't binding on American Express, it wasn't
23   binding on me, it is binding on both of us.  So,
24   for instance, one of the provisions in there is
0238
 1                            Lin
 2   that it shouldn't be published.  Now, you can't
 3   say this went on.  There is a secrecy clause in
 4   it.  Do you understand that?
 5        A    So far, what you said, yes.
 6        Q    Do you want to see what clause stops you
 7   or me from talking about it or do you accept the
 8   fact that there is a secrecy clause in the
 9   agreement?
10             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, he has
11        testified he has never seen the agreement.
12        Why are you asking him to testify about a
13        document he has never seen.
14        Q    Did you ever see paragraph 13 of
15   Document 1, the one where you were instructed and
16   directed --
17             MS. PARK:  With the exception he may
18        have seen it through counsel.  All your
19        questions should be with the exception of
20        anything he may have seen in consultation
21        with me.
22        A    So, which document do I have seen?
23        Q    The document that was a Settlement
24   Agreement, Exhibit 1.
0239
 1                            Lin
 2        A    So, I have answered that I have not seen
 3   it before.
 4        Q    You've not seen it before.  Okay, so
 5   let's take a quick look at it.  It stops American
 6   Express from talking about me.
 7             MR. LINDNER:  Objection to form.
 8        Q    So, did you remember reading paragraph
 9   13?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Asked
11        and answered.
12        Q    Do you remember reading it?
13        A    Today?
14        Q    Today.
15        A    In front of you?
16        Q    Yes.
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    Do you recall that that was saying that
19   seven (sic) people, a certain number of people,
20   should not say anything to a Non-American Express
21   employee?
22             MR. LINDNER:  Objection to form.
23        Q    Do you understand that?
24        A    Yes.
0240
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    That would be a stipulation on American
 3   Express but there also were restrictions upon
 4   Peter Lindner, upon me, okay?  And I also could
 5   not talk about that agreement.  So, I am alleging
 6   in my suit that you violated the agreement,
 7   paragraph 13, and now the question is, did I beat
 8   you to the punch?  Did I violate the agreement
 9   before you violated the agreement?  Even if you
10   say you didn't violate it, you're saying:  In any
11   case did I violate the agreement?  Do you have any
12   facts that say that I violated the agreement?
13        A    I do not know.  I don't know your
14   statement so which one you violate.  I have not
15   seen agreement before today.
16        Q    Right.  So, you are not aware of any
17   violation by me of the agreement?
18        A    I do not know.
19        Q    You do now know.  That is what I mean by
20   not aware.
21             MS. PARK:  Objection.
22        Q    Maybe I violated it, maybe I didn't, but
23   I'm asking, are you aware of a violation by me?
24        A    I do not know.
0241
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    So you don't, correct?
 3             MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.  Move
 4        on.
 5        Q    He nodded his head.  I wish to have his
 6   answer on the record.
 7        A    I said, "I do not know."
 8             MR. LINDNER:  I'm sorry, I didn't hear
 9        what you said, Qing.
10             THE WITNESS:  I said it many times.
11             MR. LINDNER:  That's good.
12        Q    Now, it says, "The seventh affirmative
13   defense is the Complaint is barred, in part, by
14   the doctrine Res Judicata.  I don't even know if I
15   pronounced it right.  Do you know what this means?
16        A    Do I know what this means?
17        Q    At all?
18        A    No.
19        Q    No.  So, do you have any factual basis
20   for asserting it?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22        Q    Do you have any factual basis for
23   saying -- For instance, in the prior question I
24   asked you, for instance, if you said:  I heard
0242
 1                            Lin
 2   Peter talking about this Settlement Agreement a
 3   year after it happened.  That would be a factual
 4   basis for saying that I violated the agreement.
 5   You know, if you heard such a conversation.  If
 6   somebody said:  Hey, do you see this number?  This
 7   is how much money Peter made from the Settlement
 8   Agreement, and that happened, you know, a month or
 9   two after the agreement.  That would be a prior
10   violation.
11             So, I'm asking on this one, without the
12   legal terminology, and I have a document which
13   explains what it is, but Res Judicata means it has
14   already been tried in court.  In other words, we
15   went to a court, this whole issue came up and it
16   was settled in court.  Does that make sense?
17        A    Not quite.
18        Q    If you go to court and you settle a
19   matter, you cannot go to a different court and
20   open up the same matter.  Once it's settled,
21   that's it.  Does that make sense?
22        A    I understand what you said, yes.
23        Q    That, as I understand it, is what Res
24   Judicata means, is that it's already been tried in
0243
 1                            Lin
 2   court.  So, do you feel, your own personal
 3   knowledge, have you gone through this whole
 4   process in court already?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 6        A    I don't understand what you say.  How
 7   this relate to 47, because I do not understand 47
 8   or what you just said.
 9        Q    Suppose this case is finished and you
10   win, or I win, or it is dismissed or whatever,
11   okay, and then five years from now I say:  You
12   know what Qing did in 2005, I'm going to bring it
13   up in the court.  The court would throw it out
14   because they would say, under the doctrine of Res
15   Judicata, it had already been tried in 2009, and
16   once it has been settled, that's it.  You know,
17   you can't keep going back with the same thing.
18   You understand that, right?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        A    What you said as it relates here.
21        Q    And you understand you are in court now.
22   So, I'm asking, have you been in court previously
23   on this issue?
24             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0244
 1                            Lin
 2        A    On what issue?
 3        Q    The alleged breach of the Settlement
 4   Agreement.  Have you been in court on this issue?
 5        A    On this particular case.
 6        Q    Yes, on Lindner versus American Express
 7   and Qing Lin, have you been in court before on
 8   that?
 9        A    No.
10        Q    So, my interpretation of what you just
11   said to no, means there is no fact in your
12   possession that would say that you have been in
13   court; correct?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  That
15        wasn't his testimony.
16        Q    What is your testimony, Qing?
17        A    So, you are asking me whether I have
18   been in a courthouse --
19        Q    Yes.
20        A    -- regarding to this particular case
21   which we are talking about --
22        Q    Exactly.
23        A    Right?  My answer is:  No, I have not
24   been in any courthouse for this particular case.
0245
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    And if you were, you would probably
 3   remember it, right?
 4        A    Yes.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  That's what I'm asking.
 6        I think it is 4:00 o'clock.  It's time for
 7        a break.
 8             MS. PARK:  I'll note for the record
 9        that Mr. Lindner has been initiating all
10        the breaks in this case.  We are prepared
11        to continue.
12             MR. LINDNER:  That is good.
13             THE WITNESS:  I don't need a break.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Well, actually, I do.
15        I'd like to say we are going to be off the
16        record.
17             MS. PARK:  Note for the record that I
18        object to any further breaks.  How long are
19        we breaking for, on the record?
20             MR. LINDNER:  I think we are already
21        off the record.  Are we off the record?
22             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  No, not yet.
23             MS. PARK:  How long are we breaking?
24             MR. LINDNER:  It's seven minutes after
0246
 1                            Lin
 2        4:00 and we will start again at 4:15.
 3             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We are off the
 4        record.  This ends tape number 3.  We are
 5        off the record at 4:07.
 6                       (Recess taken.)
 7             Stand by:  This begins tape number 4
 8        in the deposition of Qing Lin.  We are on
 9        the record at 4:30.
10             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much,
11        Dmitry.  I want to talk a little bit -- I'd
12        like to cover some other topics.  Maybe we
13        have done it before but I hope you will
14        indulge me.
15        Q    Has Fisher Jordan ever been given a
16   contract by American Express, to your knowledge?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    Do you know approximately when?
19        A    I do not know.  So, I know some
20   contracts.  I do not know all the contracts.
21        Q    I don't know any contracts.  Do you know
22   of any contracts?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    Can you name which ones you do remember?
0247
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I can remember one, which happens in my
 3   organization, which is December of 2007.
 4        Q    Without revealing proprietary
 5   information, can you reveal roughly what the
 6   subject was about?
 7        A    The subject is about designing a system
 8   to review customer information.
 9        Q    What kind of customer information?
10   Again, without revealing proprietary information?
11        A    The business information of the
12   customer.
13        Q    In other words, for the commercial side
14   of the house as opposed to the --
15        A    The small business side of the house.
16        Q    For the small business side of the
17   house?
18        A    Yes.  And the customer behavior
19   information of our American Express product.
20        Q    Which product was that?
21        A    American Express products.
22        Q    Products, a whole bunch of them?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    When you talk products you mean like the
0248
 1                            Lin
 2   Optima Card, the Gold Card, the Green Card, things
 3   like that; is that correct?
 4        A    Yes.
 5        Q    Is that the first contact that you can
 6   recall with Fisher Jordan?
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 8        A    Sorry.
 9        Q    Do you recall an earlier contract?
10        A    From my organization?  With my
11   organization?
12        Q    Yes, for instance.
13        A    No.
14        Q    How about for a different organization
15   within American Express?
16        A    I do not know.
17        Q    So, that's the earliest one you recall?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Inside or outside your organization; is
20   that correct?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    Now, do you have the ability, do you
23   have signing authority?  That's a term of art.  If
24   I say you have signing authority, do you feel you
0249
 1                            Lin
 2   can answer that question?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        A    I do not know what do you mean signing
 5   authority.
 6        Q    Let me clarify it.  Can you determine
 7   who gets a contract from American Express?
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 9        answered.
10             MR. LINDNER:  Noted.  Please answer.
11        A    If I get the contract meaning?
12        Q    Can you decide to give a contract to an
13   organization?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
15        answered.
16        A    Can I restate the question to see if it
17   is consistent with your question?
18        Q    Sure?
19        A    Can I decide who to engage for some
20   American Express activity?  Is that what you mean?
21        Q    That's very well said, yes.
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    Okay.  Is that authority limited in any
24   way?
0250
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Is there a number below which you have a
 4   lot of authority and above which you might have no
 5   authority?  In other words, how is the authority
 6   limited?
 7        A    The length and amount of dollar awarded
 8   for engagement is limited.
 9        Q    Can you inform me what those parameters
10   are?
11        A    I do not remember.
12        Q    Roughly?
13        A    Roughly, I think, below I would say
14   $25,000 -- $50,000 I can decide.  I have signing
15   power.  So, I can sign it.
16        Q    That's what I meant by signing
17   authority.
18        A    Yes, I can approve it.
19        Q    I should have said signing power.  And
20   the length?
21        A    Probably the dollar is more important.
22   So, I do not recall.
23        Q    But it's probably more like a one month
24   contractor or five month contract.  Would that be
0251
 1                            Lin
 2   within your signing authority?
 3        A    So, if someone is willing to work for
 4   five months for say, $1,000, I think, it would be
 5   fine.
 6        Q    Sometimes you get what you pay for.  But
 7   you are saying basically $50,000 to do a project
 8   or $25,000?
 9        A    I don't remember, because my practice is
10   always checked.  Management checks always the
11   policy.  So, I don't remember, off the top of my
12   head.
13        Q    Do you have a document that you use to
14   check on?
15        A    No, typically I called up Finance
16   Department to see because they facilitate the
17   documents.
18        Q    And they have a document that contains
19   it?
20        A    Yes.
21             MR. LINDNER:  And has that document
22        been produced, Ms. Park, that Qing is
23        referring to?
24             MS. PARK:  I don't know.
0252
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  Well, Ms. Park, if any
 3        of the documents I asked for --
 4             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, every document
 5        you have asked for, pursuant to Party
 6        Document Request, have been answered and
 7        all responsive documents have been
 8        provided.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that but I
10        didn't finish my sentence.  I'd appreciate
11        if you didn't cut me off.
12             MS. PARK:  I've a standing objection,
13        I'm not producing any more records, period.
14             MR. LINDNER:  I understand what you
15        said but let me finish, if I may.  If any
16        documents I asked for, and to which Mr. Lin
17        has made a reference have not been
18        produced, I'm making a demand that they
19        be --
20             MS. PARK:  And that's why you're not
21        getting anymore records.
22             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, you just
23        cut --
24             MS. PARK:  Demand noted.
0253
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  -- me off again.
 3             MS. PARK:  Demand noted.  Demand
 4        noted.  Demand noted.  Go on.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  I'm going to say it
 6        again, because I don't want to be cut off,
 7        if I may, and at one point I asked you
 8        whether you have a document and you said:
 9        Look it up yourself.  I'm not sure of the
10        exact words, so that is why I'm saying it
11        now.  And, please, don't interrupt me.  If
12        you want to interrupt me, wait until I'm
13        finished, then say, I would have
14        interrupted you and this is my objection.
15        What I'm saying is:  If any document I ask
16        for, and to which Qing has made a
17        reference, and they have not been produced,
18        I'm making a demand that they be produced.
19             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Demand noted.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.
21        Q    Now, if there are larger contracts can
22   you approve them, over 50,000?
23        A    It requires higher management approval.
24   I don't remember the threshold.
0254
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Threshold, t-h-r-e-s-h-o-l-d.  So, you
 3   would sign a larger contract but it needs
 4   additional signatures too.  Is that your
 5   understanding?
 6        A    It needs additional signature from
 7   higher level and from Finance Department.
 8        Q    And from the Finance Department?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    But you could be the one who initiated
11   or it could be your project, right?  Or would it
12   now be the other person's project or the Finance
13   Department?  How does that work?
14        A    It is based on business needs.  I can
15   propose an engagement and it's beyond my approval
16   limit.
17        Q    Yes?
18        A    My supervisor has to agree and decide
19   on.
20        Q    Alright.  And if, let's say, it is that
21   larger amount and he agrees with it, is it your
22   project or is it his project?
23        A    It is American Express Project.  I do
24   not know if it is my project or his project.  So,
0255
 1                            Lin
 2   I do not understand your question.
 3        Q    Well, if somebody said what projects
 4   have you --
 5        A    It's the nature of the business.  So, it
 6   depends on --
 7        Q    You both can claim credit for it, I
 8   guess?
 9        A    I do not know what do you mean, claim
10   credit.  It is the nature of business.  It's a
11   business activity.  Specific scope of the project.
12   So, I do not understand what you mean, if it's my
13   project or my boss's project.
14        Q    Let me try to narrow it down.  Did you
15   have signing power in 2005 and 2006?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    Do you have an approximate range for
18   what dollar amount you had back then?
19        A    I do not remember specific.  It would be
20   the same.
21        Q    Roughly the same?
22        A    Yes.
23             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.  I
24        appreciate that you gave an approximate
0256
 1                            Lin
 2        answer.
 3        Q    Now, do you also have the authority to
 4   delay a project?
 5        A    That is a business decision.
 6        Q    Yes.
 7        A    Not necessarily made by me.  It could be
 8   made by people in my team.  It could be made by
 9   me.  It could be made by my supervisors.
10        Q    Okay.  So, you do have the authority to
11   delay it but so does that people on the teams
12   under you and do some of the people over you?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    So, are you saying that anyone of them
15   can delay it --
16        A    It is a business decision we typically
17   make together.
18        Q    A collective decision?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    So, if a person says:  I wish to delay
21   it, who makes the decision then whether it gets
22   delayed or not?
23             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24        A    I do not know.  What do you mean "Who
0257
 1                            Lin
 2   makes decision?"
 3        Q    Can you, for instance, delay a project?
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 5        answered.
 6        A    Yes, it was business rationale.  So,
 7   give me a more specific question because you are
 8   asking me a hypothetical situation.  I do not know
 9   the context.  So, I have to give you a general
10   answer.
11        Q    Well, has Fisher Jordan -- You said
12   Fisher Jordan had a contract with you in
13   December 2007, correct?
14        A    It had engagement doing some project
15   with me starting December 2007.
16        Q    Starting December 2007?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    Prior to that, as best you can recall,
19   you didn't have any contracts with them, right?
20   By engagements you mean contracts, right?
21        A    Me, meaning Qing Lin, or me meaning
22   what?  I know your --
23        Q    Whatever group that you are the head of.
24   You are the senior VP and chief credit -- of Open,
0258
 1                            Lin
 2   but were you that in 2005?
 3        A    No.
 4        Q    What was your title in 2005?
 5        A    Senior Vice-President, Chief Credit
 6   Officer, Institutional Risk Management.
 7        Q    That's another thing I didn't get.
 8   Senior VP and Chief Credit Risk --
 9        A    No, Chief Credit Officer.
10        Q    Chief Credit Officer --
11        A    Institutional Risk.
12        Q    Wow.  Institutional Risk.  And that was
13   in 2005?
14        A    That's in 2005, yes.
15        Q    So, do you know if Fisher Jordan had any
16   projects or engagements in 2005 with American
17   Express?
18        A    I do not know.
19        Q    Do you know if they proposed any
20   projects in 2005?
21        A    I do not know.
22        Q    Do you have an office or Contract
23   Department or Legal Department or a Finance
24   Department that keeps track of projects by
0259
 1                            Lin
 2   vendors?
 3        A    I think so, yes.
 4        Q    Yes.  And would they have a list of only
 5   completed projects or also initiated or proposed
 6   projects?
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 8        A    I'm not familiar with what is keep
 9   track.  Meaning, it is not my responsibility.  So,
10   I do not know how they track.
11        Q    But do you ever report to them?  Do you
12   ever tell them the project is over, the project
13   has began or I assigned it, or anything like that?
14        A    If I involve the Finance Department?
15        Q    Yes?
16        A    The paperwork goes through them and the
17   department's -- I think it is Global Procurement
18   and they probably have the records.
19        Q    So, one of the Finance Departments or
20   one of their allies, one of their people in their
21   American Express chain will have a document on
22   contracts?
23             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24        Q    As best you know?
0260
 1                            Lin
 2        A    So, you are asking whether American
 3   Express, as a company, has the documents, have all
 4   records of which consults be engaged?
 5        Q    Yes, that's what I'm asking?
 6        A    I believe so.
 7             MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that you
 8        restated it.  I'd like to know if that
 9        particular document, relating to Fisher
10        Jordan contracts, have been produced,
11        Ms. Park?
12             MS. PARK:  No.
13             MR. LINDNER:  It has not.  I'd like to
14        make a demand that they be produced.
15             MS. PARK:  Demand all you want.  You
16        are not getting any more records.
17             MR. LINDNER:  Although I am a little
18        mystified how I could have known it prior
19        to deposing Qing.  In fact, I think,
20        Ms. Park, you asked me some questions and
21        --
22             MS. PARK:  Move on.
23             MR. LINDNER:  -- I went and got the
24        documents for you.  Do you recall that?
0261
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  You were ordered by the
 3        judge to produce records and those were the
 4        only records you produced.  Move on.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  I believe I produced
 6        them voluntarily.
 7             MS. PARK:  Move on.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I'd appreciate
 9        it if you would stop saying, "Move on."
10        Q    So, we have established that there is a
11   set of documents somewhere in American Express
12   that would talk about all the vendors and have the
13   projects, at least for money being spent.
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  That
15        mischaracterizes his testimony.
16        A    I don't quite understand your statement.
17        Q    Well, suppose you have a project that
18   cost $25,000.00 and you approve it, would there be
19   a document that would say, Qing Lin approved such
20   and such a project on such and such a date that
21   cost such and such amount and this is what it
22   does.  This it the title of the project?
23        A    I would think so.
24             MR. LINDNER:  That's what I was asking
0262
 1                            Lin
 2        you and that's the type of document that I
 3        wanted to have that list.  Thank you very
 4        much.
 5        Q    Now, if a project is going on and you
 6   feel that you wish to cancel it, you have the
 7   authority to cancel projects?
 8        A    So, I do not know because I have not
 9   done it before.  Contracts involve both sides.
10   So, I don't know whether I can single handily
11   cancel a project or not.  So, I have not done it
12   before, so I do not know.
13             MR. LINDNER:  You don't have to know.
14        I accept that, that's fine.
15        Q    We have established you can award
16   contracts.  We established you have the signing
17   power, right?
18             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
19        Q    You have the signing power to approve
20   contracts, correct?
21        A    I can approve.
22        Q    You can approve.  Thank you.  There are
23   probably other projects, I'm going to ask you,
24   that you can only recommend.  Are there such
0263
 1                            Lin
 2   projects?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        A    Restate your question.  I don't quite
 5   fully understand.
 6        Q    You have projects where, instead of
 7   signing for it or having the signing power, that
 8   you can recommend that a project go forward and
 9   that's it.  You can recommend it but you can't
10   sign for it?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    Thank you.  And, if you recommend it,
13   who would then sign for it?
14        A    So, if it is related to my
15   responsibility --
16        Q    Yes?
17        A    -- my supervisor has to sign it, Finance
18   Department has to sign it.
19        Q    And your supervisor is?
20             MS. PARK:  During what period?
21             MR. LINDNER:  Qing said that his
22        supervisor -- So, I'll let him answer what
23        he said.
24        A    Is meaning now?
0264
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Yes.
 3        A    Ash Gupta.
 4        Q    How about in 2005, who was your
 5   supervisor then?
 6        A    Ash Gupta.
 7        Q    If Ash Gupta was then and Ash Gupta is
 8   now, did you have a different supervisor in
 9   between?
10        A    No.
11             MR. LINDNER:  So, I think it's fair to
12        say that we just went a long way for
13        nothing, that when I asked if your
14        supervisor would sign it and then Ms. Park
15        said, "Well, it depends what time frame."
16        So, we established now it would be Ash, and
17        2005 it would Ash, and in between it would
18        Ash.  That's a span of four years.  I just
19        wanted to get that.
20        Q    When you make a recommendation, is it
21   verbal or is it in writing?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23        A    It could be either.
24        Q    It could be either.  Thank you.  So,
0265
 1                            Lin
 2   have you ever done a recommendation in writing?
 3        A    I do not remember.
 4        Q    Have you ever made a recommendation
 5   verbally?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    Have you ever delayed something in
 8   writing?
 9        A    Delay -- what is something?
10        Q    Well, a project, an engagement?
11        A    Of a consultant?
12        Q    Yes.
13        A    I don't think so.  I don't remember.  I
14   don't think so.
15        Q    Have you ever delayed a project of a
16   consultant verbally?
17        A    To answer your question, I don't think
18   so.  The project could be delayed because Finance
19   don't have the money or it could be anything.  Do
20   I propose the delay?  I do not remember I propose
21   any delays.
22        Q    Maybe you are on vacation, or maybe one
23   of your people were out, or maybe there's some big
24   thing that happened all of a sudden.  So, you'd
0266
 1                            Lin
 2   say, I'd like to delay this by a day, by a week,
 3   or month, or something?  Have you ever done that?
 4   Have you ever changed the date of a project?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Asked
 6        and answered.  He said he doesn't remember
 7        having proposed any delay.
 8        A    So, Peter --
 9        Q    Yes.
10        A    Project start is not a firm start,
11   January 1st, that's the date.
12        Q    Correct.
13        A    There could be agreements, there could
14   be preparation period, and the starting date is
15   not clear cut.  I could not answer the question
16   and say whether a delay is a day or two or
17   something.  I do not remember ever saying:  Delay
18   this project for six months, not doing it.
19        Q    But can you recall -- I believe that.
20   But can you recall, let's say, delaying it by a
21   day or two.  Saying:  Hey, instead of starting
22   Wednesday, we'll start on Thursday or --
23        A    I don't remember.  It could happen.
24        Q    It could happen.
0267
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I don't remember.
 3        Q    But would you have any documents that
 4   indicate that, that would refresh your memory?
 5        A    So, are you asking, to decide to delay a
 6   project for one day or two, do I have a document I
 7   have to recall that?  The answer is no.
 8        Q    So, you are saying you don't recall
 9   that, or you don't have such a document, or you
10   can't recall if you have such a document?
11        A    I thought your question is, to delay a
12   project by a day or two --
13        Q    Yes?
14        A    -- do I need a document or not?  My
15   answer is, not --
16        Q    But would you, for instance, send out an
17   e-mail that says:  We were going to have the
18   meeting at such and such a date but instead we
19   will have it on Monday?  You've never done that?
20        A    That could happen.  My associate in my
21   office arrange meetings based on my schedule.  So,
22   I don't micro manage that at work.
23        Q    So, would you just have them review --
24        A    Rescheduling meetings happen every other
0268
 1                            Lin
 2   day.
 3        Q    I believe it.
 4        A    So, you are asking me -- At that level,
 5   I just do not know.
 6        Q    So, how many assistants do you have?
 7        A    How many --
 8        Q    Assistants.
 9        A    Okay, assistants.
10        Q    Didn't you say you had an assistant who
11   would arrange a schedule, you know, micro-manage?
12        A    Yep.
13        Q    So, how many --
14        A    One.
15        Q    What is that person's name?
16        A    Tessa.
17        Q    How do you spell that?
18        A    T-e-s-s-a.
19        Q    What is her last name?
20        A    Alert, A-l-e-r-t.
21        Q    A-l-e-r-t.  What is her telephone
22   number?  Do you know offhand?
23        A    I'm sorry?  What's my number or --
24             MS. PARK:  I'm directing you not to
0269
 1                            Lin
 2        provide that.  I'm not giving you her
 3        telephone number.  Put it in a formal
 4        request.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  We will note again that
 6        Ms. Park refused to give an answer but she
 7        is asking that I ask the judge for it.  You
 8        mean a request to you or a request to the
 9        judge?
10             MS. PARK:  Make a request to me and I
11        will put a formal objection and denial of
12        your request.
13             MR. LINDNER:  Well, then you mean
14        request it to the judge because you are
15        saying already that you are going to deny
16        it, right.
17             MS. PARK:  Sure.
18        Q    How long has Tessa worked for you?
19        A    10 -- 11 years.
20        Q    So, she worked with you during the 2005
21   period, during the year of 2005, correct?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    And she would set up appointments for
24   you, right?
0270
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    So, Lotus Notes has a calendar, if I
 4   recall it?  Is that right?
 5        A    Yes.
 6        Q    And you can schedule meetings on that
 7   calendar, correct?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    Now, if a meeting is scheduled, is that
10   something you would do or you would delegate that
11   to Tessa?
12        A    I would delegate it to Tessa.
13        Q    So, if somebody wanted to see you, would
14   they just go up to see you or would they go to
15   Tessa to schedule a time?  How does it work?
16        A    Both ways.
17        Q    Both ways.  When Fisher Jordan, when
18   Boaz talked to you in 2005 about me, do you recall
19   if he scheduled a meeting or whether he just came
20   up to you?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22        Mischaracterizing his testimony.
23        A    I don't know.
24        Q    Do you remember meeting with Boaz?
0271
 1                            Lin
 2        A    During 2005?
 3        Q    Yes.
 4        A    Yes.
 5        Q    Before the lunch break you said that you
 6   gave him "Any information?"
 7        A    About you?
 8        Q    Yes.
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Do you recall at that day whether that
11   was a meeting scheduled through Tessa or whether
12   it was just a spontaneous thing where he just
13   showed up, or called you, or something like that?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection.
15        Mischaracterizing his testimony.
16        Q    How would you characterize it, Qing?
17        A    I'm not sure.  I don't know.  Ask your
18   question again.
19        Q    How did Boaz come to meet you?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  No
21        testimony that he met with Boaz.
22        Q    Did you meet with Boaz?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    How did he meet you?
0272
 1                            Lin
 2        A    We had lunch together.
 3        Q    And do you remember where that was?
 4        A    I do not remember.
 5        Q    That's okay.  It's four years ago.
 6        A    Do you want --
 7        Q    And you were going to say:  Do I want --
 8        A    No, ask your question.
 9        Q    So, lunch would be the type of thing
10   that Tessa would schedule, correct?
11        A    Sometimes she does.  Sometimes it's just
12   sometimes we bump into each other and say, "Hey,
13   let's go to lunch."
14        Q    Would it refresh your memory if you were
15   to look at Tessa's schedule for that day to see if
16   indeed Boaz and you met and she would put down,
17   Having lunch?
18        A    I do not remember which date.
19             MR. LINDNER:  I think I would like to
20        request the schedule that Tessa keeps to
21        see if indeed there is an entry of having
22        lunch with Boaz sometime in 2005.
23             MS. PARK:  I'll state for the record
24        that there is no document and Mr. Lin's
0273
 1                            Lin
 2        schedule was already checked.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Can you tell me who
 4        checked it, Ms. Park?
 5             MS. PARK:  No.
 6        Q    Qing, did you check your records to see
 7   if you met with Boaz on that day?
 8             MS. PARK:  On what date?
 9        Q    In 2005?
10        A    What records?
11        Q    The Lotus Notes Calendar.  You have
12   access to it, right?  It's not just her having
13   access.  You both have access to that record,
14   correct?
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    And she can schedule you or not
17   schedule, correct?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    And you can, yourself, change it if you
20   wish?  Do you ever change things or you are really
21   a hands-off manager and you never touch your
22   schedule?
23        A    Sometimes I do.
24        Q    Sometimes you do?
0274
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    So, you could have put an entry there or
 4   she could have?  You could have put it there or
 5   removed but, I'm asking you in particular, did you
 6   check to see whether you met Boaz and whether it
 7   was recorded on the calendar?  Did you check your
 8   calendar, your Lotus Notes Calendar, to see if you
 9   met with him in 2005 for lunch?
10        A    Do I check now?  Did I check it in 2005?
11   Do --
12        Q    Yes.  Since January of 2005, now it is
13   January of 2009.  During that time have you ever
14   looked at the calendar to find out if you had a
15   meeting with Boaz?
16        A    I do not remember.
17        Q    Ms. Park asserts that the calendar has
18   been checked.  So, do you know who could have
19   checked it?
20        A    I do not know.
21        Q    If I told you one of the lawyers checked
22   it, would you be surprised?
23        A    It could happen.  It's company data.
24   Company information.
0275
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    So, it's not your personal --
 3        A    It's not my personal information.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  I understand.  I'd like
 5        to put in a request, I'd like to know which
 6        group did the checking of Qing Lin's
 7        calendar and whether that was a data
 8        security team, a legal team, or Tessa.
 9        Qing Lin just stated it wasn't him.
10        Q    Now, when Fisher Jordan had a project in
11   2007, do you know if you made a recommendation for
12   that project or you approved the project?
13        A    I approved the project.
14        Q    Thank you.  And to your knowledge, and
15   we could check this, that was the first project
16   that you approved, and maybe even the first
17   project that Fisher Jordan had with American
18   Express?  Is that the best of your knowledge?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  What
20        are you asking him?  You've got three
21        different questions.
22        Q    Is it to the best of your knowledge that
23   this December 2007 project of Fisher Jordan was,
24   to the best of your knowledge, the first project
0276
 1                            Lin
 2   that Fisher Jordan had with Amex?
 3        A    I do not know.
 4        Q    Did you meet frequently with Boaz?
 5        A    What do you mean frequently?
 6        Q    How often did you meet with Boaz in
 7   2005?
 8        A    Three or four times.
 9        Q    In the year?
10        A    In the year.
11        Q    So that's not too often.  And one of
12   those times was when he talked about me, correct?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  That
14        wasn't his testimony.
15             MR. LINDNER:  Well, I'll have to check
16        what his testimony is, but I don't want to
17        have to go back and waste time to have the
18        court reporter find out exactly what he
19        said.  So, maybe you can tell us --
20        Q    You met three or four times with Boaz in
21   2005, correct?
22        A    Yes.  I don't recall exact time.
23        Q    But are there ways to find out?
24        A    Including hallway, kind of saw each
0277
 1                            Lin
 2   other, say, "Hi?"
 3        Q    Yes?
 4        A    I do not know.
 5        Q    Well, for instance -- I have a question:
 6   Do you wear badges at American Express?
 7        A    Yes.
 8        Q    Do you get in through the doors by using
 9   the badges?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    Now, some places other people can hold
12   open the door for you and it will not be recorded
13   whether you went through that door or not, but
14   some places it will be recorded.  Do you happen to
15   know what type of system American Express has with
16   regard to the badges?
17        A    I have to use the badge to enter the
18   building.
19        Q    Right, to enter to building.  But how
20   about to get to a particular floor.
21        A    I have to use the badge to open the door
22   on the floor.
23        Q    So, when you get out of the elevator you
24   are locked in, unless you use your badge to get --
0278
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Clarify which time frame?
 3        Q    2005?
 4        A    Yes.
 5        Q    To get into your office, do you need
 6   your badge?
 7        A    No.
 8        Q    Does it have a lock on it?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    If you were going with another person,
11   would both of you have to use your badges or only
12   one of you need to use the badge?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14        A    So --
15        Q    If you are going with a visitor, does
16   the visitor have a badge that they would -- For
17   instance, there is a turn-style at American
18   Express, isn't there?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    Can two people go through that
21   turn-style at the same time?
22        A    No.
23        Q    Can you go through the turn-style
24   without a badge?
0279
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    So, anybody could leave without a badge,
 4   right?
 5        A    No.
 6        Q    I thought that you said, "yes," and then
 7   "no."  So, which is it?  In other words, suppose
 8   somebody had a badge and then lost it and now they
 9   wish to leave through the turn-style, would they
10   be able to do it without the badge?
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    Okay.  Some places you can't, you have
13   to get the guard to let you through.
14        A    Yes, that's what I'm saying.  Can
15   someone do that?  My answer is, yes.
16        Q    That would be using the guard to
17   override the system?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    So, you cannot leave without either
20   using your badge or having the guard person let
21   you out, correct?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    So, in a similar way, can one get onto
24   the floor, on your floor, without a badge?
0280
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    One can?
 4        A    One can.
 5        Q    Because somebody could hold open the
 6   door --
 7        A    In the rush hour people come to work,
 8   someone hold the door, five, six people can get
 9   in.
10        Q    I understand.  Thank you very much.  And
11   there would be no record of it?
12        A    No.
13             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.  They are
14        working on systems where there would be a
15        record.  Anyhow, that's on the side.
16        Q    So, now I'd like to go to the question
17   of when you -- Back in 1990 you applied to America
18   Express.  You stated that you have documents, like
19   a resume, that you probably gave to somebody that
20   is somewhere in American Express, or at least it
21   was in 1990, whether it is there today -- Do you
22   know if they keep documents like that for 19
23   years?
24        A    I do not know.
0281
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Would it be fair to say that, if they
 3   kept it, it would be called your personnel folder?
 4        A    I do not know what is personnel folder.
 5        Q    You have a bunch of people working for
 6   you who are direct reports; correct?
 7        A    Yes.
 8        Q    Do you keep a folder on how they are
 9   doing?  Do you keep all their information in one
10   folder or is it spread out over several different
11   locations?
12        A    I do not keep a folder.
13        Q    Does anyone keep a folder?
14        A    I do not know in what form.  Human
15   Resource has records.
16        Q    Human Resource records?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    The question is:  When you said, By what
19   form, can you explain what that means?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21        A    I do know what Human Resource has.  So,
22   I don't personally keep documents of people --
23   what you call personnel file.
24        Q    But in some manifestation you are
0282
 1                            Lin
 2   saying, for instance, it could be electronic, it
 3   could be paper.  I mean a hundred years ago they
 4   had personnel files and they would say:  Here is
 5   when you were hired; here's how you did this year;
 6   here's what your salary is.  That would all be in
 7   one document.  Now, your finance information might
 8   be one place, your photo might be in another place
 9   but you are saying you do not know what form it
10   is?
11        A    I do not know what form and where it is.
12        Q    And where it is physically located?
13        A    I do not know.
14        Q    So, do they use the term personnel file
15   or personnel folder at American Express to talk
16   about the collection of data that they have on
17   themselves?
18        A    People use different terms.  I just want
19   to understand, when you say personnel file, what
20   do you mean?  People could call it personnel file.
21   I do not know.
22        Q    People at Amex?
23        A    People use different --
24        Q    What term do they use at Amex.
0283
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Your employment history.  I do not know.
 3   It depends on the context.
 4        Q    Employment history, that would have --
 5   For instance, does (sic) every year you get a
 6   review?
 7        A    Yes.
 8        Q    And where would they put that review?
 9        A    Human Resources have it.
10        Q    And chances are that's what people are
11   talking about when they talk about our personnel
12   file, personnel folder?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
14        testified he doesn't know what it is
15        called.
16        A    I do not know what --
17             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, you don't have
18        to feed him the answers.
19             MS. PARK:  I'm not.
20             MR. LINDNER:  I think, if he doesn't
21        know, he can say that and I accept it.
22        A    Let me state it, I do not know in which
23   form how Human Resource keep record of employees.
24        Q    But you do know -- What do you know
0284
 1                            Lin
 2   about the records?  They keep records?
 3        A    They keep some records, yes. I do not
 4   know what they keep or how they keep it.
 5        Q    Do you know, for instance, if they keep
 6   records on you or above a certain level they do
 7   not keep records?
 8        A    What do you mean, "keep records?"  Of
 9   course they know me as employee.  They know my
10   title.  They know what my responsibilities is,
11   yes.
12        Q    Just like they would know, Tessa Alert.
13   They would know her title, her responsibilities?
14        A    Yes.
15             MR. LINDNER:  Do we have the personnel
16        file for Qing Lin, Ms. Park?
17             MS. PARK:  I'm not answering that.
18        You have asked for that record and the
19        courts repeatedly denied that request.  We
20        are not revisiting that issue.  Move on.
21             MR. LINDNER:  They have denied it.
22        But this time Qing was observing they do
23        have it in some format, maybe not the
24        format that I requested it.
0285
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  So what.  You are not
 3        getting any of his personnel records,
 4        period.  Move on.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  I'm requesting it.
 6             MS. PARK:  Request all you want.
 7             MR. LINDNER:  Please note that I'm
 8        requesting it.  Requesting for a document
 9        that had not been produced but I'm making
10        the demand that they be produced and that
11        Qing has made a reference to it.
12        Q    I was an employee of American Express
13   too and I probably have a folder there too.  Would
14   you say that?
15        A    I do not know.
16        Q    Would it be unusual if I didn't have a
17   folder?
18        A    I do not know.
19        Q    So, you feel that there might be a whole
20   class of people at American Express who have no
21   personnel folders, but you are not one of them
22   cause you feel that you have a folder, and Tessa
23   has a folder, but there is this a large class of
24   people or a small class of people that do not have
0286
 1                            Lin
 2   folders?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        Argumentative, and he just said he doesn't
 5        know.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  We are finding the
 7        answers.
 8        A    So, I do not know a folder.  You
 9   mentioned specifically a folder.  So, I do not
10   know.
11        Q    When I say, "Folder," I mean it
12   figuratively.  Just like when you say, "A book."
13   When you say, "I'm reading a book,."  It doesn't
14   have to be a book on a piece of paper.  It could
15   be on a document, or an electronic device from
16   Sony, and it could be on the internet, but it is
17   still a book.  I'm not trying to say it's
18   manifestation is on paper or that it is a file
19   folder, or that it's a folder in the Windows
20   Directory.
21        A    So, Peter, you are asking me about
22   American Express Human Resource Record Keeping
23   Practice.
24        Q    Right?
0287
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I have been telling you, I do not know
 3   their practice.
 4        Q    Well, you don't know the details but do
 5   you know whether everybody has information stored
 6   at American Express?
 7        A    What do you mean, "Everybody has
 8   information stored?"
 9        Q    Every other 70,000 employees?
10        A    So, American Express must have some
11   record about every one of their employees.
12        Q    That's what I'm saying?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    For instance, tax information, right?
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    Whether they are a citizen, or an
17   illegal alien, they would keep that information
18   because the government requires it, right?
19        A    So, first, I don't know if American
20   Express can employ illegal aliens.
21        Q    That's just my point because they
22   request documents from the person and those
23   documents prove that they are a citizen or they
24   have a Green Card; right?
0288
 1                            Lin
 2        A    That's HR process.
 3        Q    That's part of the HR process but if you
 4   have interviewed people, where you have asked
 5   them, Are you a legal resident of the United
 6   States or do you have the ability to work here or
 7   do have you a Social Security Card?  You have
 8   asked questions like that?  Have you ever?
 9        A    I might have.
10        Q    That's what I mean.  So, I'm saying,
11   chances are it happens with everybody and I am in
12   that group too?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14        A    So, I don't know what your question is.
15   You are asking me some practice HR has.  So, I
16   tell you I do not know.  I don't know how to
17   answer your question anymore.
18        Q    You could answer that, chances are,
19   everybody has a record or you could say, No.  We
20   have a whole bunch of people we don't have records
21   for or could you say, We keep records but then we
22   destroy them all after so many years.  I don't
23   know.
24        A    I have no knowledge on that aspect.
0289
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    But you do have a knowledge that, as an
 3   employee, you would have a record, correct?
 4        A    Yes.
 5        Q    And that's what I was asking, because I
 6   was an employee for eight or nine years, or
 7   whatever the number was, and so I would have
 8   records, and whether they destroyed it or kept it.
 9   We don't know.
10             MS. PARK:  You need to speak up.
11        A    I do not know. Sorry.
12             MR. LINDNER:  I'm losing my voice too.
13        Q    When were you instructed and directed by
14   American Express not to reveal, "Any information,"
15   who instructed and directed you?
16        A    Ash Gupta.
17        Q    As you recall Ash Gupta was the person
18   listed ahead of you on the last of seven people on
19   paragraph 13.  So, who would have instructed and
20   directed Ash Gupta?
21        A    I do not know.
22        Q    Do you know if you had to sign something
23   when you were instructed and directed?
24        A    I did not signing.  I do not remember I
0290
 1                            Lin
 2   anything.
 3        Q    But you do recall Ash Gupta telling you
 4   that, having that conversation?
 5        A    Yes.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  Okay. thank you.  Well.
 7        I would like to find out who instructed Ash
 8        Gupta, whether he instructed himself.  So,
 9        Qing, made reference to not knowing it and
10        I think if there were document, I'm making
11        again a demand for a document that would
12        list who instructed whom.  Thank you, Ms.
13        Park.
14        Q    It would also be interesting to ask you
15   this question:  When you looked at Document 1,
16   which was the Settlement Agreement, do you recall
17   any of the people who signed it before you looked
18   at it?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He said
20        he never seen the document.  How can he
21        something he has never seen.
22        Q    He say it a little earlier today.  I'm
23   asking, without looking at it right now, do you
24   recall any of the names and other signatures it?
0291
 1                            Lin
 2        A    No.
 3        Q    Go to the end of the document, please.
 4        A    Last page?
 5        Q    Next to last page, thereabouts.  I'm not
 6   exactly.  Do you see their signatures?
 7                       (Witness perusing)
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    Can you recognize any of the names?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    Can you tell me which names you
12   recognize?
13        A    Ash Gupta, Richard Tambor, Peter
14   Lindner.
15        Q    Okay.  So, Ash Gupta not only signed
16   that document and was supposed to be instructed
17   and directed, but he also carried out part of that
18   document by instructing and direction you, Qing
19   Lin; right.
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21             MR. LINDNER:  I don't understand your
22        objection.
23             MS. PARK:  You are characterizing a
24        document a document that Mr. Lin has
0292
 1                            Lin
 2        testified he has never even reviewed before
 3        and you are also assuming facts that
 4        haven't been testified to.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  Which fact?
 6             MS. PARK:  The fact that you recited
 7        prior to asking Mr. Lin the question.
 8        Q    Well, I asked him if he recognized the
 9   signature and you do; right?
10        A    I recognize the printed name.
11        Q    How about the signature, have you ever
12   seen Ash Gupta's signature?
13        A    I have seen Ash's signature, yes.
14        Q    Can you read what that signature says?
15        A    I can I see it is a signature.  I'm not
16   expert to compare to signature what is real or
17   what.
18        Q    Can you read that signature?  Can you
19   read my signature?
20        A    No.
21        Q    My signature is on the bottom line;
22   right?
23        A    I cannot not read the letters.
24        Q    Can you put on your glasses, please?
0293
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I can see.  I'm farsighted.
 3        Q    Those are reading glasses, are they not?
 4        A    Reading glasses, yes.
 5        Q    Okay, so, I'd like you to read with your
 6   reading glasses.  Do you see where it says; Peter
 7   Lindner?
 8        A    I see plaintiff, Peter Lindner, yes.
 9        Q    Do you see that signature?
10        A    I see that signature, yes.
11        Q    Does it say Peter Lindner?
12        A    Now, if you ask whether it say; Peter
13   Lindner, I know it's Peter Lindner.  It looks like
14   P. I don't know if it is P, or Q or D.
15        Q    Right.  So, what is the next letter?
16        A    I don't know, I.
17        Q    It could be.  Then the letter after
18   that?
19        A    R or P or W, going the other way.
20        Q    Okay, but wait, there is no W in
21   Lindner.
22        A    No, in the middle.
23             MS. PARK:  You asked him to read the
24        handwriting.  He's you telling what the
0294
 1                            Lin
 2        letters look like.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  That's what I'm asking
 4        him.
 5        Q    So, you can read what there is a W in
 6   the middle of my name and my name happens to be
 7   Peter W. Lindner.  I signed it -- How did I sign?
 8        A    I don't know.
 9        Q    I signed it Peter W Lindner but I also
10   signed it a second time as Peter Lindner.  Do you
11   see that?  Do you see the two signatures?
12        A    Yes, I see -- the one above this one
13   (Indicating)?
14        Q    Yes.
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    So that is just in case anybody doubts
17   my signature I have it both ways.  Now, if you
18   look at Ash Gupta, look at his signature.  Do you
19   notice anything unusual about it?  Can you read
20   the first letter of it.
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    So, read the letters until you can't
23   read any further?
24        A    A-s-h then the remainder I do know.
0295
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    If you can read the last name, you'd be
 3   a better man than I am.  I can't figure that out
 4   at all but I would submit that Ash is actually his
 5   nickname.  Do you know what Ash's full name is?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    What is it?
 8        A    Ashwini.
 9        Q    Look at that signature, could it
10   possibly be Ashwini?  Can you spell it please?
11        A    A-s-h-w-i-n-i.
12        Q    Does that look like that might be
13   Ashwini?
14        A    It could be.
15        Q    Could be?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    So, what I'm saying is here that Ash
18   Gupta signed the document.  I signed the document.
19   Okay, but I also pointed out earlier that the
20   document also included that, and that was on the
21   first page where it said Settlement Agreement and
22   release, general release, that it was against
23   American Express Corporation, Richard Tambor and
24   Ash Gupta; do you recall that?
0296
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    So, he has mentioned on the front page.
 4             MS. PARK:  We stipulate he is
 5        mentioned on the first page.  We stipulate
 6        that his signature appears on the second to
 7        last page of the document.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Good.  Will you
 9        stipulate he is also mentioned on paragraph
10        13?
11             MS. PARK:  The document speaks for
12        itself.  Wherever his name appears, his
13        name appears.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Some people would say
15        that Ash was not involved in the document
16        in June of 2000?
17             MS. PARK:  Ask a question, Mr.
18        Lindner.
19             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking it of you.
20             MS. PARK:  No, you are not asking me
21        any questions.  I'm not a witness.
22             MR. LINDNER:  Will you stipulate that
23        Ash Gupta was involved in the June 2000
24        Settlement Agreement?
0297
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  You are not asking me any
 3        questions, Mr. Lindner.  You have a witness
 4        here, ask him questions.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  Right, I want to but
 6        sometimes you answer for him.  So, let me
 7        ask Qing.
 8        Q    Qing, you have this document before you.
 9   If you look at paragraph 12?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    Read the first few words, the first
12   sentence, the first line and part of the second?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    Please read it out loud?
15        A    "The company, Ash Gupta and Richard
16   Tambor represent and agree not to disclose to any
17   party outside of the company any of the fact and
18   the circumstances."
19        Q    Keep going?
20        A    You asked me to read up --
21        Q    Keep going, please?
22        A    "Leading up to Mr. Lindner's
23   termination."
24        Q    Right.  Can you interpret that sentence?
0298
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3        Q    Do you understand what that sentence
 4   means?
 5        A    Yes.
 6        Q    What does it mean?
 7        A    It means the company, Ash Gupta, and
 8   Rich Tambor agreed not to disclose to anybody
 9   outside of company.
10        Q    Right.  So, now I'm saying that Ash
11   Gupta is not only, as Park said, on the first
12   page, as one of the subjects of the suit, and on
13   the last page, as a person who signed it, but he
14   is also mentioned in other paragraphs.  I have
15   counted.  I thought that he is mentioned ten
16   times.
17             Now, the interesting part on paragraph
18   is  13 it says, "That the company agrees to
19   instruct and direct the following employees not to
20   disclose any information," and one of those people
21   is you, and you are saying, am I correct, that Ash
22   Gupta instructed and directed you, correct?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    But we don't know who instructed Ash
0299
 1                            Lin
 2   Gupta and that's what I'd like to find out.
 3             MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  What's the answer?
 5             MS. PARK:  He said he didn't know.
 6        Move on.
 7             MR. LINDNER:  I'm requesting a
 8        document that would indeed tell who did it.
 9        That's what I'm saying.
10             Now I'm going to get to another
11        exhibit.  This will be Plaintiff's Exhibit
12        4.
13                       (Whereupon Plaintiff's
14                       Exhibit 4 was received and
15                       marked for identification,
16                       as of this date.)
17             I'm giving you copy --
18             MS. PARK:  What is this document, Mr.
19        Lindner?
20             MR. LINDNER:  Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 is
21        the American Express Company Code of
22        Conduct.  I believe it's from 2005 -- 2004
23        to 2006.  I'm not sure of the exact date.
24             MS. PARK:  You want to produce this
0300
 1                            Lin
 2        document to me?  This is the first time I'm
 3        seeing it. I don't know where it came from.
 4        I don't know what this is, and again you
 5        have never turned this over to me.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I understand that.  I
 7        note for the record that I was not an
 8        employee of American Express in 2004 or
 9        2005.
10             MS. PARK:  I don't know where you got
11        this.
12             MR. LINDNER:  I can tell you.  It was
13        filed with the Securities and Exchange
14        Commission and it was posted on the Amex
15        website.
16        Q    So, I'm going to give you a copy of
17   this.  Qing, can you take a look at it.  Just look
18   at the front page.  Have you ever seen this
19   document?  Can you read the title?
20        A    American Express Company Code of
21   Conduct.
22        Q    Have you ever seen it?
23             MS. PARK:  Take a look at it.  Review
24        it.
0301
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Take the first page, just first page.
 3   We'll --
 4             MS. PARK:  He cannot identify that he
 5        has seen the document based on the first
 6        page.
 7        Q    Maybe he can identify it.  So, that's
 8   why I'm asking, have you seen that first page?
 9             MS. PARK:  I'm directing Mr. Lin to
10        review the document before he makes any --
11             MR. LINDNER:  We will do it but he
12        might say, I recognize it or he might say,
13        I don't.
14             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, you have
15        handed him a 35 page document and you are
16        asking him if recognizes it --
17        Q    Did you recognize the first page?
18             MS. PARK:  I'm not allowing him
19        without reviewing it.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, please trust
21        me on this.  We will get to where he gets
22        to review it.  I just want to start with
23        one page instead of a hundred pages.
24        Q    So, let me start with the first page.
0302
 1                            Lin
 2   Do you recognize that first page?
 3        A    I do not remember seeing this page in
 4   this format.  I recognize what is American Express
 5   Company Code of Conduct.
 6        Q    What format do you recognize it in?
 7        A    I do not remember.
 8        Q    Do you recognize it, for instance, this
 9   is a format where I printed it and then printed it
10   on my laser printer.  If you saw this, would you
11   have maybe seen it electronically or in a
12   published booklet form?
13        A    I do not remember.
14        Q    Okay.  That's good.  Now you can open
15   it.  So, turn to the third page.  They don't have
16   numbering.  So, turn to the page before that.  I'm
17   sorry.  At the top it says, June 2005, right?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Who is it signed by?
20        A    Ken Chenault.
21        Q    What's his title?
22        A    Ken Chenault.
23             MS. PARK:  We stipulate the title of
24        this document says that Mr. Chenault's
0303
 1                            Lin
 2        title says, Chairman and Chief Executive
 3        Officer.  Move on.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  In 2005.  Thank you,
 5        Ms. Park.
 6        Q    He is still the Chairman and Chief
 7   Executive Officer or has his title changed?
 8        A    Not to my knowledge.
 9        Q    It's the same?
10        A    It is the same, yes.
11        Q    Thank you very much.  Alright.  So, we
12   are going to go over this document and I'm going
13   to ask you, now that you have seen this page, do
14   you want to take a look at it for, like, a few
15   minutes, to just skim through it and see if you
16   have seen it before, if the words ring like you
17   might have seen it?  You get what I'm asking,
18   right?
19        A    So, I have seen American Express Code of
20   Conduct.
21        Q    You have.  In what way?
22        A    I do not remember every word.  It's the
23   format of it.  That's as much as I could say.
24        Q    But you remember some of it, right?
0304
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  You know, Ms. Park,
 4        maybe you can enlighten me.  Can you tell
 5        me what you mean by objection to form?
 6             MS. PARK:  No, Mr. Lindner, my job is
 7        not to educate you.  You go figure it out.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  I can't figure it out
 9        today because I'm doing the deposition
10        today.
11             MS. PARK:  Well, too bad.
12        Q    When you look at the first page of the
13   page you were on, if you look at the signed
14   document, it says on the second paragraph -- Can
15   you read the first sentence of the second
16   paragraph out loud?
17        A    Which one, the current version?
18        Q    Yes.
19        A    "The Current version of the code is like
20   each of it's earlier versions issued since 1975."
21        Q    Keep going.
22        A    "Set forth guiding principals and
23   illustrated examples to assist you in deciding how
24   to resolve potentially troublesome issues and
0305
 1                            Lin
 2   where to go for help and advice.
 3        Q    Okay.  Does that sound familiar to you?
 4        A    Yes.
 5        Q    Can you tell me in which way it sounds
 6   familiar?
 7        A    No.  I just remember that's all it's
 8   supposed to do.
 9        Q    Well, do you think that you have only
10   seen it once in your career but it's been very
11   memorable or you have seen it many times?
12        A    I probably have seen it a few times.
13   Yes, several times.
14        Q    Several times?
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    So, you have been with Amex for 19
17   years.
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Do you think possibly you've seen it 18
20   times?
21        A    Could be.
22        Q    Like a yearly type thing?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    Do you think that possibly you had to
0306
 1                            Lin
 2   sign the document saying that you've read it?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Yes, what?
 5        A    I got trained for Code of Conduct.
 6        Q    What is the training?
 7        A    I do not remember exact format.
 8        Q    Approximately.
 9        A    It could be in a town hall meeting.  I
10   remember one time it is a town hall meeting and a
11   speaker delivered the key message of the Code of
12   Conduct and then we signed that.
13        Q    Who?
14        A    Every employee in the town hall signed
15   that.
16        Q    Okay.  So, like a group marriage, but
17   instead of a group marriage it was a group
18   signing.  Alright, what is the general purpose of
19   this document, if you can -- Let me ask it a
20   different way.  Have you ever instructed people on
21   this document?
22        A    Have I ever instruct people?
23        Q    Yes.  In other words --
24        A    What do you mean instruct people?
0307
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    You know, it's sort of like, have you
 3   ever been to a math class?  And you go, yes.  Then
 4   I go, have you ever instructed math?  There is a
 5   difference between being a teacher and a student.
 6   So, I understand that you went to a meeting.  I
 7   don't want to say that you are were student but
 8   that you were being told about it.  Have you ever
 9   told somebody, instructed them, on the Code of
10   Conduct?
11        A    No.
12        Q    Okay.  So, what is the purpose of the
13   Code of Conduct?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15        A    You want me to look through it, read the
16   purpose or --
17        Q    Well, what do you feel the purpose is?
18        A    As a guiding principal for employees to
19   guide the employee behavior in a company.
20        Q    What sort of behaviors are they trying
21   to establish there?
22        A    Could you be more specific?
23        Q    Sure.  Is this the type of document that
24   says, we want people to work hard, be on time,
0308
 1                            Lin
 2   wear certain clothes.  Is that the type of
 3   document it is?
 4        A    I don't think so.
 5        Q    Well, can you characterize it in a
 6   better way?
 7             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Ask him
 8        a real question.
 9        Q    How would you characterize what this
10   document's intent is?
11             MS. PARK:  The intent of what the Code
12        of Conduct is, or this particular document?
13             MR. LINDNER:  This document is a Code
14        of Conduct.  I want to know how -- what the
15        intent is of this document.
16             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
17        didn't draft this document.  How is he
18        supposed to know what it's intent is?
19             MR. LINDNER:  He might know.
20        Q    Do you know what the intent of this
21   document is?
22        A    So --
23        Q    You have signed this document, right?
24        A    Yes.
0309
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Did you sign something that you didn't
 3   know what it was about?
 4        A    So, Peter --
 5        Q    I'm asking you a direct question.  Did
 6   you --
 7             MS. PARK:  Let him answer.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park, let me
 9        finish my question.
10             MS. PARK:  Yes, you cut him off.
11        Q    I'm asking for a simple answer.  Do you
12   sign documents that you don't know what they are
13   about?
14        A    So, the question is, did I ever sign a
15   document I know nothing about?
16        Q    Yes.
17        A    No.
18        Q    Okay, so you knew something about this
19   document when you signed it; correct?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    And that makes sense because you could
22   be signing for a lot of money or something like
23   that or whatever.  But you only sign things that
24   you read.  Did you read this document therefor?
0310
 1                            Lin
 2   Are you saying you did read this document and
 3   understand it when you signed it?
 4        A    I have to say that I did not read every
 5   single word of this document.  The signage of this
 6   document could be based on training, could be
 7   based on some high level instructions, and I
 8   agreed with that, and I signed it.  So, nobody has
 9   required me to read every single word before I
10   sign it.
11        Q    But you probably signed it more than
12   once; right?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    In fact, you might have signed it --
15             MS. PARK:  Do you have a question?
16        Q    -- 10 or 20 times, correct?
17        A    I don't know how many times I signed it.
18        Q    But if you had to guess a range, just
19   like you work in your business and you work on
20   approximations, if you had to approximate how many
21   times you signed it, what range do you feel would
22   be a reasonable range?
23        A    I don't remember.
24        Q    Well, please think about it.
0311
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  You got his answer.  Move
 3        on.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  I'd like him to think
 5        about it.
 6        A    You're asking me to guess at --
 7        Q    Yes, I'm asking you to guess.
 8             MS. PARK:  Don't guess.
 9        Q    I'm asking you to guess.
10             MS. PARK:  Don't guess.
11             MR. LINDNER:  Are you instructing him
12        not to guess?
13             MS. PARK:  No -- Yeah, I'm instructing
14        him not to guess.
15        Q    I'm asking him to give a range.  Did you
16   only sign this document twice in your life?  Qing,
17   do you think it's likely that you only signed it
18   twice in your life?
19             MS. PARK:  Go ahead and answer.
20        A    I'm sorry, your question again?
21             MR. LINDNER:  Marian, can you read
22        back the question?
23             MS. PARK:  He asked did you sign it
24        more than twice?
0312
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Do you think you signed it fifty times
 4   in your life?
 5        A    No.
 6        Q    So, it's a number between two and fifty?
 7        A    Yes.
 8        Q    Do you think it is fair to say that this
 9   is a yearly document or every two years or every
10   three years or something like that?
11             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Which
12        question are you asking him?
13        Q    What period of time do you think they
14   give this document for people to sign?
15        A    I do not remember.
16        Q    I know you don't remember but if you had
17   to guess?
18        A    So, how do I guess?  I would say two --
19   three years on average.
20        Q    That's what I was asking for.
21        A    Okay.
22        Q    Alright.  So, if you average two or
23   three years, and you work there 19 years, that
24   means you signed it how many times?
0313
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  No, Mr. Lindner, you asked
 3        him to the guess.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  I know but using that
 5        guess.
 6        A    What is your deduction, Peter?
 7        Q    What would your deduction be?
 8        A    Do I have to deduct this on hypothetic
 9   situation?
10        Q    It's a real situation.  We are trying to
11   get an answer using your methods, which you use,
12   by the way in your job --
13             MS. PARK:  No, Mr. Lindner, you asked
14        him to guess and he gave you the guess of
15        maybe every two or three years on average.
16        Q    I understand.  So, if you translate the
17   two or three years, every two or three years you
18   signed it --
19             MS. PARK:  That he guesses he signed
20        it.
21        Q    Right.  So, that would translate to, how
22   many times have you actually signed it, assuming
23   it's every two or three years?
24             MS. PARK:  Well, what's two divided by
0314
 1                            Lin
 2        nineteen or we would do three divided by
 3        nineteen, Mr. Lindner?
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I caution you
 5        again, do not answer for Qing.
 6        Q    Let me ask you the question.  If you
 7   answer how often you signed it, as Ms. Park said,
 8   three divided by nineteen?
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, don't answer.
10        I want Qing to answer.
11        A    State your question again.
12        Q    Ms. Park said it's three divided by
13   nineteen.  That's how often you signed it --
14             MS. PARK:  No, I said two or three.
15             MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park, we
16        will get to you later.  I am asking Qing.
17        A    So, I did not understand the question.
18   You quote Ms. Park and I did not hear Ms. Park.
19   So, I do not understand the question.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Marian, can you read
21        back what Ms. Park said?
22                       (Record read)
23        A    I cannot answer the question of how many
24   times I actually signed.
0315
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Given that somebody signed it every two
 3   to three years, is the answer two divided by
 4   nineteen or three divided by nineteen; yes or no?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 6        A    So, are you asking what is two divided
 7   by nineteen?
 8        Q    Yes.
 9        A    That's a mathematical question?
10        Q    Yes.
11        A    Two divided by nineteen.  Two
12   nineteenth's.
13        Q    Which is approximately how much.
14        A    Less than one.
15        Q    Less than one.
16        A    Two divided by nineteen.
17        Q    So, you are saying he is doing it less
18   than one --
19             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I don't want
20        you to answer the question.  I'm not
21        directing mathematical questions at you.
22        Even if you are a great mathematician or
23        you are a horrible one.  I wish not to ask
24        you this.
0316
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    So, Qing, I'm asking you, what number
 3   you would you say if you --
 4             MS. PARK:  This should be nineteen
 5        divided by two or nineteen divided by
 6        three.
 7             MR. LINDNER:  That's right.  That's
 8        why I don't want you to answer.  I wanted
 9        Qing to answer.  You see, Qing wouldn't
10        make a mistake like that.  Qing wouldn't
11        say two nineteenths when he has nineteen
12        over two.  So, that's why I want Qing to
13        answer, even though --
14             MS. PARK:  It's so important, Mr.
15        Lindner.  It's critical to your case.
16             MR. LINDNER:  I don't appreciate your
17        --
18             MS. PARK:  That's okay.  You can
19        answer, Mr. Qing.
20             MR. LINDNER:  If you have an objection
21        please place it on the record but I asked
22        Qing a question and I'd like an answer from
23        him.
24        Q    Can you please answer.  It's not two
0317
 1                            Lin
 2   over nineteen.  What is the correct answer?
 3        A    So, what is the question again because
 4   the conversation goes on, so --
 5        Q    I apologize for that but my counterpart
 6   has been giving answers when I was directing it to
 7   you.  So, let me ask it again.  If you sign a
 8   document every two or three years and you have
 9   been there for 18 or 19 years, how many times
10   would that mean you have signed it?
11        A    So, this is a word problem of
12   arithmetics?
13        Q    Yes, it's an arithmetic word problem.
14   Do you know the answer to it?
15        A    Hypothetic situation?
16        Q    No, this is a real situation.
17        A    No, I told you I do not remember.
18        Q    I know you did.  But assuming that to be
19   the case, what would the number come out to be?
20        A    I cannot assume a real case.  I cannot
21   assume a real case period.  You are saying it's
22   real.
23        Q    Let me ask you a question, not a
24   hypothetical.  Do you have customers who you have
0318
 1                            Lin
 2   had in your business for 19 years or 18 years; yes
 3   or no?  You have customers, you call them card
 4   members; is that correct?
 5        A    Yes.
 6        Q    Do you have card members who have been
 7   there 18 or 19 years?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    If I told you every two or three
10   times -- every two or three years they exceed
11   their card limit, do you understand what that
12   means?
13        A    No.
14        Q    Their credit limit.  If they exceed
15   their credit limit every two or three years --
16        A    How many times?
17        Q    How many times in their 18 or 19 year
18   membership history have they exceeded their card
19   limit?
20        A    I do not know the answer because you
21   have not given how many times within a year they
22   exceed their limit.
23        Q    Every two or three years they do that.
24        A    They do that once or do that twice.
0319
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    They do it once every two or three
 3   years?
 4        A    Okay.  So, let me restate that
 5   mathematical question here --
 6        Q    Give me the answer, if you know, instead
 7   of --
 8        A    No, no, because I have to get accuracy
 9   off --
10        Q    Go ahead.  Then do it.
11        A    Mathematical questions I have to get
12   accuracy.
13        Q    Go ahead.
14        A    Let me repeat the question.  So you say
15   a hypothetical customer of American Express,
16   assume they go over their credit limit once every
17   two or three years, in the 18 to 19 years span how
18   many times they would exceed their credit limit?
19        Q    Correct.
20        A    Is that the mathematical question you
21   stated?
22        Q    Yes.  Do you know the answer to that?
23        A    Not off my head.  I can calculate.
24        Q    Please do that.  Do you need a pen?
0320
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I might.
 3        Q    Here is a pen.
 4        A    Yes.
 5        Q    How many?
 6        A    It would be in the range of 6 to 9.5
 7   times.
 8        Q    Okay, thank you very much.  So, six to
 9   ten times and what I'm trying to get out of this
10   is that in your period at American Express, if
11   this document were given to you every two or three
12   years, that meant that you signed it six to nine
13   or ten times.
14        A    Assume --
15        Q    Assuming that.  Assuming you were there
16   for 18 or 19 years, assuming that they give it
17   every two or three years, it meant that you did it
18   six to nine or ten times.
19        A    Yes.
20             MR. LINDNER:  And that's what I was
21        going for.  The tape has to be changed.
22        So, I'm going to say we are going to go off
23        the record, with your permission, Ms. Park.
24        Ms. Park?
0321
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  If the tape needs to be
 3        changed then it needs to be changed.  It
 4        needs to be changed.  Can we noted the
 5        time.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  The time is 5:47.  I
 7        want to make a note before we go off the
 8        record that this is one time out that I did
 9        not call.  Thank you.
10             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This ends tape
11        number 4.  We are off the record at 5:48.
12                       Off the record.
13                       (Recess taken.)
14             This begins tape number 5 in the
15        deposition of Qing Lin.  We are on the
16        record at 5:51.
17             MR. LINDNER:  Hello.  This is Peter
18        Lindner.  We are back on the record.  We
19        were asking Qing Lin about documents on the
20        Exhibit Number 4, I believe, which is
21        American Express Code of Conduct and we are
22        going to continue with that.  I'm sorry,
23        I'm shuffling through my papers.  I
24        apologize.  The document that I have, which
0322
 1                            Lin
 2        would guide me through this whole thing, I
 3        can't find.  So, there goes the line of
 4        questioning.  I'm about to abandon it and
 5        move onto my next subject.
 6             I found it.  Sorry, for the delay.
 7        Q    Alright, can you turn to page -- These
 8   pages are not numbered.  So, I'm having a little
 9   trouble with them.  They are numbered a little
10   later.  Here they are numbered.  If we go to --
11   Let's stay on the current page, alright?  I'm
12   going to go over a few points and, please, the one
13   that starts June 2005, alright.
14             MS. PARK:  Let the record reflect Mr.
15        Lindner is referring to Plaintiff's 4.
16             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.  Is
17        everything okay, Dmitry.
18             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  There's a little
19        interference on the mike.
20        Q    The paragraph that you read, where it
21   says, "Since 1975," the last part of the sentence
22   says, "Resolving a potentially troublesome issue,
23   where to go to get help and advice."  Do you see
24   that part, Qing?
0323
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Would you say, when you were instructed
 4   and directed by Ash Gupta not to give any
 5   information to other people and then later Fisher
 6   Jordan asked about me and you gave information,
 7   would you consider that a potentially troublesome
 8   issue?
 9             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
10        A    So are you asking, at the time?
11        Q    Yes.
12        A    No, I didn't.
13        Q    In retrospect, was it a potentially
14   troublesome issue?
15        A    It could be.
16        Q    Why would you say that?
17        A    Otherwise I wouldn't be sitting here.
18        Q    And it's a pain, right?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection.
20        Q    Let me ask it again.  Qing, do you
21   consider it a pain to be sitting here?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23        A    No, it is taking up my productive
24   working time.
0324
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    That's it?  It's just a day that you
 3   lost or is it more than that?
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 5        A    It's part of my job.  I have been called
 6   here.  I have to come here.
 7        Q    So, let's go to the next paragraph.  It
 8   says, "It includes additional guidance about
 9   conflict of interest."  What does the term
10   conflict of interest mean?
11             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12        A    Conflict of interest?
13        Q    Yes, do you understand that phrase?
14        A    I think so.
15        Q    What does it mean to you.  You are not a
16   lawyer.
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    We have established that.
19             MS. PARK:  Are you asking in the
20        context of this document or are you asking
21        his opinion about what that means?
22             MR. LINDNER:  In the context of this
23        document.
24             MS. PARK:  Well then ask that
0325
 1                            Lin
 2        question.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you, Ms. Park.  If
 4        I went to law school I would have.
 5        Q    The conflict of interest, what are they
 6   talking about there?
 7        A    I can best describe this with an
 8   example.
 9        Q    Please.
10        A    My personal interest and the company's
11   interest are not consistent and that I act on my
12   personal interest in compromise of company's
13   interest.
14        Q    Okay.  Now the last sentence of the next
15   paragraph, can you read that?
16        A    I'm sorry which one.
17        Q    The next paragraph?
18        A    The next paragraph --
19             MS. PARK:  Which one?  Starting with
20        what sentence.
21        Q    "You will be?"
22        A    Which sentence?
23        Q    It says, "You will be," right?  What is
24   the last sentence of that paragraph?
0326
 1                            Lin
 2        A    "No waiver of this applicability will be
 3   granted under any circumstances."
 4        Q    What does that mean?
 5        A    I don't know.  I just read the sentence.
 6        Q    I know you just read it.  You don't know
 7   what it means, okay?
 8        A    No.  In the context it say if someone
 9   violate the Code of Conduct --
10        Q    Yes.
11        A    -- it will not be waived.
12        Q    Okay, I interpret it differently.  But
13   the way I interpret it, and I know Ms. Park is
14   going to object, is that people can be said to not
15   have to abide by the Code of Conduct.  You know,
16   they say:  Hey, the Code of Conduct applies to you
17   but not to me, and, believe it or not, the company
18   can say a group of people whom (sic) they don't
19   have to abide by it.  But in this sentence, as I
20   understand it, you can't do that.  They are
21   saying, Ken is saying that he is not going to
22   allow anyone, under any circumstances, to be
23   exempted from this policy.
24             Does the term, "No one will be you
0327
 1                            Lin
 2   exempted from this policy," mean anything to you?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        A    So, I do not understand your statement.
 5        Q    In other words, did you have to abide by
 6   this policy?  Does this policy apply to you?
 7             MS. PARK:  You mean the Code of
 8        Conduct?
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    Okay.  Alright, and now in the next
12   paragraph, the second sentence says, in accordance
13   with our values each of us is "personally
14   accountable for preventing or correcting
15   violations."  Do you understand what that means?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    What does it mean?
18        A    It means personally accountable for
19   preventing or correcting violations.
20        Q    Well, actually you just repeated the
21   exact words here.  Can you use your own words to
22   tell me what it means?
23        A    It means everyone is accountable.
24        Q    Can you use a word other than
0328
 1                            Lin
 2   accountable, please?
 3        A    Everyone is responsible for preventing a
 4   violation from happening --
 5        Q    Right.
 6        A    -- or correcting violations once it
 7   happened.
 8        Q    So, that might apply to you, right?
 9             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
10        A    What is applied to me?
11        Q    If you were in a situation that was a
12   violation of the code --
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    -- that you can't say, that's not my
15   job.  I'm not responsible for it.  You would have
16   to conclude that you personally are responsible?
17             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
18        Q    Accountable --
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.  Noted.
21        Q    Is that how you would interrupt that
22   phrase?
23             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  You
24        have asked him four questions.  Which one
0329
 1                            Lin
 2        do you want him to answer?
 3        Q    I want him to answer how would you
 4   interpret that phrase applying to you?
 5             MS. PARK:  What phrase?
 6             MR. LINDNER:  Qing will understand it.
 7        A    No, I do not understand because it's a
 8   long sentence and I do not know which one.
 9        Q    Okay.  Each of us is personally
10   accountable for correcting violations.  Do you
11   understand what that means?
12        A    Yes.
13        Q    Did you violate the code in any way?
14        A    No.
15        Q    Did you violation Paragraph 13 of the
16   Contract?
17             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He is
18        not an attorney.
19        Q    You read the paragraph earlier in the
20   day --
21             MS. PARK:  Paragraph 13 of what?
22        Q    Of the Settlement Agreement, which would
23   be Exhibit 1.  You answered that previously.
24             MS. PARK:  No, he didn't.
0330
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Did you give any information to a person
 3   outside of American Express, namely Boaz?
 4             MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.  He
 5        said he did.
 6        Q    Do you consider that a violation of that
 7   contract?
 8        A    No.
 9        Q    Of the Settlement Agreement?
10        A    No.
11        Q    Is it consistent with it?  In other
12   words, you were doing what that Settlement
13   Agreement asked for?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15        A    I don't know.
16        Q    You don't know?  So, you don't know if
17   talking to Boaz Salik is okay or not okay?  So you
18   could tell about me; is that what you are saying?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Okay or
20        not okay in a legal manner or under the
21        contract?  What are you talking about?
22        Q    Before lunch you said you gave
23   information, any information to Boaz Salik; right?
24        A    Say that question again.
0331
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Just before we broke for lunch I asked
 3   you, and Ms. Park just now said, "Asked and
 4   answered."
 5        A    So, which question are you referring to?
 6        Q    I'm asking did you give any information
 7   to Boaz, please?
 8             MS. PARK:  About you?
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
10        A    The answer is, yes.
11        Q    Is that what the contract called you to
12   do?
13        A    I do not know.
14        Q    Well, it says, do not give, "Any
15   information."  So, you gave information.  So that
16   would seem to be opposite.  So, in other words,
17   you violated the contract?
18             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  You are
19        asking him to make a legal conclusion,
20        Mr. Lindner.
21             MR. LINDNER:  That's right.
22             MS. PARK:  Ask him about facts.
23        Q    Now, the reason I'm asking you is that
24   sometimes, when you do something, you don't have a
0332
 1                            Lin
 2   lawyer with you.  You know, when you hit somebody
 3   you don't say, "Hey is that okay if I hit them?"
 4   It has legal consequences but you don't need a
 5   lawyer to know that it is not okay to hit
 6   somebody.  You understand that, right, Qing?
 7        A    So, I understand in your situation it is
 8   an area of hitting someone.
 9        Q    Yes, that's what I'm saying.  Now, you
10   wouldn't say that's a legal situation, so you
11   don't know what it means, because you are not a
12   lawyer.  You would say, "I know what it means,"
13   correct?  If somebody were to say, is it legal to
14   hit somebody?  Chances are you would say -- What
15   would you say?  Is it legal to hit somebody?
16             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17        A    No.
18        Q    Thank you.  Are you a lawyer?  No.  So,
19   yet you made a legal conclusion --
20             MS. PARK:  Wait.  Did you let him
21        answer?  Did you answer for him or did you
22        let him answer?
23             MR. LINDNER:  I'll ask him again.
24        Q    Are you lawyer, Qing?
0333
 1                            Lin
 2        A    No.
 3        Q    And yet again it calls for a legal
 4   conclusion; correct?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 6        Q    Did it ask for a legal conclusion?
 7             MS. PARK:  Did what ask for a legal
 8        conclusion?
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, please stop
10        interrupting.  If he has a question, he can
11        ask.  He is an executive in charge of a
12        hundred people.
13        Q    How many people are you in charge of;
14   Qing?
15             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16        Q    Qing, are you in charge of a number of
17   people?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    How many people?
20        A    Around a hundred.
21             MR. LINDNER:  He is in charge of a
22        hundred people.
23        Q    So, if Qing does not understand a
24   question, Qing, will you be able to ask me that
0334
 1                            Lin
 2   you don't understand it or do you need Ms. Park to
 3   ask that?
 4        A    Sometimes I do.
 5        Q    Sometimes you do, okay.  When you do,
 6   please say, "I don't understand," alright?  But
 7   you could tell me, alright?  But, in this case I'm
 8   asking, you can make a legal decision, you can
 9   make a legal conclusion without a lawyer.  Do you
10   agree?
11             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12        A    I do not agree.
13        Q    So, if somebody said is it legal to hit
14   somebody, you would say -- What would you say to
15   that?
16        A    I do not know.
17        Q    So, if a kid of yours -- Do you have
18   children?  I don't mean to pry.  Let's say you
19   have a friend's child and he says, "I'm going to
20   hit that person," how would you counsel them?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22        A    I do not know.  What do you mean how do
23   I counsel someone?
24        Q    What would you say to the child if he
0335
 1                            Lin
 2   wanted to hit somebody --
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        Q    -- he was so angry with them he wanted
 5   to hit them?
 6        A    You are giving a very hypothetic
 7   question.  I don't know --
 8        Q    I know you don't know.  I'm just asking,
 9   if somebody relied upon you, do you need a law
10   degree to make a decision on that?
11             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12        A    So, if you are asking me a ethical
13   question --
14        Q    Yes.
15        A    Was it a legal question?
16        Q    Yes.
17        A    So, if you've asked me my personal
18   judgment whether it is right or not --
19        Q    Yes, all of them.  Please, answer.
20   Answer all those things.
21        A    Answer all what things?
22        Q    You said your professional opinion, your
23   ethical opinion -- What is your ethical opinion on
24   somebody hitting somebody, if asked by a little
0336
 1                            Lin
 2   child?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4        A    I do not know what is the setting.  You
 5   give me a totally huge hypothetical question.  So,
 6   very broad.  I do not know the setting.  I cannot
 7   give you a qualified answer.
 8        Q    Okay.  Do you know the answer to whether
 9   it is right or not to speak to Boaz Salik about
10   giving him information about me, yes or no?  Do
11   you know the answer?
12        A    State the question again.
13        Q    Do you know the answer of whether it is
14   appropriate or ethical to give "Any information"
15   about me, Peter Lindner, to Boaz Salik?
16             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Are you
17        asking --
18        A    At the time?
19        Q    At the time, yes.
20        A    I did not think of that.
21        Q    But do you know the answer now?
22        A    As of now?
23        Q    Yes.
24        A    As I'm sitting here?
0337
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Yes.
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    What is the answer now?
 5        A    In terms of my judgment?
 6        Q    Yes.
 7        A    What I should have done or should not
 8   have done?
 9        Q    Yes.
10        A    If I can redo it?
11        Q    Yes.
12        A    I would not.
13        Q    And what would you do instead?
14        A    I would tell Boaz, for legal reasons I
15   cannot give any information about Peter Lindner.
16   Please refer to HR Department.
17        Q    Okay, that's what you say.  Actually, I
18   don't think you need all that.  I think you just
19   have to say, "Please go to the HR Department."
20   But anyhow, you will acknowledge that what you did
21   then is different than what you would do now,
22   correct?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    You will also acknowledge that this
0338
 1                            Lin
 2   would be what some people call a question,
 3   quandary, a difficult situation, something that
 4   you have to think about to make a right decision,
 5   correct?
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7        A    At that time or right now?
 8        Q    How about right now?
 9        A    Right now you made it difficult, yes.
10        Q    Yes, okay.  Now, the paragraph, the next
11   to last paragraph begins --
12             MS. PARK:  Which document are we on?
13             MR. LINDNER:  We are on, I appreciate
14        that, Ms. Park, the Code of Conduct,
15        Document 4, the next to last page.
16        A    Which page.
17        Q    The one that says, "June 2005."
18        A    Okay.
19        Q    The next to last paragraph starts off
20   saying, "You are encouraged to discuss any
21   questions or concerns you may have about the code
22   or the proprietary of any past, present or
23   anticipated conduct with your leader."  Who is
24   your leader?
0339
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Ash Gupta.
 3        Q    So, if you had any questions or concerns
 4   about your conduct, and talking to Boaz was
 5   conduct, would you agree with that?
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7        A    So, at the time or right now?
 8        Q    Right now?
 9        A    Right now?
10        Q    Yes.
11        A    Do I have concerns of what?  I was
12   talking to Boaz already.  So, do I have concerns.
13        Q    You've talked to him about this
14   situation?
15        A    No, no.  So, what you are referring to,
16   I have talked to Boaz about you in that
17   conversation.
18        Q    Yes.
19        A    And now do I feel concerned?
20        Q    Yes?
21        A    Or do I feel --
22        Q    Yes.
23        A    What is your question?
24        Q    Do you feel concerned?
0340
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  About what?
 3        A    About what?
 4        Q    About talking to Boaz back then?
 5        A    It's happened.  I don't concern with
 6   something happened.
 7        Q    It happened in the past, right?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    But if it were to happen in the future
10   would you do the same thing?
11             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
12        answered.
13        Q    I'm asking if you would do the same
14   thing?
15        A    Do the same thing?  So, if I repeat.
16   So, if Boaz asked me again about you --
17        Q    Yes.
18        A    -- would I do the same thing?
19        Q    Yes?
20        A    No.
21        Q    So, look at the wording on that
22   paragraph.  It says on Document 4 on the pages of
23   June 2005, which I call page 3, it says, "Any
24   questions you may have about the code of any past,
0341
 1                            Lin
 2   present or anticipated," they don't say past,
 3   present, future --
 4             MS. PARK:  You are not even reading
 5        the whole document.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  I know I'm not.
 7        Q    But you said at one point that incident
 8   is past.  But this says, even if it is a past
 9   incident, you should talk about it.
10             MS. PARK:  He has also testified
11        that --
12             MR. LINDNER:  Please.
13             MS. PARK:  No.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Do you have an
15        objection, Ms. Park?
16             MS. PARK:  Yes, objection to form.  He
17        hasn't testified that his conversation with
18        Boaz that he considered that to be a
19        violation of the code.  Once again, you are
20        assuming testimony that hasn't been given.
21             MR. LINDNER:  That's right. And I'm
22        not asking --
23             MS. PARK:  That's contradictory
24        testimony.
0342
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    I'm not asking that.  I'm pointing out
 3   and I think, Qing, you have admitted, that you
 4   would handled it differently now than you handled
 5   it in the past.  Is that correct?
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7        Q    Am I characterizing what you said
 8   correctly?
 9             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
10        A    So, you are saying words differently.
11   So, I do not know, because there was a lot of
12   contact, and exactly what I said --
13        Q    Would you do the same thing now that you
14   did back then?
15             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16        A    Same thing of what?
17        Q    Talking to Boaz?
18        A    Be accurate because --
19        Q    Yes, I understand?
20        A    -- this is a legal question.
21        Q    I understand.
22        Q    We were going over it.  What I was
23   trying to say here is that this document says that
24   if you have a question about something --
0343
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  No, about the code.  It's
 3        not a question about something.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, if you have an
 5        objection, please raise it.
 6             MS. PARK:  Yes, because you are
 7        mischaracterizing the document.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, that is your point
 9        of view.
10        Q    As I read this document it says, you are
11   encouraged to discuss any questions or concerns.
12   So, if you have a question you can talk to them.
13   If you have a concern you can talk to them.  Do
14   you agree with that, Qing?
15        A    No.
16        Q    Why do you not agree?
17        A    It says about the code.
18        Q    What's the next word after the word
19   code?
20        A    Or the property --
21        Q    Propriety?
22        A    Propriety of any past, present or
23   anticipated conduct.
24        Q    So, don't you see that means, if you
0344
 1                            Lin
 2   have a question about the code or if you have a
 3   question about the propriety of a past conduct or
 4   if you have a question of proprietary of a present
 5   conduct, or if you have a question about the
 6   propriety of anticipated conduct or if you have a
 7   concern about the code or if you have a concern
 8   about the propriety of -- it doesn't do all the
 9   permutations there, but you are skilled in
10   understanding that it doesn't just say, if you
11   have a question about the code, talk to your
12   leader.  It is saying, if you have a question
13   about the conduct, and it doesn't say conduct in
14   the future, it doesn't say conduct that is
15   happening right now, it also includes -- finish my
16   sentence.  Can you finish my sentence?
17        A    No.
18        Q    It also includes conduct in the past.
19   Do you agree with that?
20             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21        A    So, you are asking a lot of questions.
22   The conduct is regarding to the code.  If I
23   believe the conduct is violation of the code.  In
24   that context, I agree.
0345
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Okay.  So, suppose it was conduct in the
 3   past.  Should you ask about it or does it say not
 4   to ask about it?
 5        A    The conduct --
 6        Q    In the past.
 7        A    Of what context?
 8        Q    Well, it doesn't say.
 9        A    No, because you have to say conduct in
10   violation of the code or any conduct.
11        Q    Any conduct?
12        A    No.
13             MS. PARK:  What is the question?
14             MR. LINDNER:  Ms.  Park --
15        Q    It says, "If you have any question about
16   past, present or anticipated conduct?"
17             MS. PARK:  No, it says, "You are
18        encouraged to discuss any questions or
19        concerns you may have about the code or the
20        propriety of any past, present or
21        anticipated conduct with your leader or
22        other company representatives listed in the
23        code."
24        Q    So, let me break it down into two
0346
 1                            Lin
 2   things.  Here is one possibility.  Suppose you
 3   don't understand how the code works.  If you have
 4   questions about that, would you talk to your
 5   leader about it?  Yes or no, as you read this
 6   sentence?
 7        A    If I do not understand the code?
 8        Q    Yes.
 9        A    Yes, I would talk --
10        Q    It would say, according to the sentence;
11   right?
12        A    Yes.
13        Q    I'm not using any other document, okay?
14        A    Yes.
15        Q    Suppose there was an action?  You took
16   some action, and that's what conduct means,
17   action.  You agree that conduct means action?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Suppose you had an action that you were
20   going to do and you had questions about that
21   action, does this sentence address that or not?
22        A    No.
23        Q    So, in other words, if somebody says to
24   you, and you were their leader, I have a question
0347
 1                            Lin
 2   about some action that I'm thinking about taking
 3   in the future, you would say to them, "I don't see
 4   why you are coming to me."  The code doesn't say
 5   that You can only come to me with questions about
 6   the code not about questions about anticipated
 7   conduct.
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9        A    Peter, let me state your question.
10        Q    Sure.
11        A    Are you suggesting that any conduct I
12   have in the office I have to consult my leader.
13   Is that what you are suggesting?
14        Q    I'm not suggesting any of that.  I'm
15   suggesting that they --
16        A    This is how you read the sentence.
17   That's the best I can understand what you just
18   said.
19        Q    I understand what you are saying.  But
20   it says, if you have a question or a concern.  For
21   instance, if you don't have a question or concern,
22   you don't have to, but if you have a question,
23   then you should -- they are encouraging you.  Do
24   you understand that?
0348
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3        Q    How do you interpret that sentence?
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 5        answered.
 6        Q    I'm asking you how would you interpret
 7   that?  Are you saying that -- Let me get it right.
 8   Yes or no, you are saying that if somebody wants
 9   to come to their leader with a question about some
10   conduct that they have right at the moment or
11   they're going to have, they anticipate having that
12   they should under this sentence, it does not apply
13   to them?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He has
15        testified --
16             MR. LINDNER:  Please, you can object.
17        You can say it afterwards.
18        Q    Can you please answer?
19        A    These two are too irrelevant questions.
20             MR. LINDNER:  They are irrelevant
21        questions.  Okay, thank you very much.
22        Q    Go to page 32, please.  I got this off
23   the web.  It was a PDF and because it has Roman
24   numerals --
0349
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Ask your question.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park --
 4        A    It's 32?
 5        Q    It's the bottom, left-hand side.
 6   Because it has Roman numerals the numbering is
 7   off.
 8        A    Okay.
 9        Q    It says, "You must read, understand and
10   comply with the code.  If you have any questions
11   you are responsible for asking your leader for
12   clarification."  How (sic) would you interpret
13   those two sentences to mean?
14        A    I understand the code and if I have
15   questions I need to ask my leader about the code.
16        Q    Do you understand the code?
17             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
18        answered.
19        A    So, I do not remember every single word
20   of this document --
21        Q    But do you understand the code?
22        A    Do I understand the code?
23        Q    Yes.
24        A    Yes.
0350
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Do you have any questions about it?
 3        A    No.
 4        Q    Do you understand what that prior
 5   sentence which you read, which was that "you are
 6   encouraged to discuss any questions or concerns
 7   that you may have about the code or the propriety
 8   of any past, present or anticipated conduct."  You
 9   understand that sentence, right?
10        A    I understand.  I think have a different
11   understanding of yours.
12        Q    That's right.  Some people would say
13   when one person has a different understanding than
14   another, you don't say, you are both right.  You
15   could say you have a question about it and you can
16   go to another person to resolve it.  This document
17   tells you who that other person is.  That person
18   is -- Can you tell who that person would be?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        Q    Does this document tell you which person
21   that would be who would clarify it?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23        A    I do not have a question on that.
24        Q    You don't have a question on that?
0351
 1                            Lin
 2        A    You have a question.
 3        Q    That's right.
 4        A    You have a disagreement that generates
 5   my questions.
 6        Q    That's right.  Okay, let's look at the
 7   next sentence.  "If you believe that you have
 8   violated the code or any applicable law or
 9   regulation you must report the violation so that
10   the company can take an appropriate action."
11             MS. PARK:  Can take appropriate
12        action, not an appropriate action.
13             MR. LINDNER:  Right.  Can take
14        appropriate action.
15        Q    Now, do you understand that?
16        A    I understand that.
17        Q    Okay.  So, now let's jump to the fourth
18   paragraph, alright?  It says, "You should report
19   actual or suspected violations to your leader."
20   We already established your leader is Ash Gupta;
21   right?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    "Or your Human Resources
24   representative."  We haven't established who that
0352
 1                            Lin
 2   is, or -- it doesn't say the word "Or" it has
 3   comas, "Your business unit's compliance office."
 4   Do you have a business unit compliance office --
 5   officer?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    What's his name?
 8        A    I'm trying to remember.
 9             MS. PARK:  Are you asking now or in
10        the 2005.
11             MR. LINDNER:  2005?
12        A    2005 business unit compliance officer?
13        Q    Yes.
14        A    I do not remember.
15        Q    Do you now.
16        A    I know for now the business unit I'm in,
17   yes.
18        Q    Who is the compliance officer?
19        A    There are many compliance officers.
20        Q    Do you know any one of them?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    Can you give me one name?
23        A    Gillian Clements.
24        Q    How do you spell that. Gillian?
0353
 1                            Lin
 2        A    It's start G.  I do not know.
 3        Q    G-i-l-l-i-a-n, Clements?
 4        A    I do not know how to spell it.
 5             MR. LINDNER:  I'm requesting documents
 6        on whether Gillian Clements is a compliance
 7        officer.  It might be C-l-e-m-e-n-t-s but I
 8        could be totally wrong.  But Ms. Park, I'd
 9        like to find if you know who that person
10        is.  If you could find out and produce
11        information on whether she has any
12        conversations on suspected violations.
13             MS. PARK:  No.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Well, I'm demanding it.
15             MS. PARK:  Request denied.
16             MR. LINDNER:  You don't get to deny
17        it.
18             MS. PARK:  Then I reject it.
19             MR. LINDNER:  I understand.  You try
20        to reject it.
21        Q    And then it goes, a general auditor -- a
22   general counsel's office.  Do you anybody in the
23   General Counsel's Office?
24        A    Yes.
0354
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Whom?
 3        A    Tim Heine.
 4        Q    How did you spell the last name?
 5        A    H-e-i-n-e, I could be wrong.  That's to
 6   my best.
 7        Q    Do you know anybody else?
 8        A    Louise Parent.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Parent, like the mother
10        of a child, parent.
11        Q    Anybody else?
12        A    There are many people I know in General
13   Counsel's office.
14        Q    Do you know Jason Brown?
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    Is he in the General Counsel's office?
17        A    Yes.
18        Q    How do you know Jason Brown?
19        A    How do I know Jason Brown?
20        Q    Yes.
21             MS. PARK:  I want to instruct you not
22        to divulge any information of any
23        communications that you had with Mr. Brown
24        in his capacity as In-House Counsel for
0355
 1                            Lin
 2        American Express.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  I think we already
 4        reviewed that information in DEFO03770.  Is
 5        that true, Ms. Park?
 6             MS. PARK:  I'm not testifying.  I'm
 7        not answering your questions.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Well, I'm instructing
 9        you to answer.  How do you know Jason
10        Brown.
11             MS. PARK:  You don't instruct me to
12        answer anything.
13             MR. LINDNER:  I'm not instructing you
14        to answer.  I'm instructing Qing to answer.
15        A    How do I know Jason Brown?
16        Q    Yes.
17        A    Jason Brown is a lawyer in TCO and he
18   has contacted me and called me about your
19   Complaint of me giving negative reference.
20        Q    Okay, so he talked to you about this
21   case?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  That
23        wasn't his testimony.
24        Q    Did he talk to you about this case?
0356
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3        A    So --
 4        Q    Did he talk to you about this incident?
 5        A    What do you mean case?
 6        Q    Did he talk to you about the incident
 7   with you talking to Boaz --
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9        Q    -- about me?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11             MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is noted,
12        Ms. Park.
13        A    So, state your question again.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Can you read back the
15        question, Marian?
16                       (Record read)
17        A    What incident?
18             MR. LINDNER:  Can you read back the
19        prior question?
20                       (Record read)
21        Q    Do you understand which case we are
22   talking about?
23        A    No, I do not.
24        Q    Do you understand why you are here
0357
 1                            Lin
 2   today?  Do you understand why you are here?
 3        A    I understand, yes.
 4        Q    Why are you here?
 5        A    Because you have sued American Express
 6   and myself.
 7        Q    Okay.  Do you realize that some people
 8   call that a law case?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Do you understand that you spoke to
11   Jason Brown?  Yes or no, did you speak to Jason
12   Brown?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Asked
14        and answered.
15             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park?
16             MS. PARK:  You can answer it again.
17             THE WITNESS:  Ms. Park, so you just
18        instructed about Attorney/Client
19        Privileges?
20             MS. PARK:  Please don't testify to any
21        communications you had with Mr. Brown when
22        he was acting in his capacity as In-House
23        Counsel for American Express.
24        A    So, about this legal case?
0358
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Yes.
 3        A    I do not remember having a conversation.
 4   So, I cannot testify to that.
 5        Q    Okay.
 6        A    Outside of his capacity of Counsel --
 7        Q    But you might have talked to him in an
 8   Attorney/Client Privilege way but, if you have,
 9   you can't confirm or deny it.  Is that what you
10   are saying?
11        A    I cannot reveal --
12        Q    You cannot reveal whether that is or
13   not.  I understand.  After the General Counsel
14   Office it says the corporate secretary.  Do you
15   know who the corporate secretary is?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    Who?
18        A    Steve Lohman.
19        Q    So, if you suspect a violation, it
20   reads, you can talk to your leader or the general
21   counsel's office or the compliance officer or the
22   corporate secretary is that case?
23        A    Violations of --
24        Q    Actual or suspected violation of the
0359
 1                            Lin
 2   Code of Conduct.
 3        A    Yes.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  I'm going to give you
 5        another document and that document is
 6        DEF370.  Ms. Park, do you have any
 7        objection.
 8             MS. PARK:  Mark you document, Mr.
 9        Lindner.
10             MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  It is a
11        confidential document.  We are going to
12        jump a little bit and we were going to call
13        this Plaintiff's 11.
14                       (Whereupon Plaintiff's
15                       Exhibit 11 was received and
16                       marked for identification,
17                       as of this date.)
18             I have a document here that is
19        entitled Chief Credit Officer and
20        Institutional something and collections,
21        Qing Lin.
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form,
23        mischaracterizes the document.
24             MR. LINDNER:  It is a multi page
0360
 1                            Lin
 2        document that goes from the number DEF00370
 3        to DEF00373.  It is a four page document.
 4        It is a set of handwritten notes.  I want
 5        you to take a look at it?
 6             MS. PARK:  State for the record that
 7        Mr. Lindner did not mark any Plaintiff's
 8        Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 or 10.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  Yet.
10        Q    We have a document here and it's
11   plaintiff's 11 and I'm going to read the beginning
12   and see if it makes sense to you.  It says a date.
13   It looks like 2/07 or 2/27 or 2/17 or 2/4/06,
14   Chief Credit Officer something institutional,
15   something and collections, and then it has the
16   words Qing Lin.  Does that sound like it might be
17   referring to you?
18             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Why
19        don't you ask him if he recognizes the
20        document before you start asking him to
21        testify about it?
22             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking him does that
23        sound like you.
24             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0361
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  I understand that.
 3        Q    Does that sound like you, Qing?  What
 4   was your title at the beginning of February of
 5   2006?
 6        A    The question is, what was my title?
 7        Q    Yes.
 8        A    In February '06?
 9        Q    Yes.
10        A    Senior Vice-President, Chief Credit
11   Officer of Institutional Risk and Collection.
12        Q    So, does that look like, if this wasn't
13   cut off, that might be a fair summary of what your
14   title was?
15             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16        A    Your question is does that -- Making the
17   judgment now?
18        Q    Yes.
19        A    Is it about me?
20        Q    Yes.
21        A    Sounds like.
22        Q    Did you, in fact, see Jason Brown in
23   February of 2006?
24        A    I do not remember.
0362
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    If this document is true, and it might
 3   be.  I don't know if you -- Have you ever seen it
 4   before?
 5        A    No.
 6        Q    When you talked to Jason Brown, did he
 7   take any notes when he talked to you?
 8        A    I do not remember.  I remember this as a
 9   telephone conversation.
10        Q    Okay, so you talked over the phone.
11        A    Yes, to my --
12        Q    And you --
13        A    -- best memory.
14        Q    That's what I'm asking.
15             MS. PARK:  Let him finish answering
16        because I think the record is going to get
17        muddled.
18        Q    So, you had a telephone conversation
19   with Jason Brown and this might well be the notes
20   from it?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Are you
22        asking him to speculate?  He said he has
23        never seen it before.
24             MR. LINDNER:  I didn't ask him whether
0363
 1                            Lin
 2        he saw it before.
 3        Q    I'm saying, if you had a conversation
 4   with Jason Brown was it in person or was it over
 5   the phone?
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He said
 7        he had a telephone conversation.
 8        Q    Have you also met him in person and
 9   spoke about this subject?
10        A    I do not remember.
11        Q    But you do remember speaking to him on
12   the phone about this?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    Okay, thank you.  Now, I'm directing you
15   to about the fifth line, just before the indented
16   section, and it says, Peter.  Do you see the word
17   Peter is the first word?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    It says, Peter, as I read it, may have
20   given -- it's really anybody's guess as to what
21   that is.  We will have to ask Jason Brown.  But
22   the next paragraph looks like there is double
23   quote mark, does it not?  How would you read it?
24        A    I do not know.  It's just two dots here.
0364
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Two dots and what is the next word you
 3   see?
 4        A    Peter --
 5             MS. PARK:  What two dots?  Where are
 6        we now?  Are you asking him to interpret
 7        what he thinks this handwriting says?
 8             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
 9        Q    Okay, so now it says, Peter -- Can you
10   read the sentence?
11             MS. PARK:  Which one?  Are we still on
12        Peter the --
13             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, let him answer
14        and then you can ask your question later.
15        A    Which one?
16        Q    The one with the double dots you were
17   saying.
18             MS. PARK:  Double dots?
19             MR. LINDNER:  Qing used that phrase.
20        Q    Qing, can you just start reading where
21   it says Peter?
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    Do you see the word Peter, yes or no?
24        A    I see Peter, yes.
0365
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  There are two sentences
 3        that start with Peter.
 4             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, that's good.
 5        Q    Whichever one, please start reading?
 6        A    Peter is technical -- I don't know --
 7   Guy, it looks like.
 8        Q    Peter is technical guy, does that sound
 9   like something you would say?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11        A    Does that sound like something I would
12   say?
13        Q    Yes.
14        A    Yes.
15        Q    It does.  Do you recall saying that?
16        A    I do not remember the exact words.  I
17   remember, yeah, I do, say that.
18        Q    Something to that effect?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    What does the next line say?
21        A    It's --
22        Q    It's whether.  I'll read it.
23             MS. PARK:  Are you --
24             MR. LINDNER:  He is having trouble
0366
 1                            Lin
 2        reading it.
 3             MS. PARK:  Ask him a question, Mr.
 4        Lindner.
 5        Q    Are you having trouble reading that?
 6        A    Yes, I have trouble reading it.
 7        Q    So, this is how I read it, whether you
 8   hire him or not is your decision.  Does that look
 9   like it?
10             MS. PARK:  Don't guess, Mr. Lin.
11             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking him to guess.
12             MS. PARK:  No, and I'm directing him
13        not to guess.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is noted.
15        Q    Qing, I'd appreciate an answer.  Does it
16   look like it says, Whether you hire him or not is
17   your decision, yes or no?
18        A    I'm following my attorney's
19   instructions.
20        Q    You could still answer.  We could strike
21   it from the record later.  Does it look like that
22   or not?  Qing, I'm directing you to answer.
23        A    I'm not answering, based on my
24   attorney's --
0367
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Go ahead.  If you can
 3        answer it, then answer it.  But I'm asking
 4        you not to guess.
 5        A    So what do you want me --
 6        Q    Does it look like, whether you hire him
 7   or not is your decision?  Does it look like that
 8   or not?
 9        A    It does look like.
10        Q    Is that the type of thing you would say.
11             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12        Q    Did you actually say that to --
13        A    I don't remember saying that.
14        Q    -- Jason Brown?
15        A    I do not remember saying it to Jason
16   Brown.
17        Q    Let's look at the next sentence.  This
18   is how I read it.  I'm not sure whether he can
19   be -- I can't read the next word, something AXP.
20   Does AXP mean anything to you?
21        A    AXP is stock (sic) symbol for American
22   Express.
23        Q    So, in effect it's saying, I'm not sure
24   whether he can be something at American Express?
0368
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3        Q    Yes or no?
 4        A    What is the question?
 5        Q    Did you make a statement to anyone that
 6   you are not sure whether he can be at American
 7   Express?
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9        Q    Did you make such a statement, because
10   these are Jason's notes that --
11        A    I don't know what the statement is
12   because I do not understand the statement first.
13   But, if you are asking me now, I do not remember
14   saying anything regarding that.  I do not remember
15   it.
16        Q    You don't remember it.  Okay.  Actually,
17   I had a conversation with Jason Brown and he told
18   me that you said that, Peter, I'm not sure if
19   Peter Lindner can work here, and this document
20   says, I'm not sure whether he can be, I'm not
21   sure, at American Express.  So, what I was told by
22   Jason Brown was, I don't know whether Peter
23   Lindner can work here.  And because Jason made
24   that sentence, as I understand it, I'm able to see
0369
 1                            Lin
 2   this document.  In other words, that broke the
 3   Attorney/Client Privilege?
 4             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
 5        Q    Yes.  So, it goes on further and it
 6   says, something -- no discussion with Boaz about
 7   this.  Do you see that?
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection to form?
 9        A    Which line?
10        Q    Keep going.  It says, Boaz asked did
11   you -- something -- leadership -- Lin --
12   something -- discussing with Boaz about this?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14        Q    Do you see that?
15        A    I see this line.  I cannot read the
16   handwriting.
17        Q    Do you see the word Boaz?
18        A    Yes.
19        Q    Okay.  So, anyhow, this is a document
20   that talks about Peter, the technical guy, which
21   you feel you might have said.  It describes your
22   position; is that correct?
23             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24        Q    Qing, does it describe your position,
0370
 1                            Lin
 2   your title at the time?
 3             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
 4        hasn't testified that he has seen this --
 5             MR. LINDNER:  I'm not asking him
 6        whether he has seen this.
 7             MS. PARK:  You're asking him to
 8        interpret the handwriting on that.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking him --
10        A    Peter, your question is, as of now, I'm
11   sitting here --
12        Q    Yes.
13        A    -- reading this handwriting document
14   what it says here?
15        Q    Yes.
16        A    And I have to tell you it is not
17   complete sentence.  I cannot read part of this
18   handwriting.
19        Q    I know it's part of a sentence.
20        A    So, that I do not know.  And you are
21   asking what was my title during February 2006 --
22        Q    Yes?
23        A    -- and I gave you my answer.
24        Q    Which was very similar to what he has at
0371
 1                            Lin
 2   the top of the page, assuming Jason Brown wrote
 3   this?
 4        A    I can't read part of the sentence so --
 5        Q    Well, you can words in the sentence and
 6   --
 7        A    Something can overlap with my title.
 8        Q    Right.  Okay.  Did Jason Brown tell you
 9   why he called you?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
11        hasn't testified who called whom.
12        Q    Did you call Jason?
13        A    No.
14        Q    Did Jason call you?
15        A    Yes.
16        Q    Did he tell you why he called you?
17        A    So, the conversation he called to ask
18   question, yes.
19        Q    Did he tell you was he calling on his
20   own initiative or was he calling on someone else's
21   behalf?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23        A    So, I do not understand what do you mean
24   someone else behalf?
0372
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    In other words, did he say, You know, I
 3   was thinking about you and I thought I'd ask you
 4   this question.  That would be one example.  Or did
 5   he say, Somebody asked me to give you a call?
 6        A    I do not remember if he told me either
 7   someone asked him to give me a call.  He give me a
 8   reason why he call me but --
 9        Q    What was that reason?
10        A    Because you complained about me giving
11   you a bad reference.
12        Q    And therefor he decided to call you?
13             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14        A    I do not know what he decide or not so
15   --
16        Q    You --
17        A    I don't know why he decided he call me.
18        Q    What made him decide to call you?
19        A    I don't know what his rationale.  He
20   called me, yes.
21        Q    Well, I'll tell you what that rationale
22   is.  Do you wish to know what his is rationale is,
23   as I understand it?
24        A    For the interest of time --
0373
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Yes, in the interest of time.
 3             MS. PARK:  And, Mr. Lin, I'll instruct
 4        you that you don't have to accept Mr.
 5        Lindner's characterization or rationale.
 6        Q    Do you wish to know?
 7        A    No.
 8        Q    By the way, in that conversation with
 9   Jason Brown, did you take any notes?
10        A    In this conversation?
11        Q    Yes.
12        A    I do not think so.
13        Q    If you had, where would they be?
14        A    I do not think I took notes.
15        Q    Do you think that Jason was on your
16   calendar or he just called?
17        A    I do not remember.  He could have just
18   called me.
19        Q    Okay, here we go.  It took a while but I
20   found it.  Do you recall what the date is on that
21   handwritten document?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23        Q    Do you see what that date is at the top
24   of the document?
0374
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3        A    I cannot tell.  It is 2/ something '06.
 4        Q    And that, I would take to mean
 5   February 2006.  Is that how you would interpret
 6   it?
 7        A    It could be.
 8        Q    What else could it be?
 9        A    I do not know.  It says, 2 something
10   '06.  Are you asking me to read it?
11             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.  I was asking for
12        your opinion.  I'm introducing, I hope, my
13        last exhibit, Exhibit Plaintiff's 5.
14                       (Whereupon Plaintiff's
15                       Exhibit 5 was received and
16                       marked for identification,
17                       as of this date.)
18        Q    Here we go.  Here is a document and it's
19   dated.  It has a date on it.  So, I'm going to
20   show it to you.  Qing, I hope you could look at
21   it.  It is a document that is multi paged.  It has
22   many pages in it.  It might be anywhere from six
23   to eight pages in it.  Maybe more.  Maybe less.
24   It is dated Tuesday, January 17, 2006.  It is to
0375
 1                            Lin
 2   Mr. Steven Norman.  And --
 3             MS. PARK:  Yeah, and I'm going to note
 4        for the record there is no indication that
 5        this document was produced to me, since it
 6        has no bate stamp numbering, which your
 7        attorneys did put on all the documents that
 8        were produced to me, Mr. Lindner.  So, this
 9        causes me some concern.
10             MR. LINDNER:  I share your concern.  I
11        wish I could have given it to you in ESI
12        format but unfortunately we didn't have
13        that and my lawyer didn't request it and I
14        think he made mistakes.  I think if we got
15        the electronic format we would not have had
16        those mistakes.
17        Q    So, in it is a letter from me, Peter
18   Lindner, to Steven Norman, with a copy to Boaz
19   Salik.  Do you see that, Qing?
20        A    I'm sorry?
21        Q    Do you see who the letter is to?
22             MS. PARK:  Why don't you ask him if he
23        recognizes it?
24        Q    Do you recognize the letter?
0376
 1                            Lin
 2        A    No, I do not recognize this.
 3        Q    I didn't think so because you weren't
 4   copied on it, but do you see who it is to, the
 5   letter is to?
 6             MS. PARK:  We stipulate that this
 7        document appears to be addressed to Mr.
 8        Norman, Steven Norman.  I stipulate that
 9        the document has a CC on it, which
10        indicates Boaz.Salik@FisherJordan.com.
11        Q    And the point here is that I had a
12   serious -- The first sentence says, "Thanks for
13   taking the time to call me this morning about the
14   serious matter of Qing Lin violating the agreement
15   between me and American Express."
16             MS. PARK:  I stipulate that that's
17        what the first sentence of this document
18        says.
19        Q    So, can you hazard a guess?  You haven't
20   seen this document.  What this document is about?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22        A    I do not know.  I do not know what the
23   purpose he write this.  I have not finished
24   reading it.  It's a long document.
0377
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    It is a long document but based upon the
 3   first sentence.
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 5        Q    What is your conclusion, based upon the
 6   first sentence?
 7        A    I do not have conclusion.  I can read
 8   the first sentence back to you.
 9        Q    And read it.
10             MS. PARK:  No.
11        Q    Please read it out loud.
12             MS. PARK:  We stipulate it says,
13        "Thanks for taking the time --
14             MR. LINDNER:  He said he doesn't
15        understand it.  I don't want you to read
16        it, Ms. Park.
17             MS. PARK:  You have your answer.  He
18        doesn't understand it.  Move on.
19        Q    Can you please read the sentence out
20   loud, Qing?
21        A    "Thanks for taking the time to call me
22   this morning about this serious matter of Mr. Qing
23   Lin violating the agreement between me and
24   American Express.
0378
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Do you understand that sentence?
 3        A    Yes, I do.
 4        Q    You know earlier Ms. Park said that you
 5   didn't understand it, and there is no need to ask
 6   you because we should move on.  But I think when
 7   you read it, you understood it; is that correct?
 8        A    So the question is, you ask me whether I
 9   can draw conclusion based on --
10        Q    No, I'm asking --
11        A    No, could you state the question?  Could
12   you go back to the question, Marian?
13             MR. LINDNER:  Very good.  Please go
14        back to the question.
15        A    His question about this sentence.
16             MS. PARK:  Ask your next question,
17        Mr. Lindner.
18                       (Record read)
19        Q    Do you understand the sentence now?
20             MS. PARK:  The first sentence.
21        A    Yes, I understand.
22        Q    And earlier you said you didn't
23   understand it.
24             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0379
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    I'm pointing out to Ms. Park, answering
 3   Ms. Park when she said, Look, Qing didn't
 4   understand it, let's move on.  I asked you,
 5   instead of moving on, to read the sentence out
 6   loud and then you understood it because it's a
 7   fairly simple sentence.
 8             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9        A    I did not say I did not understand it.
10        Q    Maybe you didn't.  I thought --
11        A    I cannot draw a conclusion from this.
12        Q    I stand corrected but actually thought
13   you did say that.  I thought she read that again.
14   The point of the fact is that that document is my
15   asking Steven Norman to initiate an investigation
16   of your violation of the agreement, and I was
17   doing it on the basis of the Code of Conduct,
18   because he is listed as being one of the people to
19   contact.  I don't know who your compliance officer
20   is but I'm an Amex shareholder and that's how I
21   got Steve Norman's name.  You notice it is dated
22   January 17 which is prior to Jason Brown talking
23   to you.
24             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0380
 1                            Lin
 2        Mischaracterizing his testimony.
 3             MR. LINDNER:  Which part am I
 4        mischaracterizing?
 5             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lin testified that he
 6        does not know or recall when he spoke with
 7        Mr. Brown.
 8             MR. LINDNER:  That's right, and he
 9        doesn't need to.  But there is a note that
10        has a quote that he recognized Peter is a
11        technical guy --
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
13        didn't even know what that document was and
14        you're asking --
15             MR. LINDNER:  He doesn't have to know.
16             MS. PARK:  Sure he does.  You're
17        making him assume facts that he has not
18        testified to.
19             MR. LINDNER:  Maybe.  You know, you
20        don't have to know something to all of a
21        sudden recognize the facts or whatever.
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23             MR. LINDNER:  Actually, I was wrong.
24        There are actually two more, documents.
0381
 1                            Lin
 2        There might be just one more depending how
 3        we go with this.
 4                       (Whereupon Plaintiff's
 5                       Exhibit 6 was received and
 6                       marked for identification,
 7                       as of this date.)
 8             MS. PARK:  I want to note for the
 9        record that Plaintiff's 6 is also a
10        document that Mr. Lindner apparently did
11        not see fit to produce to me.
12             MR. LINDNER:  Sorry that it was not
13        done.  Can we perhaps agree that we should
14        transfer documents electronically so that
15        we can get all the documents --
16             MS. PARK:  No.
17             MR. LINDNER:  -- and I have them
18        medadata (sic) with it --
19             MS. PARK:  No.
20             MR. LINDNER:  -- because I think this
21        was through an oversight?
22             MS. PARK:  No.
23        Q    Qing, this date is from April 23rd and
24   it has an attachment which --
0382
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  Is not included.  Why don't
 3        you ask him if he recognizes this document
 4        since his name doesn't appear to be on it
 5        anywhere?
 6             MR. LINDNER:  His name does not appear
 7        to be on it?
 8             MS. PARK:  Sure.  Where is there any
 9        indication that Mr. Lin was a recipient of
10        this document.
11             MR. LINDNER:  Well, it doesn't,
12        actually.  What it does is, it had an
13        attachment, and I see that attachment was
14        Exhibit 7.  How often can I apologize to
15        give you an exhibit and this was the
16        attached document.
17                       (Whereupon Plaintiff's
18                       Exhibit 7 was received and
19                       marked for identification,
20                       as of this date.)
21        Q    So, the letter from Jason Brown to me,
22   do you see what date it is?
23             MS. PARK:  What exhibit are you
24        referring to?
0383
 1                            Lin
 2             MR. LINDNER:  The letter from Jason
 3        Brown?
 4             MS. PARK:  There are two letters from
 5        Jason Brown, what one are you referring to?
 6             MR. LINDNER:  The one previous to
 7        that.  I haven't handed it to Qing yet.
 8        Please, Ms. Park --
 9             MS. PARK:  Which exhibit?
10             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park.
11        Q    Do you have a letter from Jason Brown,
12   Qing?
13        A    No.
14        Q    You don't have any letter?  How about
15   Exhibit 6?
16        A    Exhibit 6, yes.
17        Q    Who's it from?
18        A    From Jason Brown.
19        Q    Okay.
20        A    It looks like an e-mail.
21        Q    It looks like an e-mail, it is an e-mail
22   and he wrote that letter and it says "An
23   attachment."  Do you see the attachment?  It says,
24   "Amex 1 268984 letter Peter Lindner DOC.
0384
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Which --
 3        Q    Under "From/To," sent attach?  Do you
 4   see:  From?
 5        A    Okay.
 6        Q    As best I can tell, this is the
 7   attachment.  Could you take a look at it?
 8             MS. PARK:  And you don't have to
 9        accept his representation.
10             MR. LINDNER:  The interesting thing is
11        that this is a document from Jason Brown.
12        So, Ms. Park --
13             MS. PARK:  Mr. Brown is not sitting
14        here. Qing Lin is sitting here.
15             MR. LINDNER:  Did you give me that
16        document?
17             MS. PARK:  I'm not answering your
18        questions.  Ask questions of Mr. Lin.
19             MR. LINDNER:  If you haven't given me
20        this document, then I make the demand that
21        it is to be produced.
22             MS. PARK:  Ask your question.
23             MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park --
24             MS. PARK:  I'm not responding.  Ask
0385
 1                            Lin
 2        your question.
 3        Q    Do you see the date on that letter,
 4   Qing?
 5             MS. PARK:  Which letter?
 6             MR. LINDNER:  Plaintiff's 7?
 7        A    Yes.
 8        Q    What is the date?
 9             MS. PARK:  We stipulate it says
10        April 10, 2006.
11        Q    Can you read the first two sentences?
12        A    Two sentences --
13             MS. PARK:  Objection.  The document
14        speaks for itself.
15        Q    I'd like --
16             MS. PARK:  Why don't you ask him if he
17        has ever seen this document?
18             MR. LINDNER:  I'm not asking him that.
19        I'm asking him to first read it.
20        Q    So, can you read the first two
21   sentences?
22        A    Out loud?
23        Q    Out loud, please?
24        A    "I write in response to the allegations
0386
 1                            Lin
 2   raised in your numerous letters and e-mails to me,
 3   Steve Norman and Ash Gupta.  I have investigated
 4   your allegations and found them to be without
 5   merit."
 6        Q    Third sentence too.
 7             MS. PARK:  The document speaks for
 8        itself, Mr. Lindner.
 9             MR. LINDNER:  It does, but I like to
10        hear it spoken in Qing's words?
11        A    "There is no evidence that Qing Lin or
12   anyone else at American Express breached the
13   Settlement Agreement and the Release between you
14   and the company."
15        Q    Do you know what the Settlement
16   Agreement is, Qing?
17        A    The Settlement Agreement?
18        Q    Yes.
19        A    Yes, I know now.
20        Q    You know now?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    So, you realize that I wrote, now
23   looking at these documents and seeing, assuming
24   they are genuine --
0387
 1                            Lin
 2             MS. PARK:  What documents are you
 3        referring to?
 4             MR. LINDNER:  I'm referring to several
 5        documents.  There was one document,
 6        Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, which was from Peter
 7        Lindner to Steven Norman, saying, "Dear Mr.
 8        Norman, Thanks for taking the time to call
 9        me this morning about the serious matter of
10        Qing Lin violating the agreement between me
11        and American Express.  That was written
12        January 17th.  Then we have a document
13        written --
14             MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
15        Q    Is that correct?
16        A    What is correct?
17        Q    That that document from Tuesday, January
18   17th, from me to Mr. Norman, Plaintiff's Exhibit
19   5 --
20        A    That document, what is correct?
21        Q    That it's from me to Steven Norman?
22        A    So, your question is:  Is this document,
23   as I read it now, is it from you to Steve Norman?
24        Q    Yes.
0388
 1                            Lin
 2        A    As I read it now, it looks like.
 3        Q    And the date on that is?
 4             MS. PARK:  We stipulated January 17,
 5        2006.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, but I'm trying to
 7        go continuously here.
 8        Q    The next document was DEF 370 and that
 9   was a handwritten note, which you have in front of
10   you --
11        A    Okay.
12        Q    -- and that one is dated February.  So,
13   we have a letter from me to Steven Norman in
14   January.  Now we have a document from Jason Brown
15   in February --
16             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17        Q    -- that has a quote from you, namely
18   that Peter is a technical guy; is that --
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        Q    -- is that true?
21             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22        Q    How would you --
23             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24        A    I have not seen this document before, so
0389
 1                            Lin
 2   I do not know.
 3        Q    You actually saw it a few minutes ago?
 4        A    No, I have not seen this document
 5   before.
 6        Q    Before today?
 7        A    Yes.
 8        Q    But you saw it today; right?
 9        A    I saw it today, yes.
10        Q    And you stated that this sentence, that
11   Peter is a technical guy, sounds like something
12   you would say, correct?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    And that is in February and now we have
15   --
16             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17        Q    And now we have a document which is from
18   April 10th where --
19             MS. PARK:  What's the exhibit number?
20             MR. LINDNER:  Exhibit Number
21        Plaintiff's 7?
22        A    Okay.
23        Q    -- where Jason Brown writes back to me,
24   saying that he looked into the allegations about
0390
 1                            Lin
 2   Qing Lin violating the code, because there were
 3   numerous letters between me, meaning Peter; me,
 4   meaning Jason Brown; Steven Norman and Ash Gupta.
 5             So, what I'm concluding here, and I'm
 6   asking you if you think this conclusion is
 7   correct, that I wrote a letter in January to
 8   Steven Norman.  Jason Brown was told by Steven
 9   Norman to investigate and talk to you, and he did
10   so by telephone, and then on April 10th Jason
11   Brown did the investigation and concluded that you
12   were not involved in a violation.  Does that sound
13   reasonable?
14             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15        A    So, Peter, I have not seen these
16   documents before and I do not know whether this
17   document is a fact or not.  So, I cannot draw
18   conclusion based on something.
19        Q    I understand but I think you can draw a
20   conclusion assuming that they are genuine and, by
21   the way, all of these documents are what American
22   Express has.  So, assuming that they are genuine,
23   can you conclude that Jason Norman was contacted
24   by Steven -- that Jason Brown was contacted by
0391
 1                            Lin
 2   Steven Norman and he wrote this report and he
 3   reported back to me?
 4             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 5        A    I cannot draw that conclusion because I
 6   do not know what I has happened to it.  I do not
 7   want to draw that conclusion.  I do not know
 8   because that's your conclusion, your logic
 9   deduction.
10        Q    What is your logic deduction?
11        A    I do not have logic deduction.  There is
12   not enough information to deduct.
13        Q    What information do you need?
14        A    I don't know.  You are asking me to draw
15   conclusion based on this piece of information?
16        Q    Yes, that is what I'm asking?
17        A    I cannot.
18        Q    Going one step further, Steven Norman
19   was the corporate secretary that was listed in the
20   Code of Conduct; correct?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    Okay.
23        A    I do not know whether he is listed on
24   the Code of Conduct or not but he is a corporate
0392
 1                            Lin
 2   secretary, yes.
 3        Q    Is he a corporate secretary now?
 4        A    Yes.
 5        Q    Was he a corporate secretary in 2005?
 6        A    I believe so.
 7        Q    I believe so too.  That is why I have
 8   that letter to him.  Is Steven Norman in your
 9   organization?
10             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11        Q    What organization is Steven Norman in?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13        Q    Do you know Steven Norman?
14        A    I know him.
15        Q    Do you know what organization he is in?
16             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17        A    I do not know.  He has a title of
18   corporate secretary.
19        Q    What corporation?
20        A    American Express.
21        Q    What corporation does Ash Gupta work
22   for?
23        A    American Express.
24        Q    What corporation do you work for?
0393
 1                            Lin
 2        A    American Express.
 3        Q    So, if I had a problem with you, does it
 4   make sense that I would have a problem with
 5   American Express?
 6             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Do you
 7        want him to read your mind?
 8        A    I don't know what your question is.
 9        Q    If I have a problem with you and I want
10   to go to your corporation, what corporation would
11   I go to?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13        A    I don't know.  That's your decision.
14        Q    If somebody asked what corporation do
15   you work for because I want to file a complaint,
16   what corporation do you work for?
17        A    So your --
18        Q    You don't know which corporation you
19   work for?
20        A    I don't understand your question because
21   you have a qualification on the question.
22        Q    What corporation do you work for?
23        A    As of now?
24        Q    Yes.
0394
 1                            Lin
 2        A    American Express.
 3        Q    What corporation did you work for in
 4   2005?
 5        A    American Express.
 6        Q    So, if I had a problem with you in 2005
 7   and I wanted to go to the corporation, what
 8   corporation would I go to?
 9             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
10        A    That's your decision.
11        Q    I understand but would I go to General
12   Electric, for instance?  Are they part of American
13   Express?
14        A    I don't know.  Your decision.
15        Q    Let me ask you a question:  Is General
16   Electric part of American Express?
17        A    No.
18        Q    So, if I had a problem with you and I
19   went to General Electric, that would be a mistake,
20   don't you think?
21        A    I don't know, that is your judgment.
22        Q    Would you advise him?
23        A    So, Peter are you asking me sitting here
24   my judgment.
0395
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Yes.
 3        A    You can decide go to GE.
 4        Q    If somebody has, for instance --
 5             MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.  Move
 6        on.
 7        Q    I'm asking you a very simple question.
 8   This is not a trick question.  If you go to Macy's
 9   and you have problem with a store guy there, you
10   don't go to K-Mart to complain about it, you go to
11   Macy's, if Macy's is the company that the store
12   person worked for.  Is that correct?  When you
13   have a problem with an employee, you go to the
14   corporate --
15        A    It depends on situation.
16        Q    How about if they have a problem with an
17   American Express employee?  What corporation
18   should they go to?
19             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
20        A    So, in your Macy's example, right?
21        Q    Yes.
22        A    If a Macy's employee stab me with a
23   knife I'll not call Macy's, I'll call police.
24        Q    Right.  That's an interesting question.
0396
 1                            Lin
 2   I think that's criminal law.  But there is another
 3   law called Civil Law.  So, if they did something
 4   that violated -- let's say they just did something
 5   rude, and you just wanted to write to somebody
 6   about it, because at that point this was not a
 7   legal issue, this was just a question of not doing
 8   something right.
 9             So, what corporation should I write to?
10   Like, for instance, you might be a wholly owned
11   subsidiary of a larger corporation.  Is American
12   Express a subsidiary of another corporation?
13        A    So, Peter, you have stated a long
14   question.  I'm sorry, I could not understand your
15   question.
16        Q    Is American Express a subsidiary of
17   another corporation?
18        A    No.
19        Q    And you work for American Express?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    The title of the suit is Lindner versus
22   American Express.  Do you feel --
23             MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.
24        Q    Do you feel that's an accurate --
0397
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I do not know.
 3        Q    So, if it said, Lindner versus General
 4   Electric, you would feel you wouldn't known that
 5   either?
 6        A    That is your decision who to sue.
 7        Q    No, no, the statement says American
 8   Express.
 9             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner --
10             MR. LINDNER:  Please --
11        Q    It says, Lindner versus American
12   Express; right?
13             MS. PARK:  We stipulate your
14        Complaint --
15        Q    American Express Corporation?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    That is the corporation you work for;
18   right?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    If it said, Lindner versus American
21   Express Travel Related Services, is that the
22   company you work for?
23        A    I do not know the legal structure.  Yes,
24   it could be.
0398
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Do you work for Travel Related Services?
 3        A    I do not know.  At this moment Travel
 4   Related Services we don't go by the business unit
 5   internally.  So, I do not know the legal
 6   structures.
 7        Q    You work for American Express, yes or
 8   no?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Do you work for American Express Travel
11   Related Services?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection, asked and
13        answered.
14             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking him a
15        question.
16             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  I'm going to run
17        out of tape.
18             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, I understand,
19        please.
20        A    I do not know at this moment.
21        Q    You don't know if work with Travel
22   Related Services?
23        A    I do not know.
24        Q    Do you work for American Express?
0399
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Do you work for American Express,
 4   Corporation?
 5        A    Yes.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.
 7        End of the deposition.  Do you have any
 8        objections to ending this?  I'd like to
 9        adjourn the deposition, but I think I'm
10        done, but I have to check the transcript.
11             MS. PARK:  No, I'm not.  This is it,
12        Mr. Lindner.  This is it.  We are not
13        producing Mr. Lin again.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Well, I think I have
15        enough but if something comes up, if I get
16        all my documents, I think I'll be okay.
17             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This concludes
18        today's proceedings.  The total number of
19        tapes used was five.  We are off the record
20        at 7:11.
21                       (Time noted 7:11 p.m.)
22
23
24
0400
 2                   WITNESS CORRECTION SHEET
 3
 4   PAGE \ LINE \ CORRECTION
 5   __________________________________________________
 6   __________________________________________________
 7   __________________________________________________
 8   __________________________________________________
 9   __________________________________________________
10   __________________________________________________
11   __________________________________________________
12   __________________________________________________
13   __________________________________________________
14   __________________________________________________
15   __________________________________________________
16   __________________________________________________
17   __________________________________________________
18   __________________________________________________
19   __________________________________________________
20   __________________________________________________
21
22                          _________________________
                            QING LIN
23
     Subscribed and sworn to before me
24   this _____ day of ____________, 2009
0401
 1   STATE OF NEW YORK    )
 2                           )   SS:
 3   COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER)
 4                I,             , a                     , do
 5   hereby certify that having been first duly
 6   sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth,
 7   and nothing but the truth, gave the above
 8   deposition, which was recorded stenographically
 9   and reduced to this original transcript.
10
11           I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing
12   transcript of the said deposition is a true and
13   correct transcript of the testimony given by me at
14   the time and place specified herein before.
15
16            I FURTHER CERTIFY that any corrections
17   or changes to this testimony hae been made by me on
18   the page provided for that purpose captioned
19   "Witness's Correction Sheet," which has also been
20   signed by me before a Notary Public.
21                     ________________________
                       QING LIN
22
     Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day
23   of ______________ 2009.
                                       Notary Public
23
0402
 1             C E R T I F I C A T I O N
 2
 3          I, MARIAN PENDER O'NEILL, a Court Reporter
 4   and Notary Public within and for the State
 5   of New York, do hereby certify:
 6           That the witness whose deposition
 7   is herein before set forth, was duly sworn
 8   by me, and that the within transcript is a
 9   true record of the testimony given by such
10   witness.
11            I further certify that I am not
12   related to any of the parties to this action
13   by blood or marriage, and that I am in no way
14   interested in the outcome of this matter.
15             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
16   set my hand this    day of                , 2009.
17
18
19
20                         ______________________
21                         MARIAN PENDER O'NEILL
22
23

0403
 1                         I N D E X
 2
 3   WITNESS
 4   Qing Lin
 5
 6   EXAMINATION BY                   PAGE
 7   Mr. Lindner                       4
 8                            o0o
 9
10   INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED       PAGE
11   Provide Mr. Lin's resume when     39
     he applied to American Express
12
13   Provide log of messages Mr. Lin   76
     sent to Fisher Jordan
14
15   Provide organization charts from 168
     1998/1999
16
17   Provide any documents that       252
     Mr. Lin has made reference to
18   that have not been produced
19
20   Provide documents relating to    260
     Fisher Jordan contracts
21
22             (Continued on the following page)
23

0404
 1                         I N D E X
 2
 3   INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED             PAGE
 4
 5   Provide Tessa Alert's phone            269
     number
 6
 7   Provide Tessa Alert's schedule         272
 8   Provide name of group who checked      275
     Mr. Lin's calender
 9
10   Provide personel file for Qing Lin     285
11   Provide documents that would list      290
     who instructed whom
12
13   Provide document that shows who        290
     instructed Ash Gupta
14
15   Provide documents on Gillian Clements  353
16   Provide document from Jason Brown      384
17
18   MARKED FOR A RULING                        PAGE
19
20   Line 13 through 17                           30
21
22             (Continued on the following page)
23

0405
 1                         I N D E X
 2
 3   MARKED FOR A RULING                       PAGE
 4
 5   Line 7 through line 16                    35-37
 6   Line 5 through 12                            43
 7   Line 5 through 8                             45
 8   Line 23 through 3                            169-170
 9
10
11             (Continued on the following page)
12
13
14
15                      E X H I B I T S
16
17
     PLAINTIFF'S                                PAGE
18
19       1         Settlement Agreement and     160
                   General Release
20
21       2         Amended Complaint            181
22       3         Answer                       182
23       4         American Express Code of     299
                   Conduct
23
0406
 1       5         E-mails                      374
 2
         6         E-mails                      381
 3
         7         Letter                       382
 4
         11        Copies of handwritten notes  359
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

EX-3

0001
 1
 2   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
     SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 3   --------------------------------x
     PETER LINDNER,
 4
                         Plaintiff,
 5
              -against-               Index No.
 6                                    3834 (JGK)(THK)
     AMERICAN EXPRESS, ET AL.,
 7
                         Defendants.
 8   --------------------------------x
 9                          January 22, 2009
10                          10:34 a.m.
11
12                VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of JASON K.
13         BROWN, taken by Plaintiff, pursuant to
14         court order, held at the offices of United
15         States District Court, Southern District of
16         New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
17         York, before Amy E. Sikora, CRR, CSR, RPR,
18         CLR, Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified
19         Shorthand Reporter, Registered Professional
20         Reporter, Certified LiveNote Reporter, and
21         Notary Public within and for the State of
22         New York.
23
24
0002
 1
 2   A P P E A R A N C E S:
 3   PETER LINDNER, PRO SE
 4        1 Irving Place, G-23-C
 5        New York, New York 10003
 6   KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
 7   Attorneys for Defendants
 8        101 Park Avenue
 9        New York, New York 10178
10   BY:  JEAN Y. PARK, ESQ.
11
12   ALSO PRESENT:
13   DMITRY ZVONKOV, Videographer
14   HALIA BARNES, Law Clerk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0003
 1
 2                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Good morning.
 3         Here begins videotape No. 1 in the
 4         deposition of Jason K. Brown in the matter
10:34:33  5         of Peter Lindner versus American Express,
 6         et al. in the U.S. District Court, Southern
 7         District of New York, Case No. 3834 (JGK)
 8         (THK).
 9                Today's date is January 22, 2009.
10:34:51 10         The time on the video screen is 10:34 a.m.
11                This deposition is being taken at
12         500 Pearl Street and was made at the
13         request of Peter Lindner.  The videographer
14         is Dmitry Zvonkov.  The court reporter is
10:35:08 15         Amy Sikora, both with Chait Digital.
16                Would counsel please identify
17         themselves for the record.
18                MR. LINDNER:  My name is Peter
19         Lindner.  That's L-I-N-D-N-E-R.  I'm
10:35:21 20         representing myself pro se by myself.  And
21         I'm the Peter Lindner in Peter Lindner
22         versus American Express and Qing Lin,
23         2006CV3834.
24                Ms. Park.
0004
 1
 2                MS. PARK:  Jean Park, Kelley Drye &
 3         Warren, for the defendants.
 4                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Would the
10:35:40  5         reporter please swear in the witness.
 6   J A S O N   K.   B R O W N,
 7       called as a witness, having been first
 8       duly sworn by the Notary Public
 9       (Amy E. Sikora), was examined and
10:35:42 10       testified as follows:
11   EXAMINATION
12   BY MR. LINDNER:
13         Q.     Thank you.  Jason, do you know who I
14   am?
10:35:57 15         A.     I do.
16         Q.     How do you know me?
17         A.     You were a plaintiff in a lawsuit
18   against American Express when I was working at
19   Kelley Drye & Warren.
10:36:07 20         Q.     When was that?
21         A.     I don't remember the date.
22         Q.     Approximately?
23         A.     Well, I was at Kelley Drye & Warren
24   from approximately '97 through maybe the
0005
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   beginning of 2000.  So it was sometime within
 3   that time period.
 4         Q.     And what happened after Kelley Drye
10:36:25  5   Warren, did you work for another company?
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7         Q.     What company did you work for?
 8         A.     I went to work for another law firm.
 9         Q.     And how long were you at that law
10:36:35 10   firm?
11         A.     'Til about 2004.
12         Q.     And can you tell the name of that
13   law firm?
14         A.     Yeah.  McDermott, Will & Emery.
10:36:43 15         Q.     And what happened in 2004?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17         A.     What do you mean, "what happened in
18   2004"?
19         Q.     In 2004 you continued working for
10:36:51 20   that law firm or you switched to a different
21   firm?
22         A.     At some point in 2004 I went to
23   American Express, which is where I work now.
24         Q.     And where at American Express did
0006
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   you work?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     Where did I work?
10:37:04  5         Q.     Where do you work?
 6         A.     I work at the World Financial Center
 7   of American Express.
 8         Q.     What's the address, please?
 9         A.     200 Vesey Street.
10:37:11 10         Q.     And do you have a telephone number
11   there?
12         A.     I do.
13         Q.     Can you give your telephone number
14   at work?
10:37:15 15         A.     Sure.  212-640-4807.
16         Q.     And does your company provide you
17   with other phones?
18         A.     I don't know what you mean.
19         Q.     Do you have a cell phone, for
10:37:27 20   instance?
21         A.     I have a Blackberry that has a phone
22   in it through the company.
23         Q.     Okay.  And they pay for that?
24   Through the company, they pay for it?
0007
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     They do.
 3         Q.     Do you have any other cell phones
 4   aside from that?
10:37:37  5         A.     I have my own cell phone that I pay
 6   for.
 7         Q.     And do they ever pay for part of it?
 8         A.     I've never asked them to, as far as
 9   I can recall.
10:37:45 10         Q.     So if you do work on it or somebody
11   calls you on that, you would not bill them;
12   right?
13         A.     No.
14         Q.     To the best of your knowledge?
10:37:53 15         A.     Yeah.  I don't think I ever have.
16         Q.     Okay.  Thank you.  The Blackberry,
17   does it do e-mail?
18         A.     Yes.
19         Q.     And does it do text messages?
10:38:08 20         A.     I don't know.  It might.
21         Q.     But in any case, you don't use it
22   for text messages, I take it?
23         A.     No, I don't -- I don't think I ever
24   have.
0008
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  And your cell phone, do you
 3   have e-mail on that?
 4         A.     No.  My own personal cell phone?
10:38:21  5         Q.     Yes.
 6         A.     No, I don't have e-mail on that.
 7         Q.     And do you have e-mail on your
 8   cell phone, on your personal cell phone?
 9         A.     I'm sorry.  Isn't that what you
10:38:32 10   just --
11                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
12         answered.  Mr. Brown just testified he has
13         no e-mail on his personal phone.
14         Q.     Did you say that?
10:38:38 15         A.     Yeah.
16         Q.     I'm sorry.  Missed it.
17                So we covered a lot of ground there,
18   so I'm going to go back a bit.
19                In what year did you start at Kelley
10:38:54 20   Drye?
21         A.     I started, I think, in 1997.
22         Q.     Thereabouts?
23         A.     Yeah.
24         Q.     And what did you do before then?
0009
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     I was in law school.
 3         Q.     Can you state which law school you
 4   were in?
10:39:05  5         A.     Brooklyn Law School.
 6         Q.     Okay.  And did you pass the bar?
 7         A.     I did.
 8         Q.     And what year did you pass the bar,
 9   approximately?
10:39:24 10         A.     I think it was '97.
11         Q.     And are you admitted to practice
12   before any court?
13         A.     Yes.
14         Q.     Can you describe which courts?
10:39:27 15         A.     The Southern District of New York,
16   the Eastern District of New York, maybe the
17   Western District of New York, I don't remember.
18   New York State court.  I think that's about it.
19         Q.     Okay.
10:39:40 20         A.     I'm sorry, Second Circuit Court of
21   Appeals.
22         Q.     Okay.  Court of Appeals.  Second
23   Circuit is the circuit -- is that the circuit
24   that the Southern District of New York appeals
0010
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   to?
 3         A.     I think most of the time, yes.
 4         Q.     Yes.  Thank you.
10:39:56  5                And the higher court than the
 6   Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court,
 7   have you ever been admitted to practice there?
 8         A.     No.
 9         Q.     All right.  You're familiar with the
10:40:06 10   laws of New York State; is that correct?
11                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12         A.     Some of them.
13         Q.     I have a question.  Do you -- do you
14   feel that I am hostile to you?
10:40:23 15         A.     How do you mean?
16         Q.     Do you feel that I wish to do you
17   personal harm?
18         A.     At this moment, no.
19         Q.     Do you feel I've in the past wanted
10:40:32 20   to do you personal harm?
21         A.     I'm not sure I'm understanding your
22   question.
23         Q.     Do you feel that I wish to harm you
24   personally?
0011
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     No, I don't feel that you wish to
 3   harm me personally.
 4         Q.     Have you ever felt that?
10:40:45  5         A.     I don't think so.  Not that I can
 6   recall.
 7         Q.     Now, when -- are you aware that --
 8   of any way that I might want to harm Ms. Park
 9   personally?
10:41:06 10                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, I'm going to
11         object to this line of questioning.  First
12         of all, you're not going to pry into what
13         communications I've had with Mr. Brown in
14         his capacity as in-house counsel of
10:41:17 15         American Express.  Those communications are
16         squarely privileged.
17                Furthermore, Judge Katz, by order
18         dated January 14th, made clear that this
19         deposition is to be limited to the very
10:41:27 20         narrow issue of what information Mr. Brown
21         adduced in connection with your complaint
22         when he was acting in his capacity as a
23         fact investigator.  You are not to be
24         soliciting information from him that --
0012
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         that pertains to his role as in-house
 3         counsel for American Express.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  That's noted.  Your
10:41:47  5         objection is noted.  Perhaps at the break
 6         you can find me that exact order so that I
 7         can review it.
 8                MS. PARK:  No.  I've told you what
 9         the order is.  You find it yourself.
10:41:57 10                MR. LINDNER:  I don't know if
11         everything that you say is true, and I
12         don't know whether I can recall it
13         sufficiently.  I wish to see it in writing.
14         Q.     So let me continue.  Who is your
10:42:06 15   attorney at this -- representing you?  Do you
16   have an attorney representing you?
17         A.     Representing me personally?
18         Q.     Yes.
19                MS. PARK:  Mr. Brown is not a
10:42:17 20         personal -- not an individual defendant,
21         Mr. Lindner.  He's been called here as an
22         American Express representative.
23                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I appreciate
24         your speeches, but can we wait until the --
0013
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  It's not a speech.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  The deponent -- that's
 4         good.  I wish the deponent to answer.  If
10:42:32  5         you have an objection, say "objection."
 6         Then I wish to direct Jason Brown to
 7         answer.
 8         Q.     So do you have an attorney at all?
 9         A.     Do I have an attorney?
10:42:42 10         Q.     Yes.
11         A.     Personally?
12         Q.     Yes.
13         A.     No.
14         Q.     Do you have an attorney for this
10:42:49 15   case?
16         A.     I'm not a defendant in this case.
17         Q.     I understand.  So what's the answer?
18         A.     American Express has an attorney in
19   this case.
10:42:58 20         Q.     Okay.  Are you American Express'
21   attorney in this case?
22         A.     I am in-house counsel for American
23   Express.  We have outside counsel who is also
24   representing American Express.  That's Kelley
0014
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   Drye & Warren.
 3         Q.     So are you -- are you the attorney
 4   representing somebody in this case?  Are you
10:43:19  5   anybody's attorney?
 6         A.     Yeah.  I would say I'm acting on
 7   behalf of the company.
 8         Q.     Okay.  So can you tell me what a
 9   30(b)(6) examination is?
10:43:32 10         A.     You're asking me for what my legal
11   opinion of a 30(b)(6) --
12         Q.     Yes.
13         A.     -- examination.  A 30(b)(6), my
14   recollection is that it is a federal rules of
10:43:42 15   civil procedure whereby a spokesperson for an
16   entity, such as a corporation, testifies on
17   behalf of the entity.
18         Q.     Are you the spokesperson for
19   American Express?
10:43:54 20         A.     No.
21                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, this is not
22         a 30(b)(6) deposition.  Move on.  Move on.
23                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking -- your
24         objection is noted.
0015
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Move on.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park, do
 4         not repeat "move on" or I'm going to call
10:44:08  5         the magistrate judge for your being
 6         repetitive.  I heard you say once move on.
 7         And if you wish -- if you wish to call
 8         Magistrate Judge Katz and say you wanted me
 9         to move on, you can do so, but I suggest
10:44:20 10         that you just make an objection on the
11         record.
12         Q.     So I'm asking you, are you a
13   30(b)(6) representative of the corporation?
14         A.     If you have the notice of deposition
10:44:27 15   pursuant to which I'm here, it will help me
16   answer that question.
17                MS. PARK:  You're asking him
18         information --
19         Q.     I don't have that handy.
10:44:44 20         A.     Okay.  Without knowing how you
21   noticed my deposition, then I can't answer that
22   question.
23         Q.     Okay.  That's fair enough.  Do you
24   know who is the person at American Express who's
0016
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   representing the corporation for this case?
 3         A.     I don't understand your question.
 4         Q.     You're not representing American
10:44:51  5   Express for this case; correct?
 6         A.     In what capacity?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection.  He responded
 8         that he does represent American Express as
 9         in-house counsel.
10:44:59 10         Q.     Well, and Qing represents -- let me
11   ask you a question.  Does Qing represent American
12   Express?
13                MS. PARK:  Qing Lin is an individual
14         defendant, Mr. Lindner.
10:45:11 15                MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that,
16         but, Ms. Park, I'm not deposing you.  I'm
17         deposing Jason Brown.  Please stop
18         interrupting.  If you wish to make an
19         objection, please make an objection.
10:45:22 20                MS. PARK:  Yeah, I've made my
21         objection.  If you continue like this, I'm
22         going to ask Judge Katz to cut Mr. Brown's
23         deposition in half.  Move on.
24                MR. LINDNER:  That's good.  You can
0017
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         ask whatever you wish, Miss Park.
 3                MS. PARK:  Move on.
 4         Q.     So is Qing Lin representing American
10:45:34  5   Express?
 6         A.     In what capacity?
 7         Q.     For instance, if there's a legal
 8   statement made by American Express in their
 9   brief, is Qing Lin the one who would make it?
10:45:46 10                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11         A.     I'm sorry, I'm not understanding
12   what you're asking here.  What brief are you
13   talking about?  What statement are you talking
14   about?
10:45:55 15         Q.     Okay.  I'm going to go to an exhibit
16   and --
17                MR. LINDNER:  Do you have the
18         original exhibits, Amy?  Thank you.
19                THE REPORTER:  Wait one second.  Let
10:46:48 20         me just make sure.
21                MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.
22                I'm going to go to specific
23         exhibits -- is this all of them?  There was
24         an exhibit about -- here's Exhibit 2 but
0018
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         we're missing Exhibit 3.  Do you see
 3         Exhibit 3?  You see that I've just taken
 4         Exhibit 2 -- oh, no.  Here's 3.  Okay, got
10:47:21  5         it.  All right.
 6         Q.     We have an exhibit here, a pair of
 7   exhibits, Exhibit 2 and 3 that were used
 8   previously with Qing.  Sorry, I said it was right
 9   next to each other.  One is called -- Exhibit 2
10:47:36 10   is called an amended complaint and No. 3 is
11   called an answer.  Have you heard those terms
12   before?
13         A.     Yes.
14         Q.     I'm going to show you Exhibit 2.
10:47:49 15   Have you ever seen this before?
16         A.     Yes, I have.
17         Q.     Okay.  Well, since you've just --
18   proves that.  Have you seen Exhibit 3 before?  Is
19   that 3?  Yes.
10:48:53 20         A.     Yes, I have.
21         Q.     Okay.  Good.
22                Have you seen that type of format
23   before?
24                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0019
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Of these documents?
 3         Q.     Yes.
 4         A.     Yes.
10:49:03  5         Q.     Can you explain how you are familiar
 6   with that?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 8         A.     I'm not sure I understand what
 9   you're asking.  Are you asking me how I'm
10:49:12 10   familiar with this form of document?
11         Q.     Yes.
12         A.     I'm a lawyer and these are standard
13   form for pleadings.
14         Q.     Okay.  Do you know what sort of
10:49:24 15   trial this is?
16         A.     I'm not sure I understand your
17   question.
18         Q.     Is it a civil or criminal trial?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  There
10:49:30 20         is no trial, Mr. Lindner.
21         Q.     What sort of case is this, civil or
22   criminal?
23                MS. PARK:  We stipulated civil.
24         A.     It's a civil case.
0020
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I appreciate
 3         your stipulation.  Sometimes your
 4         stipulations are poor.
10:49:44  5         Q.     Let me ask Jason Brown.  If Ms. Park
 6   would stipulate something and it was incorrect,
 7   would you just let it go or would you object?
 8         A.     You need to repeat the question.
 9   I'm not sure what you're asking.
10:49:57 10                MS. PARK:  Objection.  He's not
11         answering a hypothetical question.
12         Q.     Let me ask you a direct question.
13   I'm going to show you another exhibit.  It's
14   called Exhibit 4.  Exhibit 4 is also called
10:50:13 15   "American Express Code of Conduct," about 40
16   pages long.  Can you take a look at it?
17         A.     Sure.
18         Q.     Have you seen that before?
19                MS. PARK:  Let him look at the
10:50:22 20         document.
21                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, please.  He
22         can speak up for himself.  He's a lawyer.
23         He's knowledgeable.
24                MS. PARK:  He's not here -- he's not
0021
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         here in his capacity as a lawyer.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  That's good to know.
 4         A.     Without checking through every
10:50:51  5   page --
 6         Q.     Suppose I changed one page in it,
 7   would you be able to recognize that that page was
 8   different?
 9         A.     I don't know.
10:50:58 10         Q.     Probably not; right?  You don't have
11   it memorized; right?
12         A.     There's two questions you asked me.
13   Are you asking probably not or are you asking if
14   I have this memorized?
10:51:07 15         Q.     Do you have it memorized?
16         A.     No.
17         Q.     Why not?
18         A.     Why do I not have this memorized?
19         Q.     Yeah.
10:51:13 20         A.     I have no need to memorize it.
21         Q.     Good.  Have you ever looked at it?
22         A.     This document?
23         Q.     Yes.
24         A.     Yes.
0022
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     How often?
 3         A.     How often have I looked at this
 4   document?
10:51:21  5         Q.     Yes.
 6         A.     I don't know.
 7         Q.     Ever?  You said once; right?
 8         A.     No, I didn't say once.  You asked me
 9   have I ever seen --
10:51:38 10         Q.     How often have you seen it?
11         A.     I said I don't know.
12         Q.     Do you see it like a few times a
13   year, once a year, once every 10 years?  You've
14   worked with American Express, let's see, since
10:51:42 15   2004.  That's four or five years ago.  So in
16   those four or five years, how often have you seen
17   the American Express code of conduct?
18         A.     The code of conduct is updated every
19   couple of years.  So this is a code of conduct
10:51:53 20   that's dated on one of the first couple of pages
21   June 2005.
22         Q.     Yes.
23         A.     So while I know that I've seen this
24   document --
0023
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Yes.
 3         A.     -- I don't know how many times I've
 4   worked with this document, as opposed to any
10:52:03  5   other version of the code of conduct.
 6         Q.     Okay.  All the other versions are
 7   variations on -- on this document; is that
 8   correct?
 9                MS. PARK:  Object to form.
10:52:15 10         A.     There are different codes of
11   conduct.  The code of conduct is amended or
12   modified or changed every couple of years.
13         Q.     So can you open to the beginning
14   where -- you're at that page.  Doesn't it state
10:52:31 15   there, and I don't have my copy right in front of
16   me, that this code of conduct is periodically
17   updated?
18         A.     Can you show me where you're --
19   where you're referring to.
10:52:44 20         Q.     Sure.  Let me take a look at it.
21   The second paragraph, first sentence or two.
22         A.     Do you want me to read the second
23   paragraph out loud to you?
24         Q.     Yes.  To the -- to the TV camera.
0024
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     "The current version of the code,
 3   like each of its earlier versions issued since
 4   1975, sets forth guiding principles and
10:53:02  5   illustrative examples to illustrate you in
 6   deciding how to resolve potentially troublesome
 7   issues and where to go for help and advice."
 8         Q.     Okay.  So when it says the current
 9   version, what you're talking about is you've seen
10:53:14 10   this version but you've also seen more recent
11   versions; is that correct?
12         A.     Yes, yes.
13         Q.     Clarify.  Yes, you have?
14         A.     Yes.
10:53:25 15         Q.     How often -- let me retract that.
16   Let me ask a different question.
17                Have you ever signed a code of
18   conduct?
19         A.     Yes.  I've signed each one since
10:53:36 20   I've been there.
21         Q.     What does each one mean?
22                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23         A.     Well --
24                MR. LINDNER:  Excuse me, Ms. Park.
0025
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  I can object to form,
 3         Mr. Lindner.  Move on.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  You can object all you
10:53:46  5         want.  But he said each one and I'm asking
 6         what he means.  Does that make sense?
 7         Q.     By the way, Jason, let me tell you
 8   something.  If you don't understand what I say,
 9   please ask, okay.  Because otherwise if you don't
10:54:00 10   ask, I'm going to assume you understand it,
11   right.
12         A.     Fair enough.
13         Q.     But if I don't understand what you
14   say, I hope Ms. Park doesn't object again as to
10:54:10 15   form to stop me from asking you what you mean.
16   So let me ask you.  You used the phrase "each
17   one"; correct?
18         A.     I don't know.
19                THE WITNESS:  Can you read back what
10:54:20 20         I said?  I don't remember my exact words
21         there.
22                MR. LINDNER:  Amy.
23                (Record read.)
24         Q.     So I ask what each one means?
0026
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     So each time the code is updated and
 3   distributed to employees, we're required to sign
 4   that version of the code.  So I have had to sign
10:54:57  5   the different versions of the code as they've
 6   been syndicated or sent out.
 7         Q.     And how often does that happen,
 8   every month?
 9                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
10:55:08 10         answered.
11         A.     No, I think it happens around every
12   couple of years.
13         Q.     Can you give an estimate on what
14   couple of years means?
10:55:16 15                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
16         answered.
17         A.     I don't understand your question.
18         Q.     When you say a "couple of years,"
19   what does "couple" mean?
10:55:21 20         A.     Two, give or take six months.  It
21   may be a year and a half.  It may be two years.
22   It may be three years.  I don't really know.  You
23   no what?  Let me say this:  I don't know how
24   frequently it happens.
0027
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  So if you -- if you -- how
 3   long have you been at American Express again?
 4         A.     Since 2004.
10:55:41  5         Q.     How many years?
 6         A.     Well, it's 2009, so a little short
 7   of five years.
 8         Q.     And how many -- and you say this
 9   comes every couple of years you get a new
10:55:53 10   version; correct?
11         A.     Have I gotten a new version every
12   couple of years?
13         Q.     No.  Has American Express given a
14   new version out, syndicated it?
10:56:03 15                MS. PARK:  Objection.
16         A.     Since I've been there, it's been
17   updated or new versions have been sent out I
18   think twice, maybe three times.  I really don't
19   recall.
10:56:15 20         Q.     So if it came out three times and
21   you were there for four or five years; correct?
22   You don't know which month you started?
23         A.     I started in March.
24         Q.     And now it's the end of January.  So
0028
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   it's almost five years?
 3         A.     Uh-huh.
 4         Q.     So if you signed, I think you said,
10:56:36  5   three of them --
 6         A.     Right.  But when -- as a new hire, I
 7   had to sign one.
 8         Q.     Okay.  So -- so I'm going to ask you
 9   a mathematical question, all right.  If somebody
10:56:53 10   is an employee for four to five years and every
11   couple of years they sign the document, how many
12   times would they have signed it in their tenure
13   at American Express?
14         A.     I'm not -- I'm not sure I understand
10:57:21 15   what you're asking me here.
16         Q.     I give you here a piece of paper
17   that's marked "Jason Brown."  And the rest of it
18   is blank.  Just lines on it.  Regular lined
19   paper.  Do you agree?
10:57:25 20         A.     It's not marked.
21         Q.     Well, I wrote "Jason Brown" at the
22   top.
23         A.     Okay.
24         Q.     That's what I mean by "marked."
0029
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Oh.  It's going to be marked as an
 3   exhibit.
 4                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, you're not
10:57:33  5         going to mike my client do mathematical
 6         calculations.  No, you're not.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  Do you wish to make an
 8         objection?
 9                MS. PARK:  Yeah, I do.  I'm going to
10:57:40 10         direct my client not to answer.
11                MR. LINDNER:  Objection noted.
12         Q.     Mr. Brown, I want you to calculate
13   here, put down the number of years that you've
14   been working at American Express and please write
10:57:50 15   that down.
16                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing my
17         client not to write anything down and I'm
18         directing you to move on.
19                MR. LINDNER:  I understand the
10:57:56 20         objection.
21                MS. PARK:  He's here in his capacity
22         as an investigator.
23                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, do you have
24         an objection?
0030
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing you to
 3         move on.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  And I do not do that.
10:58:07  5                MS. PARK:  Mark the record for a
 6         ruling.  I'm directing my client not to
 7         respond or do your little mathematical
 8         calculation.  Move on.
 9                MR. LINDNER:  So I understand move
10:58:15 10         on.  Your objection is noted.
11                MS. PARK:  Okay.  Move on.
12                MR. LINDNER:  But I am continuing.
13                MS. PARK:  You don't understand
14         "move on."
10:58:21 15         Q.     So how many years have you worked at
16   American Express?  Please answer.
17         A.     I think I answered it already.  A
18   little less than five.
19         Q.     Okay.  How often does American
10:58:30 20   Express put out or syndicate, to use your term --
21   is syndicate your term?
22                MS. PARK:  What question are you
23         asking him?
24         A.     Yeah.  I don't know what you're
0031
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   asking me.
 3         Q.     Did you use the term "syndicate" for
 4   how American Express distributes the document?
10:58:45  5         A.     I don't know if I used the word
 6   "syndicate."
 7                MR. LINDNER:  Amy, can you read back
 8         his testimony on what he said.  I think he
 9         said AMEX syndicates every few years or
10:58:58 10         distributes.  Thank you.
11                (Record read.)
12         A.     Okay.
13         Q.     So you did use the phrase
14   "syndicated"?
11:00:07 15         A.     Sounds like I did.
16         Q.     Okay.  So can you please write the
17   number of years that you've worked at American
18   Express on the piece of paper?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection.  I'm going to
11:00:16 20         direct my client not to write anything on
21         the piece of paper that you've given him.
22                Mark the transcript for a ruling.
23                MR. LINDNER:  That's okay.  Will you
24         give him a piece of your paper so he can
0032
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         write it down?
 3                MS. PARK:  No.
 4         Q.     Okay.  I'm asking that you write it
11:00:29  5   anyhow.
 6                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing my
 7         client not to.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  On what grounds?
 9                MS. PARK:  On the grounds that this
11:00:36 10         harassment, totally inappropriate and
11         totally irrelevant to the purpose for which
12         Mr. Brown has made time to appear today.
13                MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is
14         noted.
11:00:45 15                MS. PARK:  Move on.
16                MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is
17         noted.  I'm asking you to please write it.
18                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing my
19         client not to write it.
11:00:56 20                MR. LINDNER:  We'll do a request for
21         a ruling.  Amy, do you note things like
22         that on your transcripts?
23                THE REPORTER:  It's noted.  It's in
24         the body of the transcript.
0033
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  It's hard to
 3         find or you have a special thing?
 4                THE REPORTER:  I can look up a word
11:01:14  5         or whatever it is.
 6                MR. LINDNER:  And the request was on
 7         two things.  One is I wanted Jason to write
 8         down the numbers.
 9         Q.     Second is I wanted you to do the
11:01:30 10   arithmetic problem.
11                MR. LINDNER:  Do you agree for him
12         to do that?
13                MS. PARK:  No, Mr. Lindner.  I do
14         not.
11:01:39 15                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  If you have to
16         take a medical break, we can.
17         Q.     So are you familiar with the
18   testimony -- the deposition of Qing?
19         A.     What was the question?
11:01:56 20         Q.     Are you familiar -- a week ago Qing
21   Lin was deposed by me.
22         A.     Okay.
23         Q.     Have you been told about what
24   happened?
0034
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3         You're not going to get information that's
 4         protected by the attorney-client privilege.
11:02:08  5         Q.     Are you an attorney to Qing?
 6         A.     I'm an attorney to the company.
 7         Q.     And under your capacity as attorney
 8   to the company, were you given that information?
 9         A.     That he testified?
11:02:19 10         Q.     Yes.
11         A.     And that he was deposed?
12         Q.     Yes.
13         A.     Yes, I know he was deposed.
14         Q.     And you were told details of the
11:02:26 15   deposition?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection.  I'm directing
17         my client not to respond.
18                Mr. Lindner, you are not going to
19         get information protected by the
11:02:32 20         attorney-client privilege.  You're not
21         going to secure information as to what
22         communications I had with Mr. Brown about
23         this case, how many communications I had
24         with Mr. Brown about this case, or the
0035
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         subject matter of what communications I had
 3         with Mr. Brown.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  I don't want to know
11:02:45  5         the subject matter.
 6                MS. PARK:  No.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  But I do want to
 8         know -- so your objection is noted.
 9                MS. PARK:  And I'm directing my
11:02:50 10         client not to respond.
11                MR. LINDNER:  I understand.
12         Q.     Do you know Jean Park from prior to
13   today?
14         A.     Yes.
11:02:57 15         Q.     How do you know her?
16         A.     She's the attorney representing
17   American Express in this case.  That's one of the
18   ways I know her.
19         Q.     How else do you know her?
11:03:07 20         A.     Jean Park and I worked together at
21   Kelley Drye.
22         Q.     When was that?
23         A.     It spanned a number of years.
24         Q.     Can you give an approximate date?
0036
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Well, I think Jean Park worked at
 3   Kelley Drye for the length of my tenure at Kelley
 4   Drye.
11:03:23  5         Q.     Before you started or after you
 6   started?
 7         A.     Before I started what?
 8         Q.     At Kelley Drye.
 9         A.     Was she there, is that what you're
11:03:28 10   asking me?
11         Q.     That's what I'm asking.
12         A.     Yes.  She was at Kelley Drye when I
13   got there.
14         Q.     Did you know her name back then?
11:03:36 15                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16         A.     We worked -- we worked in the same
17   law firm, so sure.
18         Q.     Well, there are a number of people
19   in your law firm; correct?  In that law firm,
11:03:44 20   Kelley --
21                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22         Q.     -- Kelley Drye.  What's the full
23   name of the firm?
24         A.     The full name of the firm is Kelley
0037
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   Drye & Warren.
 3         Q.     Okay.  What was the full name of the
 4   firm when you worked there?
11:03:55  5         A.     Same name.
 6         Q.     It wasn't just Kelley Drye?
 7         A.     I don't think so.
 8         Q.     I thought so.  All right.
 9                Do you ever talk to Ms. Park about
11:04:08 10   nonattorney-client subjects?
11                MS. PARK:  I'm going to direct my
12         client not to respond to that.
13                Mr. Lindner, this is completely
14         inappropriate.
11:04:16 15                MR. LINDNER:  I understand.  Your
16         objection is noted.
17                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing my
18         client not to respond.  And if you
19         continue, you do so at your own peril.
11:04:25 20                MR. LINDNER:  Then I do so at my own
21         peril.
22                MS. PARK:  I'm directing my client
23         not to respond.
24         Q.     How do you distinguish your
0038
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   attorney-client privileged conversations with
 3   Ms. Park from the ones where they're not
 4   privileged?
11:04:37  5                MS. PARK:  Objection.
 6         Q.     Do you have a method of doing that?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection.  You're
 8         assuming facts that haven't been
 9         established and furthermore --
11:04:47 10         Q.     Are any of your conversations with
11   Ms. Park attorney-client privileged?
12                MS. PARK:  I'm directing you not to
13         respond to that.
14         Q.     Are you knowledgeable about
11:04:57 15   attorney-client privilege?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17         A.     And you're asking about?
18         Q.     Do you know what attorney-client
19   privilege means?
11:05:04 20         A.     Yes.
21         Q.     What does it mean?
22         A.     It's got many meanings.
23         Q.     Please explain.
24         A.     Attorney-client privilege attaches
0039
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   in many different ways to many different
 3   situations.
 4         Q.     Keep going.
11:05:14  5                MS. PARK:  No.
 6         Q.     I'm asking --
 7         A.     I don't really know what you're
 8   asking me.
 9         Q.     Imagine if you were -- imagine, if
11:05:20 10   you will, that this case goes to trial.  Can you
11   imagine that?
12                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, we're not --
13         we're not going to be responding to your
14         hypotheticals.  And furthermore,
11:05:30 15         Mr. Brown's job is not to educate you on
16         what the attorney-client privilege is.
17                MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that.
18                MS. PARK:  You need to go to the
19         pro se office, if you'd like no know what
11:05:39 20         that is, okay.  Move on.  I'm directing my
21         client not to respond.
22         Q.     So you refuse to respond --
23                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing my
24         client not to respond.
0040
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  I understand.
 3         Please -- your objection is noted.
 4                MS. PARK:  No.  It's not an
11:05:51  5         objection.  I'm directing my client not to
 6         respond to you.
 7         Q.     So do you know if this is a jury
 8   trial or not?
 9                MS. PARK:  There is no trial,
11:05:57 10         Mr. Lindner.  We are in discovery.
11         A.     Maybe I can kind of try to answer
12   what I think you're asking.
13         Q.     Sure.
14         A.     The complaint --
11:06:12 15         Q.     Yup.  What exactly --
16         A.     That has been marked as Plaintiff's
17   Exhibit 2 says "Jury trial demanded."
18         Q.     Okay.  So what does that mean?
19         A.     It means that you demanded or your
11:06:24 20   attorney at the time demanded a jury trial in
21   this case.
22         Q.     Is that a hypothetical situation?
23         A.     I don't know what you mean by that.
24                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0041
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     I'm asking -- do you understand what
 3   hypothetical means?
 4         A.     No.  I understand what hypothetical
11:06:35  5   means.  I don't understand what you're asking me.
 6         Q.     I'm asking you is it hypothetical
 7   whether this will be a jury trial?
 8                MS. PARK:  Yeah.  It's hypothetical,
 9         Mr. Lindner, because we're not in trial.
11:06:46 10                THE WITNESS:  Right.
11                MR. LINDNER:  I appreciate that.
12         Ms. Park, if you wish to object, object.
13                MS. PARK:  I object.  Move on.
14                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  Noted.
11:06:53 15         Q.     So is it a hypothetical situation
16   whether this is a jury trial or not?
17         A.     Yeah.
18         Q.     Okay.  Why is that?
19         A.     There could be a number of reasons
11:07:00 20   that it doesn't go to trial.
21         Q.     For instance?
22         A.     For instance --
23                MS. PARK:  Your case is dismissed,
24         Mr. Lindner.
0042
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Right.  Your case is dismissed.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I'm not
 4         deposing you.  You can object if you want
11:07:14  5         to.
 6                MS. PARK:  You are not going to ask
 7         Mr. Brown what his --
 8                MR. LINDNER:  I'm going to ask him
 9         many questions.
11:07:15 10                MS. PARK:  In his capacity as
11         in-house counsel for American Express,
12         that's palpably improper.  Move on.
13         Q.     Okay.  Let's assume for a moment
14   that you are not attorney for American Express.
11:07:27 15         A.     I am.
16                MS. PARK:  But he is.  Move on.
17         Q.     So under attorney-client privilege
18   you would not be able to read this document;
19   right?  You would not be able to say jury trial
11:07:32 20   demanded; correct?  Do you agree?
21                MS. PARK:  My God.
22         A.     I don't even know what you're asking
23   me at this point.
24         Q.     I'm asking you, you're an attorney
0043
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   for American Express; right?
 3         A.     I am.
 4         Q.     I do not wish to violate
11:07:46  5   attorney-client privilege?
 6         A.     Okay.
 7         Q.     All right.
 8         A.     Okay.
 9         Q.     So if I ask you a question that
11:07:51 10   says -- that violates attorney-client privilege,
11   will you point it out to me?
12         A.     I may, but it's really my attorney's
13   job to do that.
14         Q.     Okay.
11:07:58 15         A.     In this forum, at least.
16         Q.     Okay.  So can you read what that --
17   that statement that I'm pointing to --
18                MS. PARK:  Objection.  He's read it
19         already.  "Jury trial demanded."
11:08:11 20         A.     That's what I just said.
21         Q.     But I didn't ask Ms. Park to do it.
22   I'm asking you to do it.
23                MS. PARK:  No.  He's done it.  Asked
24         and answered.  Move on, asked and answered.
0044
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park --
 3                MS. PARK:  Move on.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  I'm not.  Please,
11:08:19  5         Ms. Park.
 6                MS. PARK:  Move on.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  I'm not.
 8         Q.     Can you please tell me what that
 9   says?
11:08:26 10                MS. PARK:  We've stipulated, jury
11         trial demanded.
12                MR. LINDNER:  I don't want to hear
13         your stipulation.  Ms. Park, please.  Okay,
14         I'm noting the time is 10:08.  That's
11:08:33 15         correct.
16                MS. PARK:  It's 11:08.
17                MR. LINDNER:  I'm stipulating it's
18         10:08 but I could be wrong.  Just like if
19         you stipulate it's 11:08, you could be
11:08:46 20         wrong or you could be right.
21         Q.     I'm asking you now, Jason, could you
22   please read that sentence that's underlined on
23   Exhibit 2?
24         A.     There are a number of sentences that
0045
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   are underlined.
 3         Q.     In bold?
 4         A.     And they're in bold as well.  But
11:09:00  5   can I just say the document speaks for itself?
 6         Q.     Can you read that out loud, please.
 7                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, this is
 8         harassment.  Move on.
 9         Q.     Okay.  Can you please read what that
11:09:07 10   says.  Yes.
11         A.     "Jury trial demanded."
12         Q.     What does that mean to you?
13         A.     Didn't we just go through that?
14                MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.
11:09:16 15         Q.     I want you to please explain it to
16   me.
17         A.     It means that --
18                MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park, I'm
19         not deposing you.
11:09:20 20                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Asked
21         and answered.
22                MR. LINDNER:  Okay, good.  It's a
23         hostile witness and a hostile attorney.
24         Q.     But I'm asking, please explain what
0046
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   that means?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 4         answered.
11:09:31  5         A.     You and/or your attorney demanded a
 6   jury trial in this action.
 7         Q.     Okay.  Suppose American Express did
 8   not accept it, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
 9   How would we know?  Can you tell from these
11:09:44 10   exhibits whether American Express accepted a jury
11   trial?
12                MS. PARK:  Which question are you
13         asking him?  You've asked him two different
14         questions.
11:09:51 15                MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park.
16         Please simmer down.
17         A.     I really don't understand what
18   you're asking me.  Are you asking me whether --
19   can you repeat your question.
11:09:58 20         Q.     Yes.  Is there anything that
21   indicates that the jury trial demand has not been
22   accepted by American Express?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         A.     What do you mean "accepted"?
0047
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Is there going to be a jury trial?
 3   Is there a jury trial desired, demanded, desired?
 4         A.     By whom?
11:10:14  5         Q.     By the parties.  In other words, if
 6   it's not a jury trial, what sort of trial would
 7   it be?
 8         A.     You're asking me a hypothetical
 9   question.
11:10:25 10         Q.     If it's not a jury trial --
11         A.     If this case does not go to a jury
12   trial, is that what you're asking me?
13         Q.     No.  I'm asking are there other
14   types of trials aside from jury trials or is that
11:10:35 15   the only choice?
16         A.     Yes.  Here in the U.S., yes, there's
17   a bench trial.  That's sometimes --
18         Q.     Is this a bench trial?
19         A.     We're not in a trial.  This is just
11:10:44 20   a deposition.
21         Q.     Will it be a bench trial?
22         A.     Well, you have demanded a jury
23   trial.  I don't know what --
24         Q.     Well, we demand a lot of things but
0048
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   is that demand agreed to by the parties?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     I don't know whether we've agreed to
11:11:00  5   anything.  I think it's ultimately in the judge's
 6   discretion as to whether or not he grants a jury
 7   trial in this case.  So I can't speak for the
 8   judge as to what he's going to decide between now
 9   and when a jury trial may actually --
11:11:18 10         Q.     Well, can it change to a bench
11   trial, if he wants?
12         A.     I have no idea.
13                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, Mr. Brown is
14         not going to give you information on how to
11:11:26 15         proceed with your case, okay.  Go get an
16         attorney to explain what the procedure is.
17         This is totally irrelevant to this case.
18                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I understand
19         your objection.  So object --
11:11:38 20                MS. PARK:  You need to move on to
21         another subject.
22                MR. LINDNER:  I'm not going to move
23         on.  And, by the way, I note the time is
24         11:11.  We've been on this for three
0049
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         minutes.  You've held this up for three
 3         minutes.
 4                MS. PARK:  Three minutes of
11:11:49  5         irrelevant questioning, which is borderline
 6         harassment.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  That's right.  But,
 8         nonetheless, Ms. Park, I feel you are
 9         harassing me.
11:11:58 10                MS. PARK:  I'm sure you do.  Move
11         on.
12                MR. LINDNER:  I do.  I appreciate
13         you regard that --
14                MS. PARK:  Move on.
11:12:06 15                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, if you say
16         one more time "move on," I feel you're
17         harassing me.  You can object.
18                MS. PARK:  No.  I'll say move on,
19         which is what I'm doing.
11:12:17 20                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, while we're
21         on the record, I'd like to stay on the
22         record.  I'd like to have permission to
23         call Judge Katz.
24                MS. PARK:  That's fine.
0050
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                THE REPORTER:  We are off the record
 3         now?  Are we off the record?
 4                MR. LINDNER:  We are off the record.
11:12:45  5                (Discussion off the record.)
 6                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  I'm sorry, we are
 7         off the record?
 8                MR. LINDNER:  We are off the record
 9         at 11:12.
11:13:06 10                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Okay.  We are off
11         the record at 11:12.
12                (Discussion off the record.)
13                MR. LINDNER:  It's 11:28.
14                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're back on the
11:28:07 15         record at 11:28.
16   BY MR. LINDNER:
17         Q.     Okay.  Before the break, I asked you
18   questions which Ms. Park objected to.  Ms. Park
19   objected to you identifying whether it's a jury
11:28:21 20   trial or not.  Are you able to answer your
21   question sometimes in simpler English?
22         A.     I'm sorry, are you asking me to
23   answer my questions more simply?
24         Q.     Can you do that?
0051
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Yeah.  As you said before, if you
 3   don't understand something that I say, just tell
 4   me and I'll try to restate it.
11:28:41  5         Q.     But even if I understood it, if I
 6   felt that the jury might not understand it, would
 7   you be willing to restate it?
 8         A.     I may.
 9         Q.     That's what I'm planning to do.
11:28:53 10                MS. PARK:  That's fine, Mr. Lindner.
11         Is there a question?
12         Q.     That's why I asked about the jury
13   trial.  I want to say that it's not going to be
14   before a judge and you understand that.  So there
11:29:04 15   will be times I'm going to ask you a question
16   and -- and it will be because I want the jury to
17   be able to understand it.
18                Do you understand what I'm saying?
19         A.     Not entirely.  But I just -- I think
11:29:15 20   if you don't understand something I say or you
21   want me to try to restate it, why don't you ask
22   me, and I'll see if I can do that for you.
23         Q.     I'll ask you.  All right.
24                We're in the Southern District of
0052
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   New York courthouse; is that correct?
 3                MS. PARK:  We stipulate we are
 4         physically sitting in the Southern District
11:29:32  5         of New York courthouse at 500 Pearl Street.
 6                MR. LINDNER:  Good.
 7         Q.     I spoke to Qing last week and
 8   deposed him.  And I asked Qing if he understood
 9   what type of court this was.  To the best of my
11:29:45 10   knowledge, he didn't know the difference between
11   a state court or a local court or a federal
12   court.  Are you aware of the difference between
13   them?
14         A.     Can you -- what are you asking me?
11:29:59 15         Q.     I'm asking you what is the
16   difference between a local court, a state court,
17   and a federal court?
18         A.     There are a lot of differences.
19         Q.     Can you summarize it in a way the
11:30:09 20   jury can understand?
21                MS. PARK:  No.
22         A.     I can give you some information.
23                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm going to direct
24         my client not to answer.  Move on.
0053
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Can you give some information or --
 3                MS. PARK:  I'm directing my client
 4         not to answer.  Move on.  This is
11:30:23  5         irrelevant.
 6                MR. LINDNER:  And can you give a
 7         reason for it?
 8                MS. PARK:  It's irrelevant.  It's
 9         tantamount to harassment.  He's not here as
11:30:30 10         an attorney.  He's not going to give you a
11         primer on the court system.  Nor will he
12         give you legal advice or legal information.
13         If you need help, Mr. Lindner, go to the
14         pro se office or go find an attorney.
11:30:39 15                MR. LINDNER:  I do need help but I
16         think I need help from a judge who will
17         listen to what you're saying and seeing how
18         you're harassing me.
19         Q.     What I'm asking for in this case
11:30:50 20   is -- is a -- is a violation of dropping a gum
21   wrapper on the sidewalk the type of violation
22   that you go to federal court for?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection.  I'm going to
24         direct you not to respond.
0054
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                Mr. Lindner, move on.
 3         Q.     You can respond, if you wish.
 4                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing my
11:31:10  5         client not to respond.  Move on.
 6                MR. LINDNER:  I request a ruling on
 7         that.
 8         Q.     I'd like to know the seriousness of
 9   this case.  Do you feel this is a serious case?
11:31:21 10                MS. PARK:  Objection.  I'm directing
11         my client not to respond.  He's not here in
12         his capacity as in-house counsel for
13         American Express.  You're not going to get
14         a legal assessment from Mr. Brown as to
11:31:32 15         what he thinks of this case.  He's here in
16         his capacity as a fact investigator.  He's
17         a fact witness.
18         Q.     Jason, you took an oath before this
19   deposition began; correct?
11:31:45 20         A.     Correct.
21         Q.     If you violate that oath, what
22   happens?
23         A.     I don't know.  I guess I could be
24   held in contempt of court.
0055
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     What would happen then?
 3         A.     I don't know.
 4         Q.     Like going back to the example of --
11:32:01  5   of dropping the gum wrapper on a sidewalk, would
 6   that be the same type of violation, a contempt of
 7   court, as dropping a gum wrapper on -- on the
 8   sidewalk?
 9                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11:32:14 10         Q.     By the way, it's illegal to drop gum
11   wrappers on the sidewalk of New York; correct?
12                MS. PARK:  Is that a question?
13         A.     Are you asking me if it's illegal --
14         Q.     Yes.
11:32:24 15         A.     -- to drop a gum wrapper on the
16   sidewalk of New York?
17         Q.     Yes.
18         A.     I don't know.
19         Q.     Okay.  You're familiar with New York
11:32:30 20   laws, though; right?
21         A.     I think I answered that question
22   already.
23         Q.     So -- so with your knowledge as a
24   lawyer, you don't know whether it's illegal to
0056
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   drop, in New York City, gum wrappers on the
 3   sidewalk?
 4         A.     Correct.
11:32:50  5                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 6         answered.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  Just double-checking.
 8                MS. PARK:  No.  There is no
 9         double-checking.  You got the answer.  Move
11:32:52 10         on.
11         Q.     So let's say, for the sake of
12   example, that it is illegal, that you can't just
13   drop trash on the sidewalk.  In fact, if you were
14   walking by a policeman and you just throw things
11:33:04 15   on the ground, he might give you a ticket for it.
16   This is a hypothetical situation.  And if he
17   wrote you a ticket, would be a violation.  Is a
18   contempt of court a similar violation?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11:33:18 20         Mr. Brown is here as a fact witness.
21         A.     You're asking my opinion if --
22         Q.     Yes.
23         A.     -- being in contempt of court is the
24   same thing as violating an ordinance against
0057
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   littering?
 3         Q.     Yes.
 4         A.     In my opinion, no, they're not.
11:33:34  5         Q.     How do they differ?
 6         A.     Well, in my opinion, the acts
 7   themselves differ.
 8         Q.     Yes.
 9         A.     I think the seriousness of the
11:33:39 10   violation differ.
11         Q.     Good.  We'll come back to the
12   seriousness.  And what else?
13         A.     The consequences probably differ.
14         Q.     Can you address what the
11:33:49 15   consequences might be?
16         A.     No.  I don't know anything about a
17   law that prohibits dropping a gum wrapper on the
18   sidewalk.
19         Q.     Can you be disbarred for dropping a
11:33:59 20   gum wrapper on the sidewalk?
21                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22         A.     I don't know.  I would doubt it.
23         Q.     Right.  Can you be disbarred for
24   contempt of court?
0058
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Can one be disbarred for contempt of
 3   court.
 4         Q.     Yes.
11:34:11  5         A.     I presume so.  Depending on the
 6   severity of it.
 7         Q.     So -- and depending on the severity
 8   of how you dropped a gum wrapper on a sidewalk,
 9   you might also be disbarred, you're saying?
11:34:24 10                MS. PARK:  Objection.
11         A.     I didn't say that.
12         Q.     Well, can you be disbarred for
13   dropping a gum wrapper on the sidewalk?
14                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
11:34:24 15         answered.
16         A.     Yeah, I think I answered that.
17         Q.     Well, can you repeat the answer.  I
18   forget what you said.
19                THE WITNESS:  Well, can you read it
11:34:28 20         back to me because I'm getting a little
21         confused.
22         Q.     Just answer the question instead of
23   wasting time.
24                MS. PARK:  No.  Read back -- read
0059
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         back his testimony.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  Read back the
 4         testimony, Amy.
11:35:20  5                (Discussion off the record.)
 6                (Record read.)
 7         Q.     So your answer was that you doubt
 8   it, if you could be disbarred for dropping --
 9         A.     Yeah.  I think it would be unlikely
11:35:47 10   that someone would be disbarred for dropping a
11   gum wrapper on a sidewalk.
12         Q.     And it would be unlikely that you'd
13   be --
14                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park -- I note for
11:35:55 15         the record that Ms. Park is looking at --
16                MS. PARK:  I'm changing it so that
17         it doesn't make a noise, Mr. Lindner.
18                MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.
19         Q.     Can you turn it upside down so you
11:36:07 20   can't read the message?
21                MS. PARK:  No.
22                MR. LINDNER:  I note an objection to
23         that.
24                MS. PARK:  Go ahead.
0060
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  I just did.
 3                MS. PARK:  Yup.
 4         Q.     So you found it unlikely that you'd
11:36:16  5   be disbarred for dropping a gum wrapper.  And do
 6   you find it unlikely that you'd be disbarred for
 7   contempt of court?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 9         answered.
11:36:27 10         A.     You're asking me if I think it's
11   unlikely that I will be disbarred for contempt of
12   court; is that what you're asking me?
13         Q.     That a lawyer -- well, I don't think
14   you dropped a gum wrapper --
11:36:37 15         A.     Are you asking me about me?
16         Q.     Yes.  I am.
17         A.     I think it would be extremely
18   unlikely.
19         Q.     Why?
11:36:44 20         A.     Because I'm not in contempt of
21   court.
22         Q.     And you wouldn't because you
23   wouldn't tell a lie, you're sworn to tell the
24   truth and that's what you're saying; right?
0061
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Which question, are you
 3         asking him?  You've asked him four
 4         questions.
11:37:04  5         Q.     Are you going to tell the truth at
 6   this deposition?
 7         A.     Yes.
 8         Q.     And the reason you are going to tell
 9   the truth is because, you gave two reasons, one
11:37:10 10   is it's a serious -- you are under oath -- or
11   three reasons.  One is you're under oath.
12   Second, it's a serious matter.  And third is that
13   the consequence could be disbarment or contempt
14   of court which could lead to disbarment?
11:37:27 15                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16         A.     I don't think I said any of that.
17         Q.     Okay.  Do you think that it's an
18   incorrect summary of what you said?
19         A.     I don't know that it's entirely
11:37:35 20   accurate.
21         Q.     Can you accurately state the --
22   the -- why you're telling the truth?
23         A.     Can I -- what?  Are you asking me
24   why am I telling the truth?
0062
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Yes.
 3         A.     I'm a truthful person.  I'm under
 4   oath.  I have no reason to not tell the truth.
11:37:49  5         Q.     Okay.  Thank you.  All right.
 6                So we were talking about Exhibits 2
 7   and 3.  And looking at the amended complaint,
 8   which is Exhibit 2; right?  Can you read
 9   paragraph 4.
11:38:13 10         A.     "Plaintiff Peter W. Lindner
11   ("Lindner") is an individual residing in New York
12   County."
13         Q.     Okay.  Can you tell me which part of
14   that is true and which part of that is false?
11:38:33 15         A.     I know that you're an individual.
16         Q.     Okay.  How about the rest?
17         A.     I don't know where you live.
18         Q.     Okay.  Very good.  Thank you.
19                Now, can you look at Exhibit 3.
11:38:56 20   Look at paragraph 4.  What does it say?  Read it
21   out load.
22         A.     "4, deny knowledge or information
23   sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
24   the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the
0063
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   complaint."
 3         Q.     So -- see, that concerned me.  It
 4   says "the allegations."  So how many allegations
11:39:09  5   do you see in paragraph 4 of the complaint?  It's
 6   the next page.
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection, Mr. Lindner.
 8         I'm going to direct my client not to answer
 9         this question.  I have repeatedly told you,
11:39:21 10         and the Court has directed you, that
11         Mr. Brown is here as a fact witness.
12                You are not going to elicit from
13         Mr. Brown legal -- his legal position as
14         in-house counsel for American Express nor
11:39:33 15         his legal assessment of the answer.  You
16         have the answer, Mr. Lindner.
17                MR. LINDNER:  Well, what is the
18         answer?
19                MS. PARK:  The answer is right in
11:39:42 20         front of you in the form of Plaintiff's 3.
21                Move on.
22                MR. LINDNER:  What are the two
23         allegations?
24                MS. PARK:  I'm not responding.  Nor
0064
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         is my client.  Move on.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  I understand.
 4         Q.     So you're going to respond to this
11:39:54  5   question --
 6                MS. PARK:  Correct.  Because I'm
 7         directing my client not to answer.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  I understand that.
 9         Q.     Do you know of a person at American
11:40:01 10   Express who can answer that question?
11         A.     What's the question?
12         Q.     What's -- it says on -- on
13   Exhibit 3, item 4, it says, "deny knowledge or
14   information sufficient to form a belief as to the
11:40:17 15   truth of the allegations," and there's an S at
16   the end, "contained in paragraph 4 of the
17   complaint."  So S means plural, and so I'm asking
18   what the multiple allegations were.  Ms. Park
19   stopped you from answering.
11:40:34 20                So I am asking you, can you please
21   tell me who in American Express would be the
22   person to ask this question to so I can find out
23   which allegations they're referring to?
24                MS. PARK:  And I'm directing my
0065
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         client once again not to answer the
 3         question.  He's not here in his capacity as
 4         counsel for American Express.
11:40:52  5                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  Are you the
 6         counsel for American Express?
 7                MS. PARK:  I am outside counsel for
 8         American Express.
 9                MR. LINDNER:  Can you provide the
11:40:58 10         answer for that?
11                MS. PARK:  I'm not here -- I'm not
12         being deposed, Mr. Lindner.  I'm not
13         responding to you.  Move on.
14                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking who -- I'd
11:41:06 15         like to -- then I hereby make a demand that
16         I wish to get the person at American
17         Express who can answer what the allegations
18         that they are denying and what is the
19         factual basis for them saying that they
11:41:18 20         deny knowledge or information sufficient to
21         form a belief as to truth of the
22         allegations contained in paragraph 4,
23         because --
24                MS. PARK:  That's fine.  You're
0066
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         demand is noted.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.  Thank you
 4         very much.
11:41:31  5                MS. PARK:  Your demand is noted.
 6         Move on.  Ask this fact witness a factual
 7         question.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, please, be
 9         quiet.  Thank you.
11:41:40 10         Q.     Because I myself wrote down in my
11   notes that plaintiff is an individual residing in
12   New York County, so somebody wrote that, I guess,
13   when they deny an allegation, that I'm not an
14   individual.  And I don't know on what basis they
11:41:53 15   say that.  So I'm trying to find out somebody at
16   American Express who can say that.  Thus, I'm
17   making a formal request for the name of the
18   person who would be able to answer that question
19   so that I can depose them.  There are many facts
11:42:11 20   that are listed in the document.  For instance,
21   No. 7, it says -- can you read No. 7?
22         A.     Which document are you referring to?
23         Q.     On No. 3, Exhibit 3.
24         A.     Paragraph 7?  "Deny each and every
0067
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   allegation contained in paragraph" --
 3         Q.     Fact 7.
 4         A.     You said of Exhibit 3?  Exhibit 3 is
11:42:39  5   the answer to the complaint.
 6         Q.     Oh, I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.  Yes.
 7   Read -- I'm sorry, let's start with the -- in
 8   Exhibit 2 what are the facts, No. 7?  Sorry.
 9         A.     You want me to read paragraph 7 of
11:42:57 10   Exhibit 2?
11         Q.     Yes.
12         A.     "Lindner is a computer programmer
13   who was employed in that capacity by AMEX from
14   1990 to November 1998."
11:43:07 15         Q.     Okay.  And can you read the answer
16   of American Express and Qing Lin.
17         A.     "7:  Deny each and every allegation
18   contained in paragraph 7 of the complaint except
19   deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
11:43:22 20   a belief concerning plaintiff's current trade or
21   profession."
22         Q.     So I'll let you in on my job
23   history.  In November 1998 I was employed by
24   American Express.  It was my last month there.
0068
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   So if they say they deny knowledge concerning my
 3   current trade or profession, I don't see where it
 4   says current.  So I want to know what is the
11:43:53  5   factual basis for making that.  Again, I could
 6   keep on going.  There are many statements here
 7   that American Express has asked -- has answered
 8   and -- to my complaint, and I have to find out
 9   who can tell me the factual basis so that I can
11:44:13 10   rebut it in court.  And that's why I request
11   someone -- the name of that person who can give
12   an answer.
13                MS. PARK:  And I'm directing my
14         client again not to respond.  He is here as
11:44:27 15         a fact witness, not as counsel for American
16         Express.
17                MR. LINDNER:  That's good.  But I
18         didn't know that this morning when I wrote
19         these questions.  And, by the way, I still
11:44:37 20         don't know --
21                MS. PARK:  Sure, you did.  This
22         matter's been broached before Judge Katz
23         and Judge Katz has ruled on the issue.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Very good.  So can you
0069
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         tell me the name of the person who can
 3         respond to that?
 4                MS. PARK:  No.
11:44:50  5                MR. LINDNER:  Do you know the name?
 6                MS. PARK:  No.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  You don't know the
 8         name?
 9                MS. PARK:  Yes, I do.  And I'm not
11:44:56 10         going to give you the name.
11                MR. LINDNER:  I'm making a formal
12         request that Ms. Park give the name so I
13         can depose them, depose that person.
14                MS. PARK:  Move on.
11:45:05 15                MR. LINDNER:  Yes, Ms. Park.
16         Q.     So you are testifying here today --
17   are you here to testify today as a representative
18   of Defendant American Express Corporation?
19         A.     Yes.
11:45:50 20         Q.     You're not testifying as an
21   individual; correct?
22         A.     What do you mean?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         A.     As an individual --
0070
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Are you testifying as an individual?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     I'm not -- not as an individual
11:46:01  5   defendant because I'm not an individual defendant
 6   in this case, if that's what you're asking me.
 7   I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
 8         Q.     Well, whether you represented
 9   American Express, and you basically said no.  All
11:46:13 10   right.
11         A.     Wait.  What did I say?
12         Q.     I asked you, are you here to testify
13   as a representative of Defendant American Express
14   Corporation.  Your answer, I believe, was no.
11:46:24 15                THE WITNESS:  Is that what I said?
16                (Record read.)
17         Q.     That's what you said.
18         A.     Okay.
19         Q.     Okay.  So you have a set of tasks at
11:46:55 20   American Express; correct?
21         A.     I do.  I have job responsibilities.
22         Q.     Okay.  And who sets them down?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         A.     Yeah.  I mean, I think broadly
0071
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   speaking, my boss.
 3         Q.     Who is your boss?
 4         A.     John Parauda.
11:47:10  5         Q.     How do you spell that last name?
 6         A.     P-A-R-A-U-D-A.
 7         Q.     Got me on that one.  P-A-R-A-U-D-A?
 8         A.     Right.
 9         Q.     Does he set them himself?
11:47:22 10         A.     Yes.
11                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12         A.     Broadly, I have job
13   responsibilities.
14         Q.     Can you tell me what the job
11:47:27 15   responsibilities are?
16         A.     Yeah.  Again, in broad strokes, I'm
17   an employment lawyer in the employment law group,
18   so I manage employment law litigation.  I counsel
19   clients, internal American Express employees,
11:47:46 20   whether it be HR or business people, on
21   employment law, labor issues.  I oversee the U.S.
22   immigration team which is part of the employment
23   law group.  Those are the general buckets.
24         Q.     And are you what they call in
0072
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   American Express a leader or what other
 3   corporations call a manager?
 4                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11:48:10  5         A.     Are you asking if I manage people?
 6         Q.     Yes.
 7         A.     Yes, I have people directly
 8   reporting to me.
 9         Q.     How many people?
11:48:20 10         A.     Three people.
11         Q.     Can you tell me their names?
12         A.     Sure.  Laura Caminiti.
13         Q.     Can you spell the last name?
14         A.     C-A-M-I-N-I-T-I.
11:48:30 15         Q.     And the second person?
16         A.     Elbert Vasquez.
17         Q.     And can you spell that name?
18         A.     V-A-S-Q-U-E-Z.
19                (Discussion off the record.)
11:48:43 20         Q.     You got me on that, okay.
21                MR. LINDNER:  Very good, Amy.
22         Q.     And the third person?
23         A.     Richard Quinones.
24         Q.     And can you spell the last name?
0073
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Q-U-I-N-O-N-E-S.
 3         Q.     Are any of them lawyers?
 4         A.     No.
11:49:01  5         Q.     What are their -- what are they,
 6   secretaries or staff or paralegals?
 7         A.     Are you asking the title?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9         Q.     Yes, their title.
11:49:10 10         A.     They are legal assistants.  They're
11   paralegals, essentially.  I think their -- I
12   think their title is legal assistant.
13         Q.     They're paralegals.  Do they work
14   exclusively for you or do they work for other
11:49:29 15   people?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17         A.     They report directly in to me, if
18   that's what you're asking.
19         Q.     Yes, that's what I'm asking.  All
11:49:36 20   right.  Why are you involved in this case?
21                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22         Q.     Are you involved in the case
23   2006CV3834, Lindner -- Peter Lindner versus
24   American Express and Qing Lin in the Southern
0074
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   District of New York?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     As evidenced by the fact that I'm
11:49:57  5   here right now, I certainly am.
 6         Q.     Well, there are other people who are
 7   here that may dispute that.  But anyhow, okay.
 8                So how did you get involved in this
 9   case?
11:50:09 10         A.     How do you mean?
11         Q.     When did you start getting involved
12   in this case?
13                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14         A.     In this lawsuit?
11:50:21 15         Q.     Yes.
16         A.     Well, I don't remember when the
17   lawsuit was commenced.
18         Q.     2006.
19         A.     Okay.  So my recollection is that
11:50:27 20   you and I had discussions prior to this lawsuit
21   actually being filed.
22         Q.     Do you know when that was?
23         A.     Offhand, I don't.  If you have
24   documents, it could refresh my recollection, but
0075
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   I don't remember when it started.
 3         Q.     Well, let me ask you another way.
 4                Do you have documents that could
11:50:46  5   refresh your recollection?
 6         A.     Every document I had I gave to my
 7   attorney.
 8         Q.     Okay.  I understand.  But do you
 9   have any -- what documents would they be that
11:50:54 10   would refresh your recollection?
11         A.     I don't know that there is any
12   specifically, but if you had documents, that
13   might refresh my recollection as to when this
14   issue began, when you and I started to speak.
11:51:07 15   You had started to send a tremendous amount of
16   e-mails.  I don't remember exactly when that was.
17         Q.     So do you keep e-mails?
18         A.     I do, some of them.
19         Q.     So -- so one way your -- your memory
11:51:22 20   could be refreshed would be by looking at the
21   e-mails; correct?
22         A.     Sure.
23         Q.     Any other way, aside from e-mails?
24         A.     Any other way of what?
0076
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Having your memory refreshed on how
 3   you got involved in this case.
 4         A.     You're asking me how I got involved
11:51:40  5   in this case?
 6         Q.     Yes.
 7         A.     Oh, I thought you asked me when I
 8   got involved in this case.
 9         Q.     Well, they're somewhat related.
11:51:47 10         A.     Okay.  I don't remember -- are you
11   talking about this lawsuit or you're talking
12   about this whole issue?
13         Q.     Let's talk about the whole issue.
14         A.     Okay.  So I don't remember exactly
11:51:55 15   how you and I were connected, but at some point
16   you started to call and send e-mails and perhaps
17   other correspondence.  I don't remember what was
18   coming in when.  There was lot of correspondence.
19   And that's how I got involved in this.
11:52:13 20         Q.     So basically I wrote you?
21                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22         You're mischaracterizing his testimony.
23         A.     Yeah, I don't know if you wrote to
24   me directly.  I don't remember how this came to
0077
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   me precisely.
 3         Q.     Okay.  Well, when you worked at
 4   Kelley Drye Warren, you're familiar that I had a
11:52:29  5   case back then?
 6         A.     I remember that.
 7         Q.     You do?
 8         A.     Uh-huh.
 9                THE REPORTER:  Please give a verbal
11:52:36 10         response.
11                THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.
12         A.     I do remember that.
13         Q.     How do you remember it?
14                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11:52:43 15                You're asking how he remembers
16         anything about your case or how is he able,
17         as he sits here now, to recall that he had
18         a case with you?
19         Q.     You say you recall knowing me from a
11:52:54 20   prior experience prior to 2005; correct?
21         A.     I remember that when I was at Kelley
22   Drye you filed a lawsuit against American
23   Express.
24         Q.     Yes.
0078
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     I was an associate at Kelley Drye --
 3         Q.     Yes.
 4         A.     -- and I was working on the case as
11:53:06  5   outside counsel defending American Express.
 6         Q.     Okay.  Do you remember what year
 7   that was?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 9         answered.
11:53:15 10         A.     No.  You asked me that.  I don't
11   remember.
12         Q.     Well, conceivably, if you had the
13   e-mails from back then, you would -- you'd be
14   able to tell what date it was?
11:53:31 15                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16         A.     I don't remember --
17                MS. PARK:  You're assuming facts
18         that haven't been established.
19                MR. LINDNER:  Well, I'm asking what
11:53:39 20         would refresh his memory.  He said e-mails.
21         A.     No, no, no.  Just to make sure I'm
22   clear.  Just to make sure we're talking about the
23   same thing here.
24         Q.     Yeah.
0079
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     The initial lawsuit -- or the
 3   lawsuit that you filed against American Express
 4   while I was at Kelley Drye, that's not what I was
11:53:56  5   referring to when I was talking about e-mails.
 6                But to answer what I think you are
 7   asking for, is if you have a copy of the
 8   complaint, that I presume would have a date on it
 9   and that would refresh my recollection as to when
11:54:10 10   that complaint was filed.
11         Q.     Okay.  I do have a copy.
12         A.     Okay.
13         Q.     I'm showing you Plaintiff's
14   Exhibit No. 1.  Does that look familiar?
11:54:46 15         A.     Yes, it does.
16         Q.     And why does it look familiar to
17   you?
18                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
19         A.     Why?
11:54:51 20         Q.     Yes.
21         A.     I've seen it before.
22         Q.     And you see it -- you mean, like in
23   the past two years or you saw it at a prior term?
24   When did you see it?  Did you see it at Kelley
0080
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   Drye, for instance?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection.
 4                What question do you want him to
11:55:04  5         answer?
 6         Q.     When did you see this before?
 7   What's the earliest you can recall seeing it
 8   before?
 9         A.     I don't know the date, but I
11:55:11 10   think -- I think it was sometime around the time
11   that you filed your -- the instant complaint.
12         Q.     That would be 2005?
13         A.     Right.  I think it's actually
14   attached to one of the exhibits you just showed
11:55:21 15   to me.
16         Q.     Yes, it is.
17         A.     This is the settlement agreement
18   we're talking about?
19         Q.     That's correct.
11:55:26 20         A.     Right.
21         Q.     You have a good memory.  It's
22   attached to the Exhibit No. 2, the amended
23   complaint.
24         A.     Okay.  So that's where I would have
0081
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   seen it.
 3         Q.     Okay.  Well, with all the pieces of
 4   paper, I can't believe I don't have it.  I
11:56:29  5   actually have a letter that I wrote you back in
 6   1999 or 2000, and you had an associate working on
 7   this case.  Do you recall the associate's name?
 8         A.     Well, I was an associate.
 9         Q.     You had another person working on
11:56:49 10   the case?
11         A.     There were -- there was at least one
12   other lawyer who worked on the case with me.
13         Q.     Do you remember his name?
14         A.     Yes.  His name is Mark Filipini.
11:56:55 15         Q.     Yes.  That's his name.  There was
16   an e-mail, which I thought I brought today, but
17   I didn't.  Yeah, Mark Filipini.  So -- so you two
18   were working on the case and you interacted with
19   me; is that correct?
11:57:12 20         A.     I remember that I attended your
21   deposition.  You were deposed.  That was the only
22   interaction that I recall.
23         Q.     Okay.  Do you recall if you were
24   consulted or talked to or saw this settlement
0082
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   agreement, Exhibit 1?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4                When?
11:57:37  5         A.     Yeah, when?
 6         Q.     Before it was signed?
 7         A.     Before it was signed by whom?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9         Q.     Look at the next-to-last page.  Not
11:57:45 10   that page.  Keep going.  Do you see that it's
11   signed?
12         A.     Oh, I see.  No, I don't recall.  And
13   I had left Kelley Drye by June of 2000, so it's
14   highly unlikely that I ever saw this.
11:58:01 15         Q.     Well, what is the date on that?
16         A.     Well, it's got different dates on
17   it.
18         Q.     Read -- read one of the dates.
19         A.     Okay.  6/23/2000, 6/22/2000,
11:58:14 20   6/22/2000, June 15, 2000.
21         Q.     Okay.  So it looks like I signed it.
22   The June 15th was Peter Lindner?
23         A.     Yes.
24         Q.     And the others were about a week
0083
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   later; correct?
 3         A.     That's right.
 4         Q.     Six days, seven days, eight days
11:58:26  5   later.  And you left sometime in June?
 6         A.     No, no, no.  I'm sorry.
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection.
 8         A.     I left prior to June.
 9         Q.     Oh, prior to June.  Right.
11:58:34 10         A.     Right.  I wasn't with Kelley Drye in
11   June.
12         Q.     Very good.  Can you look at
13   paragraph 13.  Have you seen that before?  I
14   mean, in the sense of I know you haven't
11:58:55 15   memorized it.
16         A.     Yeah.  I've seen this whole
17   document.  I've said I've seen this document.
18         Q.     Okay.  And does paragraph 13 stick
19   out in particular over the other paragraphs for
11:59:05 20   any reason?
21                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22         A.     No.
23         Q.     Okay.  Can you read paragraph 13.
24         A.     "The company agrees to instruct and
0084
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   direct the following company employees not to
 3   disclose any information regarding Mr. Lindner's
 4   employment or termination of employment from the
11:59:26  5   company to any person outside of the company and
 6   to direct all requests for references or
 7   inquiries received by such employees regarding
 8   Mr. Lindner to the appropriate human resources
 9   individuals:  Ash Gupta, Qing Lin, Daniel
11:59:42 10   Almenara, Raymond Joabar, Wei Chen, Claudia Rose
11   and Richard Tambor.
12                MR. LINDNER:  And just note to the
13         stenographer that we will give you a copy
14         of this exhibit so that you can get the
11:59:56 15         names right, and I apologize for going so
16         quickly.
17         Q.     All right.  So you did an
18   investigation.  You are a fact investigator for
19   this deposition; correct?
12:00:14 20                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21                THE WITNESS:  Sorry.
22         A.     Not for this deposition.
23         Q.     What's your purpose at this
24   deposition?
0085
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Well, you called me to the
 3   deposition.
 4         Q.     Why?
12:00:22  5                MS. PARK:  Objection, form.
 6         A.     I don't know.
 7                MS. PARK:  You want him to read your
 8         mind.
 9         Q.     You don't know?
12:00:27 10         A.     No.  I don't know why you called me.
11   You can tell me.
12         Q.     Well, did you investigate whether
13   Qing Lin violated the contract?
14         A.     I investigated -- you had
12:00:38 15   complaints.  I looked into those complaints, if
16   that's what you're asking me.
17         Q.     That's what I'm asking you.
18         A.     Yes.
19         Q.     When did you look into them?
12:00:46 20         A.     I don't remember when it started,
21   but I want to say sometime in 2005 is when you
22   and I first spoke.
23         Q.     The beginning of the year, middle of
24   the year, end of the year?  Any idea?
0086
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     I don't remember.  I would guess
 3   second half of the year, but I don't recall
 4   specifically.
12:01:02  5         Q.     Okay.  Second half would be -- the
 6   middle of the year being July 1st.  So it would
 7   be plus or minus a few months; right?
 8         A.     What are you asking me?
 9         Q.     To give an approximate boundaries on
12:01:13 10   the date.
11         A.     Yeah.  I just don't remember.
12         Q.     Okay.
13         A.     I'd be guessing.  I'd be guessing,
14   okay.
12:01:18 15         Q.     Well, I'm asking you to guess.
16         A.     Oh, if you're asking me to guess, I
17   would guess the second half of the year.  So --
18   so May, June or thereafter, but I don't remember
19   specifically.
12:01:28 20         Q.     Okay.  So you did an investigation
21   whether Qing Lin -- whether Qing violated the
22   settlement agreement; correct?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
24         answered, and you're mischaracterizing his
0087
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         testimony.
 3         A.     Yeah.  What I said was, I
 4   investigated complaints that you had.
12:01:53  5         Q.     What was my complaint?
 6         A.     I don't remember explicitly, but
 7   you -- my recollection is that you believed --
 8   you had -- you stated that you gave Qing Lin's
 9   name to a prospective employer as a reference.
12:02:13 10   You directed a prospective employer to speak to
11   Qing Lin to get a reference, and you believed
12   Qing Lin made comments that -- that you didn't
13   fit into the culture or some comment about --
14   about culture, and another comment maybe about
12:02:37 15   ethics.
16                I don't remember exactly what your
17   allegations were, but I remember you had -- you
18   had a few allegations that you were looking for
19   the company to investigate.
12:02:52 20         Q.     And as you understand paragraph 13,
21   is he allowed to make such comments?
22         A.     Is who allowed to make what
23   comments?
24         Q.     Qing.
0088
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Is he allowed to make such
 3   comments --
 4         Q.     To a prospective employer?
12:03:06  5         A.     Yeah -- well, I would say that if
 6   you give his name as a reference --
 7         Q.     Yeah.
 8         A.     -- and say, go ask Qing Lin about --
 9   you know, go ask Qing Lin about me, I would say
12:03:15 10   yes.
11         Q.     Okay.  So he can say whatever he
12   wants; right?
13         A.     That's not what I said.
14         Q.     Oh.  What can he say and what can he
12:03:24 15   not say?
16         A.     You know, you're asking me to
17   speculate.
18         Q.     I'm asking you to read paragraph 13
19   and interpret it.
12:03:30 20                MS. PARK:  Now, Mr. Lindner, and I'm
21         repeating once again that Mr. Brown's role
22         here is as a fact witness.  You're not
23         going to get his legal position on what
24         paragraph 13 is.
0089
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  So -- so paragraph 13, the
 3   second line on it, says that the employee's not
 4   to disclose any information.  Does it say that?
12:04:00  5         A.     The second line says, "employee's
 6   not to disclose any information."
 7         Q.     Any information?
 8         A.     Uh-huh.
 9         Q.     And then it further says, a few
12:04:10 10   lines down, "to direct all requests for
11   references or inquiries," and it says various
12   other things, "to the appropriate human resources
13   individuals"?
14         A.     Uh-huh.
12:04:24 15         Q.     Given that, if somebody were to ask
16   Qing for a reference --
17         A.     Uh-huh.
18         Q.     -- can he give -- can he say
19   anything to that person?
12:04:36 20                MS. PARK:  Objection.
21         A.     Based on this?
22         Q.     Yes, based on that.
23                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Hypothetical.
24         You're asking for a legal conclusion.  He's
0090
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         not giving you a legal conclusion.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  I understand it.
 4         Objection understood.
12:04:49  5         A.     Let me say this --
 6         Q.     Yes.
 7         A.     -- first of all, what this says, the
 8   first line is that the company agrees to instruct
 9   and direct the following employees not to
12:04:55 10   disclose information.
11         Q.     Yup.
12         A.     Okay.  So that is a direction that
13   the company gives to employees.
14         Q.     Yes.
12:05:00 15         A.     The next part of it says that all
16   requests received by the following -- or by such
17   employees regarding Mr. Lindner would be directed
18   to human resources.
19         Q.     So he could say, for instance --
12:05:13 20   tell me if this is consistent with it.  He could
21   tell the person who asked for a reference, please
22   speak to human resources.  Would that be
23   allowable, under your interpretation of
24   paragraph 13?
0091
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Yeah.  I wouldn't have a problem
 3   with it.
 4         Q.     Would paragraph 13 have a problem
12:05:31  5   with it?
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7         A.     You're asking if the document would
 8   have a problem with that?
 9         Q.     Yes, yes.  Would he be violating the
12:05:38 10   document by directing that person to human
11   resources?
12         A.     Are you asking -- if you're asking
13   my legal opinion, the answer would be, it depends
14   on the facts.  So in an instance such as the one
12:05:45 15   as I understand it, which is you actually
16   directed someone to ask -- to get a reference
17   from Qing Lin.
18         Q.     Yes.
19         A.     The answer would be no.
12:05:54 20         Q.     No what?
21         A.     No.  I don't think that would be
22   violating this paragraph.
23         Q.     I agree with you.
24         A.     Okay.
0092
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     If he directed them to a human
 3   resource individual; correct?
 4                MS. PARK:  Okay.  I'm going to
12:06:05  5         direct my client -- and, again, I've
 6         tolerated questions enough here.  He's not
 7         here as an attorney.  He's not here to give
 8         a legal opinion, so you need to move on.
 9                MR. LINDNER:  I understand.  I am
12:06:17 10         moving on.
11         Q.     So this is a settlement agreement;
12   correct?
13                MS. PARK:  We stipulate that the
14         document says "Settlement Agreement and
12:06:24 15         General Release."
16         Q.     If I were to tell that you that I
17   felt that Qing Lin violated a settlement
18   agreement, would you agree that that was your
19   purpose in investigating?
12:06:34 20                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21         A.     Yeah.  What are you asking me?
22         Q.     Wasn't your investigation to find
23   out whether Qing violated the settlement
24   agreement?
0093
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     You know, I was investigating your
 3   complaints, okay.  Your allegations.
 4         Q.     And my complaint is whether he made
12:06:49  5   specific statements; correct?
 6         A.     Yeah.  That was part of it.  Again,
 7   I don't remember what exactly your complaints
 8   were.  Your complaints morphed over time.  There
 9   was a time where there were a lot of e-mails
12:07:01 10   about the code of conduct.  So you were asking me
11   to look into --
12                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're going to
13         run out of tape.
14                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  We'll -- we'll
12:07:07 15         take a break while the tape is changed.
16         We'll be off the record now, if that's okay
17         with counsel.
18                MS. PARK:  Could you note the time.
19                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're off the
12:07:15 20         record at 12:07.
21                (Recess taken.)
22
23
24
0094
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2            A F T E R N O O N    S E S S I O N
 3                        (12:49 p.m.)
 4   J A S O N   K.   B R O W N,
12:07:25  5        having been previously sworn, resumed the
 6        stand and testified further as follows:
 7                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This begins tape
 8         No. 2 in the deposition of Jason Brown.
 9         We're on the record at 12:49.
12:49:53 10                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  This is Pete
11         Lindner speaking.  We were going to start
12         at 12:40, but the other side wasn't there.
13         I note that for the record.
14   EXAMINATION (Cont'd.)
12:49:49 15   BY MR. LINDNER:
16         Q.     So Jason, I'm going to ask a series
17   of questions, and I guess what I'm asking here,
18   if you have no objections, I'd like to jump
19   around so that we cover all the topics so you
12:50:29 20   don't have to come back a second day.
21                Do you find that agreeable?
22                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, Mr. Brown is
23         not coming back for a second day by court
24         order.
0095
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  Right.  That's why I
 3         wanted to jump around.
 4                MS. PARK:  Ask him a question.
12:50:44  5         Q.     So -- have you met me in the
 6   courthouse before?
 7         A.     Have I met you in this courthouse
 8   before?
 9         Q.     Southern District of New York, yes.
12:50:58 10         A.     Yes.
11         Q.     When was that?
12         A.     I don't remember.
13         Q.     Do you remember the circumstances?
14         A.     We had a settlement conference in
12:51:03 15   front of the magistrate.  You were -- it was you
16   and your attorney and Jean Park and myself.
17         Q.     And the magistrate?
18         A.     And the magistrate.  There was I
19   think a court reporter at some point.  I'm not
12:51:17 20   listing everyone.  I'm just trying to answer your
21   question to make sure we're talking about the
22   same thing.
23         Q.     No.  That's indeed the same one.
24   It's Magistrate Judge Katz?
0096
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Uh-huh.
 3         Q.     Very good.
 4         A.     Yes.
12:51:28  5         Q.     And in what capacity were you there?
 6         A.     In what capacity?  I was
 7   representing American Express.
 8         Q.     So are you what you'd call a
 9   30(b)(6) representative?
12:51:38 10         A.     Am I right now a 30(b)(6) --
11         Q.     No, no.  Back at the settlement
12   conference?
13         A.     No.  That's not what I would call
14   myself.
12:51:45 15         Q.     What were you there, in what
16   capacity?
17                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
18         answered.  He said he was there as a
19         company representative.
12:51:50 20         A.     I was there representing the
21   company.
22         Q.     As their lawyer?
23         A.     As one of their lawyers, yes.  Their
24   in-house lawyer.
0097
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  As opposed to, let's say, an
 3   executive?
 4                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12:52:03  5         A.     I don't know what you're asking me.
 6   I'm sorry.
 7         Q.     Well, for instance, what is your
 8   title at American Express?
 9         A.     Vice president and senior counsel.
12:52:11 10         Q.     Okay.  So vice president.  There are
11   many vice presidents?
12         A.     Right.
13         Q.     But senior counsel is a lawyer?
14         A.     Senior counsel, yeah.  That's right.
12:52:19 15         Q.     So were you there as senior counsel
16   or were you there as vice president?
17                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
18         A.     I was just there as part of my job.
19   I mean, I don't -- it's not -- as you mentioned,
12:52:31 20   I think correctly so, my band level in AMEX is as
21   a vice president, okay.  I am a vice president.
22   My title, my job title, is senior counsel.  So I
23   was there in my capacity as an in-house lawyer
24   for American Express.
0098
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  Do you recall why you were
 3   chosen to come today?
 4                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12:52:57  5         Assuming facts that haven't been
 6         established.
 7         Q.     You came to that settlement
 8   conference.  Who instructed you to come to that
 9   conference?
12:53:05 10                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11         Assuming facts that haven't been
12         established.
13         A.     No one instructed me.
14         Q.     You came on your own free will?
12:53:11 15                MS. PARK:  No.  He came against his
16         will.  Move on, Mr. Lindner.  I'm directing
17         my client not to respond.
18         Q.     I'm asking you who asked to you
19   come?
12:53:18 20                MS. PARK:  And I'm asking you to
21         move on.
22         A.     Didn't I answer the question?
23         Q.     Pardon?
24         A.     Didn't I answer the question?
0099
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Well, please answer it again.  I
 3   didn't catch it.
 4         A.     You're asking -- what is your
12:53:30  5   question?  Can we get to what your question is.
 6         Q.     Who asked to you come to the
 7   settlement conference?
 8         A.     No one asked me to come to the
 9   settlement conference.  The settlement conference
12:53:38 10   was scheduled.  As part of my job, it made sense
11   for me to go.
12         Q.     Okay.
13         A.     Now, I should say that there are
14   some settlement conferences where Courts require
12:53:50 15   that an in-house lawyer or someone from the
16   company attend.  I don't remember if that
17   settlement conference was one in which the judge
18   ordered it, but it was part of my job to go.
19         Q.     Well, actually, that is what I'm
12:54:05 20   asking.
21         A.     You're asking me if the judge
22   ordered it?  I don't remember.
23         Q.     Right.
24         A.     Okay.
0100
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     You don't remember?
 3         A.     No, I don't remember.
 4         Q.     What would refresh your memory?
12:54:17  5         A.     If I saw a court order saying that I
 6   had to be there.
 7         Q.     But sometimes court orders can be
 8   verbal; correct?
 9         A.     Yeah, I guess so.
12:54:24 10         Q.     Would you have a document or memo
11   that would indicate that?
12         A.     Would I have a document or memo
13   indicating what?
14                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12:54:32 15         Q.     Indicating whether you were ordered
16   to come by the judge or whether he asked for an
17   executive to come or whether he asked for a
18   lawyer to come.  Do you remember if you got a
19   memo or any written document?
12:54:47 20         A.     No, I don't remember.
21                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, if you're
22         asking Mr. Brown to divulge any
23         communications that he had with me or my
24         firm concerning any court orders, then once
0101
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         again my objection stands.  You're not
 3         going to get information protected by the
 4         attorney-client privilege.
12:55:06  5         Q.     Specifically I'm asking that because
 6   I was told that an executive of AMEX was going to
 7   come to that meeting.  Would you consider
 8   yourself in that meeting an executive?
 9         A.     Sure.
12:55:19 10         Q.     So if I said I want an executive,
11   not a lawyer, then would you consider yourself an
12   executive, not a lawyer?
13                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner --
14         A.     If you said that to me?
12:55:31 15         Q.     Yes.  If I told my lawyer that if
16   only lawyers are going to the settlement
17   conference, I would send my lawyer.  And my
18   lawyer then told me, no, the judge asked for an
19   executive.  And when we went to the meeting,
12:55:46 20   there you were.  So were you there as an
21   executive or were you there as a lawyer?
22                MS. PARK:  I'm instructing my client
23         not to answer.
24                You move on, Mr. Lindner.
0102
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     You know who would be able to answer
 3   that?
 4                MS. PARK:  I am instructing my
12:55:59  5         client not to respond.  Move on.
 6         Q.     All right.  When you -- when you
 7   went to this deposition today, you realized it
 8   was going to be videotaped; correct?
 9         A.     I realized it --
12:56:19 10         Q.     Did you know it was going to be
11   videotaped?
12         A.     When I showed up today?
13         Q.     Prior to today.  Prior to showing
14   up?
12:56:25 15         A.     Yes.
16         Q.     How did you know?
17         A.     I was told by my lawyer.
18         Q.     And that lawyer is whom?
19         A.     Jean Park.
12:56:32 20         Q.     Thank you very much.  And did you
21   change the way you came here because it was
22   videotaped as opposed to not being videotaped?
23         A.     Took a cab.  I don't understand what
24   you're asking me.
0103
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     In other words, for instance -- let
 3   me ask a different question.
 4         A.     Yes.
12:56:52  5         Q.     Is this what you wear normally to
 6   work?
 7         A.     This suit?
 8         Q.     A suit with a tie?
 9         A.     No.  I don't wear a suit to work.
12:56:59 10   Not frequently.
11         Q.     But you did today?
12         A.     Right.  When I come to court, I
13   typically wear a suit.
14         Q.     Okay.  That's very good.
12:57:12 15                And knowing that it's videotaped or
16   not does not affect what you'd wear, because you
17   would wear a suit whether -- when you come to
18   court at all?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12:57:24 20         A.     Yeah.  I don't know.  I mean, I
21   think, you know, as a lawyer who used to practice
22   in this court and in other courts --
23         Q.     Yes.
24         A.     -- I would certainly come properly
0104
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   attired.  So I think properly attired would
 3   certainly be a jacket.  Would I wear a tie if I
 4   were coming to court and I wasn't before a judge?
12:57:44  5   I don't know.
 6         Q.     Okay.  You -- before lunch we spoke
 7   about the settlement -- your investigation.  And
 8   you said you didn't know why -- what my specific
 9   problem was that you were investigating.
12:58:09 10                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11                You're mischaracterizing his
12         testimony.
13         Q.     Can you say what you were
14   investigating?
12:58:16 15         A.     You're asking -- can you ask me the
16   question again.  I'm just not following.
17         Q.     What were you investigating?
18                MS. PARK:  Objection.
19         Q.     You're here as an investigator, are
12:58:24 20   you not?
21         A.     I'm here as a witness.  I think the
22   answer to your question, I think, if I understand
23   your question correctly, is you had complaints
24   and you had asked me to investigate them.
0105
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     And you don't remember what the
 3   complaint was?
 4         A.     As I said before, I don't recall
12:58:42  5   exactly what they were.  My recollection, without
 6   it being refreshed by any documents or anything
 7   else, was that you claimed that you were told by
 8   a prospective employer, Fisher Jordan, that Qing
 9   Lin had said something like Peter Lindner doesn't
12:59:05 10   fit into the culture or there is a cultural
11   issue.  And something about your ethics -- I'm
12   sorry, your work ethic.  But I don't remember
13   exactly what it was.
14                And I think I also testified earlier
12:59:18 15   that my recollection right now, again, without
16   looking at documents, is that your complaints
17   morphed a little bit over time.
18         Q.     Right.
19         A.     There were a lot of e-mails that you
12:59:30 20   were sending with a lot of information about
21   conspiracies in the past and Nixon.  It was a
22   little bit -- there was a lot.  There were a lot
23   of e-mails and a lot to it.
24         Q.     Would it be reasonable to assume
0106
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   that -- that the settlement agreement was part of
 3   my concern?
 4                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12:59:52  5                You're asking him to read your mind
 6         and what's reasonable?
 7         Q.     What were you using as a basis to
 8   see if my objections were correct?
 9                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13:00:01 10         A.     What was I using as -- I'm sorry,
11   ask that question again.
12                MR. LINDNER:  Can you read back the
13         question, Amy.
14                (Record read.)
13:00:25 15         A.     I -- I spoke to people, some of whom
16   you asked me to speak to, to try to corroborate
17   what you were claiming.
18         Q.     You didn't -- it didn't matter
19   whether -- the settlement agreement was not part
13:00:44 20   of that investigation?
21                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22         A.     Well, you were claiming, and I guess
23   you're claiming in this case, you're claiming a
24   breach of the settlement agreement.
0107
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  Do you think you were
 3   investigating a breach of the settlement
 4   agreement?
13:01:00  5                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 6         answered, repeatedly.
 7         A.     Yeah.  And I don't remember.  As I
 8   said --
 9         Q.     You don't remember what?
13:01:07 10         A.     Well, my recollection is that you --
11   you called and you and I started having
12   discussions prior to your filing this lawsuit.
13   Your complaint was or did arise out of, at least,
14   I think in part, the settlement agreement that
13:01:22 15   you referred to.
16         Q.     Okay.  And that's actually what I am
17   referring to.
18         A.     Okay.  But if you can be more
19   specific, it would help me.
13:01:36 20         Q.     So look at paragraph 13 of the
21   settlement agreement.  Oh, wait.  Which copy did
22   I give you?  Did I give you my copy?  No, I gave
23   you the official one.
24                If you look at paragraph 13 --
0108
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Just note for the record
 3         that the witness is referring to
 4         Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
13:01:52  5                MR. LINDNER:  Correct.
 6         Q.     In that -- in that document it
 7   states specifically what seven people, one of
 8   them is Qing, can or cannot say?
 9         A.     I mean --
13:02:12 10                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  The
11         document speaks for itself.
12         Q.     Does it?  The document speaks for
13   itself; right?
14         A.     Yes.
13:02:18 15         Q.     What does it say?
16         A.     You want me to read this paragraph
17   again?
18         Q.     I want you to summarize it for a
19   jury.
13:02:23 20         A.     There is no jury here.
21         Q.     There will be.  They might be
22   viewing this.
23         A.     So repeat your question, please.
24         Q.     Can you summarize what paragraph 13
0109
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   says in a form that a jury can understand?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     Sure.  "The company agrees to
13:02:37  5   instruct and direct the following employees of
 6   the company" --
 7         Q.     Well, I don't want you to read the
 8   words.  I want you to summarize it using -- using
 9   not the exact language --
13:02:51 10         A.     Okay.
11         Q.     -- to something that a jury can
12   understand who are not lawyers.  In other words,
13   if this were a bench trial --
14         A.     But I don't know who the jury is so
13:02:59 15   I don't know whether they can understand.
16         Q.     You don't.  Let me just say it will
17   be a cross-section of New Yorkers.  Okay?
18         A.     So you're asking me to speculate as
19   to who is going to be able to understand what I'm
13:03:09 20   saying?
21         Q.     Yes.  I'm asking you to use your 20
22   or 30 years of experience in dealing with people,
23   in dealing with adults who are of voting age who
24   may or may not be on a jury and figure out how
0110
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   their understanding may differ from that of a
 3   trained lawyer or a trained judge.
 4                MS. PARK:  And I'm directing my
13:03:31  5         client not to respond to that question.
 6         Congratulations, Jason, you were a lawyer
 7         when you were 10.
 8                Move on.
 9                MR. LINDNER:  I said 20 or 30,
13:03:40 10         didn't I?  Can you read back my answer,
11         Amy -- my statement.  Did I say how many
12         years he was a lawyer?
13                (Record read.)
14         Q.     So did I say, according to what you
13:04:10 15   just heard, that I said you were a lawyer for 20
16   or 30 years?
17                MS. PARK:  Objection.  The record
18         speaks for itself.
19                Move on.
13:04:16 20                I'm directing you not -- I'm
21         directing you not to answer.
22                MR. LINDNER:  I'm directing this to
23         Ms. Park.  You misstated what I asked.  You
24         said that, sarcastically, I note that I
0111
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         said that he was a certain age because
 3         I'm -- what was your -- can you read
 4         back --
13:04:33  5                MS. PARK:  I'm not a witness.  Move
 6         on.  Ask the witness a question.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  I object to
 8         your consistently interrupting this
 9         discussion for whatever purpose.
13:04:44 10                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Move on.
11                MR. LINDNER:  For whatever purpose
12         because I said 20 or 30 years in dealing
13         with people, and that meant that he's 20
14         years old or possibly 30 years old, and on
13:04:56 15         that basis then you made a sarcastic
16         comment.
17                So, Ms. Park, although many people
18         may find you very funny, I sometimes do,
19         I'd really appreciate if you'd keep your
13:05:09 20         humor to yourself and not interrupt this
21         deposition.
22                MS. PARK:  Move on.
23         Q.     So, yes, I'm asking you, how would
24   you explain that in simple terms, without reading
0112
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   that paragraph 13, what the intent is?
 3         A.     Okay.
 4                MS. PARK:  All right.  And I'm going
13:05:24  5         to once again direct my client not to
 6         answer that question.  You're asking him
 7         for -- to discern the intent of a document
 8         that he has testified he was not a part of
 9         drafting.  That's the first objection.
13:05:36 10                The second objection, once again, is
11         that this is completely irrelevant to
12         Mr. Brown's role as a fact witness in this
13         case and you're not going to get him --
14                MR. LINDNER:  What facts was he
13:05:47 15         investigating?
16                MS. PARK:  I'm not a witness,
17         Mr. Lindner.  So I'm not answering your
18         questions.
19         Q.     Well, I feel -- correct me if I'm
13:05:53 20   wrong --
21                MS. PARK:  No, Mr. Lindner --
22                MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park.
23         Wait until I give the question before.
24         Q.     Were you investigating whether Qing
0113
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   Lin violated the settlement agreement?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 4         answered --
13:06:05  5         Q.     Yes or no?
 6                MS. PARK:  -- at least half a dozen
 7         times at this juncture.
 8         Q.     Yes or no?
 9         A.     As I said before, I was
13:06:11 10   investigating the complaints that you made.
11         Q.     Okay.
12         A.     I don't recall exactly how you
13   framed --
14         Q.     I understand it.
13:06:15 15         A.     Okay.
16         Q.     I am asserting right now, and I
17   think I asserted back then, that I'm relying upon
18   this document.
19                Do you think it's reasonable that I
13:06:25 20   would use this document as a basis for what you
21   were investigating in, I'd say, about July of
22   2000 -- July, August of 2005?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24                Mr. Brown can't read your mind or
0114
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         determine what you believed was reasonable.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  But he can read
 4         e-mails, and I think he read e-mails, so
13:06:55  5         that's what I'm asking.
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7         A.     Again, so just -- I'm happy to try
 8   to answer your question.
 9         Q.     Just try to answer it.
13:06:58 10         A.     But -- if I may.
11         Q.     Sure.
12         A.     As I explained to you before, I
13   don't remember when this came in, okay.
14         Q.     I understand that.
13:07:02 15         A.     And I don't remember the various
16   iterations that it came in.  And I think you just
17   asked me when I was investigating this in July, I
18   think you said, of 2005.
19         Q.     July, August.
13:07:16 20         A.     Okay.  What was I investigating.
21         Q.     Yeah.
22         A.     And again, all I remember, without
23   having my recollection better refreshed, is that
24   I was investigating what you complained of at the
0115
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   time.  And I don't remember if you complained of
 3   this agreement at the time or not.  I just don't
 4   recall.
13:07:34  5         Q.     Do you keep files on such things?
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7                What things?
 8         Q.     On your investigations?
 9         A.     I take notes -- well, let me answer
13:07:46 10   it this way:  I have a file that I have on this
11   case.
12         Q.     Does that file have a name?
13         A.     Yeah.  It says either Peter Lindner
14   or P. Lindner or Lindner.
13:08:05 15         Q.     And is it paper or is it on
16   computer?
17         A.     Paper.
18         Q.     Do you also have it on computer?
19         A.     I don't have -- I don't have a
13:08:13 20   computerized file of my documents.
21         Q.     Do you have -- do you use a computer
22   in your work?
23         A.     Yeah.
24         Q.     Would you have a document on there
0116
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   that relates to a Peter Lindner file?  Like a
 3   folder?  You're familiar with Microsoft Windows?
 4         A.     Yeah.  But I don't --
13:08:29  5                MS. PARK:  Which question do you
 6         want him to answer?
 7                MR. LINDNER:  He's answered it.
 8                MS. PARK:  No.  You asked two
 9         questions.
13:08:34 10                MR. LINDNER:  That's okay.
11                MS. PARK:  Which one do you want him
12         to respond to?
13         A.     Okay.  I'll try to answer both.
14         Q.     Thank you.
13:08:42 15         A.     I am familiar with Microsoft
16   Windows.
17         Q.     Thank you.
18         A.     I don't have a particular Peter
19   Lindner file on Microsoft Windows on my computer,
13:08:50 20   if that's what you're asking me.
21         Q.     Do you have any e-mails from me?
22         A.     Yes.
23         Q.     How would you determine that?
24         A.     How would I determine if I have
0117
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   e-mails from you?
 3         Q.     Yes.
 4         A.     It would have your name as the
13:09:01  5   person who sent it to me.
 6         Q.     And you would -- how would you find
 7   that if you were on the computer?  For instance,
 8   if you were sitting at your computer right now?
 9         A.     Oh, I would -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
13:09:14 10         Q.     How would you find it?
11         A.     I would search by your name.
12         Q.     And where would you search?  Do you
13   have an e-mail directory?  Is that like Lotus
14   Notes or Microsoft Outlook --
13:09:23 15         A.     We have Lotus Notes.
16         Q.     So you would look in Lotus Notes.
17   You'd do a search for what?
18                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
19         answered.
13:09:32 20                MR. LINDNER:  No, it's not.
21         A.     There could be a number of ways I
22   could do it.
23         Q.     That's what I'm asking.  Ms. Park
24   again interrupted when you were going to say
0118
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   there's a number of ways.  She was wrong that
 3   there's just not one way.  So please tell me as
 4   many of the ways?
13:09:45  5         A.     Well, I don't know all of the ways.
 6   But I know I could sort my e-mails, my inbox, and
 7   it would sort by person's e-mail address, the
 8   sender, and it would have the e-mails that you
 9   sent to me.
13:09:57 10         Q.     Okay.
11         A.     I could also search through the
12   search bar for your name, which would also bring
13   up e-mails from you.
14         Q.     Okay.  Now, if there was an e-mail
13:10:09 15   from you to somebody else that mentioned me,
16   would you be able to find it?
17         A.     Yeah.  Should be able to.
18         Q.     But it wouldn't be under the "To" or
19   the "From."  You'd be searching on the content of
13:10:22 20   the e-mail; is that correct?
21         A.     Yeah.  I don't know the exact
22   technology.  I mean, you're the technology
23   person.  But I know that if I were to search, put
24   your name in the search box, it would bring up
0119
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   e-mails that had your name in it, even if you had
 3   not sent it to me.
 4         Q.     Okay.  Or if I hadn't received it?
13:10:44  5   If neither the sender nor the receiver were Peter
 6   Lindner, but Peter Lindner was mentioned in the
 7   body of the e-mail, you could still find it?
 8         A.     That's my understanding of the way
 9   it works.  Again, I'm not a technology person.  I
13:10:56 10   don't know the ins and outs of Lotus Notes.  But
11   my understanding is if you put a word, it will
12   bring up the e-mails that have that word in it,
13   yeah.
14         Q.     Did you do a search for e-mails
13:11:08 15   related to me?
16         A.     Yes.
17         Q.     And what did you do with them?
18         A.     Gave them to my lawyer.
19         Q.     Do you have an approximate idea of
13:11:17 20   how many e-mails there were?
21         A.     No idea.  A lot.
22         Q.     A lot.
23         A.     Seemed to me a lot.  I remember you
24   sent a lot of e-mails.
0120
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Roughly.  Give me a rough number?
 3         A.     I have no idea.
 4         Q.     Like five or a hundred or a
13:11:31  5   thousand?
 6         A.     No, more than five.  I don't think
 7   it was a thousand.  But it was certainly more
 8   than five.  And I wouldn't have been surprised if
 9   it was more than a hundred, but I don't know.  I
13:11:41 10   didn't count them.
11         Q.     No.  I understand.
12                Do you know how many of them were
13   neither from me nor to me?
14         A.     No.
13:11:55 15         Q.     Were any of them mine or you didn't
16   even check?
17                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
18                Which question?  You keep asking him
19         two questions.
13:11:58 20                MR. LINDNER:  He's answering okay.
21                MS. PARK:  No.  Mr. Lindner,
22         objection to form.  You need to ask him one
23         question and let him answer it.
24         A.     You want to know what?
0121
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  Can you read back my
 3         question, Amy?
 4                MS. PARK:  Which one?
13:12:24  5                (Record read.)
 6         Q.     Were any of the e-mails not from me
 7   or to me?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9         A.     I think so.  I don't remember, but I
13:12:37 10   think so.
11         Q.     You think that there were --
12         A.     I think there were e-mails that I
13   sent -- that I produced to Kelley Drye, to Jean
14   Park, that were not between you and me as a
13:12:47 15   sender and receiver.
16         Q.     Thank you.  Can you identify or
17   would you have to identify what those are?
18         A.     I don't remember them.  If you have
19   them in front of me, I could -- I could try to
13:13:02 20   tell you if it was something that I had printed
21   off or pulled off my e-mail.
22         Q.     Okay.  Well, actually, I don't
23   recall that I have any e-mails that were sent
24   from you to anyone else that had me.
0122
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  So I'd like to make a
 3         request for production of those e-mails,
 4         Ms. Park.
13:13:20  5                MS. PARK:  And I've repeatedly told
 6         that you any and all responsive e-mails
 7         that are not protected by the
 8         attorney-client privilege have already been
 9         produced to you, Mr. Lindner.
13:13:29 10                MR. LINDNER:  Well, actually, I
11         don't think you said that.  As I recall
12         what you said, is that you made that
13         statement, but later you clarified it to
14         the Court that there were no e-mails that
13:13:40 15         had attorney-client privilege in them at
16         all, because if they did have
17         attorney-client privilege, you would have
18         identified what the basis for that
19         privilege was so that we can see if that
13:13:51 20         was correct.  And you said there were none.
21                MS. PARK:  And, no, Mr. Lindner,
22         that is in fact a mischaracterization of my
23         statement to the Court.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Can you characterize
0123
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         it correctly, then?
 3                MS. PARK:  I made it very clear to
 4         the Court that I certainly was not talking
13:14:02  5         about e-mails that American Express,
 6         Mr. Brown, would have had with Kelley
 7         Drye & Warren, which would be e-mails in
 8         connection with this case, which would be
 9         e-mail protected by the attorney-client
13:14:12 10         privilege.
11         Q.     So that might be what you're talking
12   about, that you sent an e-mail to Kelley Drye
13   Warren that mentioned me?
14         A.     Yeah, I could have.
13:14:21 15         Q.     Could have?
16         A.     I'm sure -- I'm sure I did.
17         Q.     Do you think you sent it to people
18   other than Kelley Drye Warren?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13:14:30 20                What is it?
21                MR. LINDNER:  E-mails.
22         A.     Did I send e-mails to people other
23   than Kelley Drye Warren?
24         Q.     That had my name in it?
0124
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Yes.
 3         Q.     Can you identify who those people
 4   are?
13:14:41  5         A.     There was another law firm.
 6         Q.     Oh.  Different lawyers?  All
 7   attorney-client privilege?
 8         A.     Yeah.  I would they're privileged,
 9   right.
13:14:52 10         Q.     Do you know the name of the law
11   firm?
12         A.     No.  And, again, I don't know that I
13   e-mailed directly with that law firm, so -- look,
14   Mr. Lindner, I don't know -- let me say this so
13:15:04 15   I'm very clear:  I don't know what e-mails I have
16   regarding communications with you or about you.
17   You know --
18         Q.     About me?
19         A.     You sent a tremendous amount of
13:15:16 20   e-mails --
21         Q.     I understand that.
22         A.     -- to me, to other people -- other
23   people in the company.
24         Q.     Right.
0125
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     So if you're asking --
 3         Q.     I'm asking specifically, have you
 4   sent e-mails to anyone in the company, other than
13:15:31  5   attorneys, referencing me?
 6         A.     I don't know offhand.
 7         Q.     Would you be able to find out?
 8         A.     I should be able to, yeah.
 9         Q.     Can I ask you to do that, please.
13:15:46 10                MS. PARK:  You can ask all you want.
11         Move on.
12                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  I note for the
13         record that Jason Brown says he will check
14         his computer to see if he had any e-mails
13:15:56 15         that he sent to anybody other than to
16         Kelley Drye or the other attorneys that
17         mentioned me.
18         Q.     Is that an accurate statement of
19   what you said?
13:16:07 20         A.     I didn't say that.  Is that your
21   request?
22         Q.     That is my request.  But can you say
23   it in your own words.
24                MS. PARK:  No.  No, Mr. Lindner.
0126
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Can you tell me what you want me to
 3   do?  You know --
 4         Q.     You know, I want -- I want you to
13:16:18  5   check to see if you sent any e-mails to anyone
 6   else at American Express that mentioned me.
 7         A.     Okay.
 8         Q.     And give me a list of them.
 9         A.     Well, that's not the way it's going
13:16:31 10   to work.
11         Q.     How will it work?
12         A.     Well, it will go through the normal
13   document discovery process.  You'll have to work
14   that out with Jean and with the Court.  In other
13:16:41 15   words, I'm not going to start just sending
16   documents to you.
17         Q.     No, you don't have to.  You can send
18   it to Ms. Park, but identify them as -- as --
19   that they were sent to other people within
13:16:53 20   American Express Corporation.
21         A.     Okay.  I think I understand what
22   you're saying.
23         Q.     You can say it in your own words.
24                MS. PARK:  No, Mr. Lindner.  Move
0127
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         on.  Your request has been noted and
 3         that's -- that's enough.
 4         Q.     Do you ever copy a law firm just so
13:17:25  5   that you can claim attorney-client privilege?
 6         A.     Say that again.
 7         Q.     In other words, suppose you want to
 8   send a letter to a party, party A, let's say Qing
 9   Lin, and you want to ask Qing a question.  But
13:17:30 10   you're afraid that it might be discoverable, so
11   you copy Kelley Drye Warren so that it be said
12   that it was a communication to Kelley Drye
13   Warren, even though it was actually only to Qing?
14                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13:17:48 15         Argumentative.
16                Mr. Lindner, why don't you just ask
17         him if he ever sent an e-mail to Mr. Lin
18         regarding you.  Why don't you start there.
19         Q.     Have you ever sent an e-mail to
13:17:57 20   anyone else in American Express Corporation
21   regarding me?
22         A.     I don't remember.  I think I said
23   that.
24         Q.     Can you produce that list of people?
0128
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, we're not
 3         producing, for example, e-mails concerning
 4         your bid for a seat on the board of
13:18:13  5         directors of American Express which have
 6         absolutely nothing to do with your claims
 7         here in this case, okay.
 8                This matter has been visited and
 9         revisited with the Court on numerous
13:18:23 10         occasions.  You're wasting time.  Move on.
11         Q.     Do you know of my bid for the board
12   of American Express?
13         A.     I remember that.
14         Q.     Do you remember anything else about
13:18:35 15   it?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17         A.     Yeah.  Specifically what are you
18   asking?
19         Q.     Was there a shareholder proposal
13:18:42 20   involved?
21         A.     I think so.  I don't remember all
22   the details of what you were claiming.
23         Q.     What do you remember?
24         A.     I remember that I think you were --
0129
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   you were -- I think you were actually trying to
 3   become a member of the board.  I don't remember.
 4         Q.     No.  That's right.
13:18:58  5         A.     Okay.
 6         Q.     But there were also a shareholder
 7   proposal.
 8                MS. PARK:  Is there a question or
 9         are you making a statement?
13:19:04 10                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking if he
11         remembers a shareholder proposal.
12         A.     No.  Not specifically.
13         Q.     Well, I'm not sure I brought it
14   along, but -- actually, I did have a shareholder
13:19:15 15   proposal and --
16                MS. PARK:  And Judge Katz expressly
17         said that your bid for a seat on the board
18         of directors and your shareholder
19         activities have nothing to do with this
13:19:29 20         action.  So you can show M.r -- Mr. Brown
21         these documents all you want, I'm going to
22         direct him not to respond, and I'm going to
23         ask you to move on.
24         Q.     Do you know Harold Schwartz?
0130
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     I do.
 3         Q.     Who is he?
 4         A.     He is an attorney at American
13:20:13  5   Express.
 6         Q.     How do you know him?
 7         A.     We work together.
 8         Q.     Okay.  Have you ever discussed my
 9   case with him?
13:20:24 10                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  And
11         I'm going to direct Mr. Brown not to
12         respond on the grounds of attorney-client
13         privilege and communication.
14                MR. LINDNER:  I have an exhibit that
13:20:38 15         I want to enter.  So I'm going to -- we're
16         going to take a break while Amy puts the
17         stickers on it.  But I'm going to note it
18         as Plaintiff Brown 00101.  Ms. Amy told me
19         I used the wrong numbering scheme, but
13:21:07 20         she's going to put the real number on it.
21         Amy, I'm giving this to you.
22                MS. PARK:  So Ms. Sikora, so you
23         know, we have several documents marked
24         Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, so I'm -- are you
0131
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         going to be remarking another plaintiff's
 3         Exhibit 1?
 4                THE REPORTER:  Can we go off the
13:21:33  5         record so I can talk to you, because it's
 6         hard for me to write what I'm saying.
 7                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're off the
 8         record at 1:21.
 9                (Discussion off the record.)
13:22:56 10                (Plaintiff Brown Exhibit No. 101,
11         11/9/06 e-mail correspondence to S. Norman
12         from P. Lindner, cc's to H. Schwartz and
13         SEC Corporate Finance, marked for
14         identification as of this date.)
13:22:57 15                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're back on the
16         record at 1:22.
17         Q.     I'm going to hand you a document,
18   Plaintiff Brown 101.  And it's dated Thursday,
19   November 9, 2006, 11:21 p.m.  And in it -- it's
13:23:20 20   from me.  Do you see who it's to?
21         A.     It says Steven P. Norman.
22         Q.     Who is he?
23         A.     He is an employee at American
24   Express.  He's the corporate secretary.
0132
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     And who else is copied?
 3         A.     Oh, Harold Schwartz and SEC
 4   Corporate Finance.  The e-mail address is
13:23:40  5   cfletters@sec.gov.
 6         Q.     Right.  And this is about my
 7   shareholder proposal?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection.
 9         Q.     Can you read what the subject is.
13:23:50 10         A.     Subject:  American Express:  Rule
11   14A8 "No action."  Process reasons should be
12   negotiated before submission to SEC."
13         Q.     Okay.  Can you read the first
14   sentence after "Dear Mr. Norman."
13:24:09 15                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, why don't
16         you start with asking Mr. Brown if he
17         recognized this document.
18                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking if he can
19         read it.
13:24:18 20                MS. PARK:  No.  You know what?  Then
21         I'm going to direct him not to respond.
22         This is irrelevant.  Move on.
23         Q.     Can you read that first sentence?
24                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing him
0133
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         not to respond.  Move on.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is
 4         noted.
13:24:32  5         Q.     Does the first sentence say that
 6   Harold Schwartz informed me of your objections to
 7   my shareholder proposal?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection.  I'm going to
 9         direct my client not to respond.  Move on.
13:24:44 10         Q.     When I said this memo was about my
11   shareholder proposal, I thought that would be a
12   little easier to understand that American Express
13   Rule 14 A8, no action process.  Reason should be
14   negotiated before submission to SEC.  Do you
13:25:03 15   understand both of those sentences?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection.  I'm going to
17         direct my client not to respond.  Move on.
18                MR. LINDNER:  What is your objection
19         for having him not respond?
13:25:13 20                MS. PARK:  Irrelevant.  Move on.
21         Q.     Have you seen this document before,
22   Jason?
23         A.     I don't recall seeing it.  I haven't
24   looked through the whole thing yet.  So do you
0134
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   want to give me a second?
 3         Q.     I'll give you a second.
 4         A.     Okay.
13:26:26  5         Q.     Can I direct you to the second page,
 6   just in the interest of time.
 7         A.     Uh-huh.
 8         Q.     The next-to-last paragraph.  It
 9   says, "Moreover."  Can you read that paragraph.
13:26:39 10                MS. PARK:  Okay.  Mr. Lindner,
11         you've asked him if he recognized this
12         document.  If he's seen it before.  Can you
13         let him first answer that question.
14                MR. LINDNER:  Well, he doesn't have
13:26:48 15         time.  We don't have time.  So I'm going to
16         withdraw that question and ask him to read
17         starting with "Moreover."
18         A.     Right here?
19         Q.     Yes.
13:26:57 20         A.     "Moreover, I pointed out to Hal, who
21   suggested that he had no idea how to get the
22   data, that one way is via the web.  AMEX could
23   address people who have ever been fired or
24   compromised by AMEX in the last 10 years to
0135
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   respond with their particulars to the group whom
 3   AMEX is delegating to investigate.  Hal said I
 4   should not see the data.  I told Hal that I did
13:27:16  5   not want to the see the data, but I wanted
 6   someone competent to review the data on the
 7   history of code of" -- "on the history of code of
 8   conduct violations and to survey the Fortune 100
 9   (or Fortune 1000 companies) to see how their code
13:27:30 10   of conduct handles situations and to get
11   academics involved.  Hal scoffed at academics,
12   but I feel that there are knowledgeable people in
13   this area who are not company executives."
14         Q.     Okay.  Would it be fair to summarize
13:27:43 15   that what you just read is that, assuming that
16   it's on the subject of shareholder proposals,
17   which I am going to tell you it is, that this had
18   to do with violations of the AMEX code of conduct
19   in the last 10 years?
13:28:00 20                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21         A.     I've got to be honest with you.
22   Mr. Lindner, reading this out of context, I don't
23   know what you -- what this is referring to.  I'm
24   not trying to be difficult.  I just don't really
0136
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   know -- there is a reference to the code of
 3   conduct.  I don't know what this means.
 4                MS. PARK:  You're asking him to
13:28:16  5         testify as to what you meant?
 6                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking him to read
 7         that.
 8         A.     I read it.  I just don't --
 9         Q.     That's okay.  You're not the only
13:28:23 10   one who can speak in confusing sentences.  I can
11   make confusing sentences, too.
12         A.     I'm not trying to be confusing.  I'm
13   not trying to be confusing.
14         Q.     I know.  I understand.  You know,
13:28:35 15   whatever.  So I say, in the sentence above where
16   it says item 1, that "I am asking that the code
17   of conduct be updated by first conducting a study
18   of all the cases that went wrong under the old or
19   current code of conduct."
13:29:01 20                Do you see that sentence?
21         A.     I do.
22         Q.     Does that make sense to you?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Form.
24         Q.     Do you understand that sentence?
0137
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Form.
 3         A.     Are you asking if I understand what
 4   you were asking for?
13:29:12  5         Q.     Yes.
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7         A.     I think so.
 8         Q.     Very good.  If you had to explain it
 9   to a layman, to a jury, how would you explain
13:29:19 10   that?
11                MS. PARK:  Okay.  Mr. Lindner, hang
12         on a second.  I'm going to direct my client
13         not to respond.  Mr. Lindner, this is
14         irrelevant.  I've tolerated how many
13:29:28 15         minutes of this line of questioning?
16                MR. LINDNER:  I don't know,
17         Ms. Park.
18                MS. PARK:  Move on.  I'm directing
19         my client not to respond.
13:29:34 20                MR. LINDNER:  Yes.  I understand
21         that.
22         Q.     So Ms. Park's objections
23   notwithstanding --
24                MS. PARK:  It's not an objection.
0138
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         It's a direction.  I'm directing my client
 3         not to answer.  Move on.
 4         Q.     Ms. Park's directions -- erroneous
13:29:50  5   directions are that she doesn't want you to
 6   respond.  But I'm making a shareholder proposal
 7   based upon violations of the code of conduct.  So
 8   now --
 9                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, Judge Katz
13:30:03 10         has expressly ruled that your shareholder
11         activities have nothing to do with this
12         action.  This is irrelevant.  You are
13         wasting time.  Move on.
14         Q.     We have a series of events here that
13:30:17 15   are linked.  And I want to know if you see the
16   linkage.
17                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, you've
18         argued that before the judge.  Judge Katz
19         has said there is no linkage and you're not
13:30:28 20         going to create one.  Move on.
21                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, will you
22         please shut up.
23                MS. PARK:  No.
24                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking you to
0139
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         please be quiet.  Stop interrupting me.
 3                MS. PARK:  No.  Move on.  You're not
 4         dragging Mr. Norman into this.  Move on.
13:30:41  5                MR. LINDNER:  Why would I be
 6         dragging Mr. Norman into this?
 7                MS. PARK:  Because of this
 8         incessant, persistent argument that there's
 9         some kind of linkage between your
13:30:45 10         shareholder activity and your lawsuit for a
11         negative reference.  Move on.
12         Q.     Then I have to ask you, Jason, do
13   you see a linkage?
14                MS. PARK:  I'm directing my client
13:30:58 15         not to respond.  Move on.
16         A.     I don't know what you're talking
17   about.  You've lost me.  I'm not trying to be
18   difficult.  I don't even know what you're even
19   asking me now.
13:31:07 20         Q.     Let me do it in pieces.
21         A.     Okay.
22         Q.     All right.  You said you first met
23   me when I worked -- when you worked at Kelley
24   Drye and I worked at American Express or I had
0140
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   just been fired from American Express.
 3         A.     Yeah, I don't know if you were
 4   employed at that point.
13:31:20  5         Q.     I was employed until November of
 6   '98.
 7         A.     Okay.  I don't remember when we --
 8   when we met.  But okay.
 9         Q.     Okay.  And it was about a suit that
13:31:31 10   I had for wrongful treatment.
11                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12         A.     I don't know if that's what the suit
13   was about.
14         Q.     You looked at a settlement
13:31:38 15   agreement?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17         A.     I did.
18         Q.     The settlement agreement was from
19   June of 2000; correct?
13:31:45 20         A.     Let me take a look at it again.
21         Q.     Please.
22                MS. PARK:  Let the record reflect
23         that Mr. Brown is referring to Plaintiff's
24         Exhibit 1.
0141
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                THE WITNESS:  Right.
 3         A.     And this is dated -- I'm looking at
 4   the second-to-last page.  It has a number of
13:32:00  5   different dates.
 6         Q.     But they're all June of 2000;
 7   correct?
 8         A.     Yes.  It was signed in June of 2000.
 9         Q.     Okay.  In it contains paragraph 13;
13:32:09 10   correct?
11         A.     Yeah.
12         Q.     And paragraph 13 uses the phrase
13   "any information," does it not?
14         A.     Let's see.  "The company agrees to
13:32:21 15   instruct and direct the following" --
16                MS. PARK:  We'll stipulate that
17         paragraph 13 has the phrase "any
18         information."
19         Q.     But not just any information, it
13:32:30 20   says that they shouldn't disclose any
21   information; correct?
22                MS. PARK:  We stipulate that the
23         document speaks for itself.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I appreciate
0142
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         your stipulations, but will you please let
 3         him -- he doesn't understand the linkage.
 4         I'd like to have him go through it without
13:32:50  5         you interrupting.  If you have an
 6         objection, please state an objection, but
 7         let this go on.
 8                MS. PARK:  I stated it.  You persist
 9         in claiming that there is some kind of
13:32:58 10         linkage that doesn't exist.
11                MR. LINDNER:  Right.  It doesn't
12         exist until I point it out.
13                MS. PARK:  Move on.
14         Q.     Can you summarize what I just said
13:33:05 15   so far?
16         A.     Me?
17         Q.     Yes.
18                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
19         A.     No.  What do you want me to
13:33:10 20   summarize?
21         Q.     What I said so far about me filing
22   the suit against AMEX, AMEX filing -- doing the
23   settlement with me.
24                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0143
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     You want me to summarize --
 3         Q.     Yes.  Please do it.
 4         A.     My --
13:33:27  5         Q.     Try it and then we'll see if it's
 6   wrong.
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Mr. Lindner,
 8         ask him a question.  He's not going to
 9         summarize what words have been coming out
13:33:36 10         of your mouth.
11         Q.     Can you please summarize it.
12         A.     Can't we just have her read it back?
13         Q.     No.  I want you to summarize it.
14         A.     Okay.  So I think what you were
13:33:42 15   asking me was something about -- I really don't
16   remember what you were asking me.  You've got me
17   confused.
18         Q.     Can you summarize how the settlement
19   agreement came into be?
13:33:53 20         A.     I did not draft the settlement
21   agreement.
22         Q.     I didn't ask you that.
23         A.     Okay.  So the answer is no.  I
24   cannot summarize that.
0144
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  Then I'll tell you.  I worked
 3   at American Express, Qing Lin sexually harassed
 4   me.  He got me fired.  I applied to the -- with
13:34:07  5   the people in AMEX to have that rescinded.  They
 6   didn't do that.  I applied to the EEOC to get --
 7   to get the EEOC to rule on my case that was
 8   brought before the EEOC.
 9                Then secondarily I applied to a job
13:34:28 10   at General Electric Corporation.  General
11   Electric cancelled an interview because they said
12   I was high maintenance, I was told by a woman who
13   was the headhunter.
14                I then brought a separate action
13:34:42 15   against American Express, in particular Ash
16   Gupta, for interfering with me getting a job at
17   their competitor, General Electric Credit
18   Company.
19                When Ash Gupta was supposed to be
13:34:59 20   deposed, he was a named defendant, he did not
21   show up.  And when I pointed out to American
22   Express' lawyers that Ash Gupta was in contempt
23   of court by not showing up at a deposition which
24   a judge had ordered him to, American Express
0145
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   offered to settle on the spot.  And I said no.
 3                And I wanted to hear the deposition,
 4   and then ultimately they raised the amount of
13:35:32  5   money that they would give me, and I agreed to
 6   the terms and the settlement agreement was the
 7   result.
 8                In order to cover the situation,
 9   American Express said that they will not want me
13:35:47 10   to say anything about this entire situation to
11   anyone.
12                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, ask him a
13         question.
14                MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park.
13:35:57 15                MS. PARK:  He does not have to
16         accept your characterization.  Ask him a
17         question.
18                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.
19         Q.     So paragraph 13 was added
13:36:11 20   specifically so that when American Express says
21   something about me they should not -- they cannot
22   give information, any information to a
23   prospective employer.  And we're going to hold
24   that to a group of seven people, of which Qing
0146
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   Lin was one of them.
 3                So what I am saying is that the
 4   incidents in 1998 were settled in June of 2000
13:36:31  5   with this settlement agreement with paragraph 13,
 6   specifically to stop Qing Lin from saying
 7   anything.  That's what I wanted you to summarize.
 8                I wanted you to say paragraph 13
 9   says Qing shouldn't say anything to a prospective
13:36:49 10   employer of Pete Lindner, but he is to direct
11   them to talk to human resources.
12                Five years later, I alleged to you
13   that he broke -- that Qing broke the contract,
14   the settlement agreement.  And that was what you
13:37:05 15   were investigating.  Does that sound plausible?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17                Does your characterization that went
18         on for the past few minutes -- several
19         minutes sound plausible?
13:37:16 20         Q.     Does it sound plausible that that
21   scene -- set of events that I was working at
22   American Express, that I was fired from American
23   Express.  I sued on the basis of what Qing Lin
24   did.  I tried to get a job elsewhere.  Words were
0147
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   said about me that General Electric cut off the
 3   interview even before they talked to me, and I'll
 4   tell what you the specific phrase was, I was
13:37:39  5   called high maintenance.
 6                When I spoke to the American Express
 7   lawyers about that, they said, high maintenance,
 8   it might be a good thing, it might be a bad
 9   thing.  But, for instance, a Jaguar is a
13:37:53 10   high-maintenance car, and a Jaguar is a very good
11   car.  So I put in paragraph 13 so that they can't
12   say it's negative information.  I just didn't
13   want any information.
14                MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
13:38:07 15                MR. LINDNER:  Yes.  Please,
16         Ms. Park.  Look --
17                MS. PARK:  I'm waiting for one.
18                MR. LINDNER:  Look, here's what I
19         want you to do:  Every time I say a word
13:38:17 20         say "Is there a question," and let's see
21         how long it takes.  So --
22                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, move on.
23         You've dribbled on for the past 10 minutes.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, don't keep
0148
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         saying, "Is there a question?"
 3         Q.     So do you understand now what this
 4   case is about?
13:38:34  5                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He
 6         doesn't have to accept your
 7         characterization.  You're argumentative.
 8         Ask him a fact question.
 9         A.     Based on what you said -- are you
13:38:42 10   asking me if that's what you based your case on?
11         Q.     Do you understand what I just said?
12         A.     Do I understand what you just said?
13   Yeah, I don't agree with it.
14         Q.     Okay.  What part do you not agree
13:38:52 15   with?  Now we're making progress.  What part do
16   you not agree with?
17         A.     Okay.  Well, look, I was not
18   involved in any of the discussions that you
19   just -- or, I don't know, the conclusions that
13:39:02 20   you came to.  But a lot of it sounded -- it just
21   sounded implausible to me, to use your word
22   "plausible."
23         Q.     Yeah.  Which one?
24         A.     The fact that American Express
0149
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   entered into a settlement agreement because Ash
 3   Gupta was in contempt of court.
 4         Q.     He wasn't in contempt of court.
13:39:31  5         A.     I thought that's what you said.  You
 6   know what?  Mr. Lindner, look, you've been going
 7   on and on.  I don't even know what your point is
 8   here.
 9         Q.     You're close.  You're close.  You're
13:39:41 10   very close.
11         A.     I don't know what your point is
12   here.
13         Q.     I'll tell you my point.  He wasn't
14   in contempt of court.  I threatened him with
13:39:48 15   contempt for not showing up at a deposition which
16   a judge ordered him to.
17         A.     Okay.  So --
18         Q.     That's the point.  That sounds
19   implausible, doesn't it?
13:39:58 20         A.     What sounds implausible, that he was
21   in contempt of court?
22         Q.     No.  That I would threaten Ash Gupta
23   and that Ash Gupta would not show up at his
24   deposition.  That sounds implausible?
0150
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     I don't know.  Do I know if you
 3   would threaten Ash Gupta?  I have no idea.
 4         Q.     I tell you I would.
13:40:11  5         A.     Oh, okay.  Then why are you asking
 6   me?
 7         Q.     Well, you said something was
 8   implausible.  So I --
 9         A.     I said it seemed implausible to me
13:40:18 10   that Ash Gupta was in contempt of court.
11         Q.     He wasn't.
12         A.     Okay.  But that's what I was
13   referring to.
14         Q.     I understand that.  But now you're
13:40:29 15   corrected.  I didn't say he was found in contempt
16   of court.  I didn't say a judge determined that.
17   I didn't say a judge was even asked.
18         A.     Okay.
19         Q.     I said he didn't show up.
13:40:39 20         A.     Okay.
21         Q.     At a court-ordered deposition, and
22   then I threatened him with contempt.  I didn't
23   threaten him.  I threatened the lawyer.  I said I
24   was going to call the Court and say, Ash Gupta
0151
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   said he was going to show up and he didn't, and
 3   to me that's contempt of court.  Okay, but given
 4   that's my characterization.
13:40:59  5                And let me put it this way:  I'm
 6   going to request that we find out whether indeed
 7   Ash Gupta was ever asked to be deposed before and
 8   whether he did or didn't show up, and if there
 9   are any lawyers there who were knowledgeable.
13:41:17 10   And I'd like to find out the names.
11                MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
12         A.     I don't even know what you're
13   talking about.  You're asking if he was -- if his
14   deposition was noticed in this lawsuit?
13:41:34 15         Q.     Yeah -- no.  In a lawsuit in 1998,
16   2000.
17         A.     I didn't work for the company back
18   then.
19         Q.     Right.
13:41:37 20         A.     So I don't know what you're asking.
21         Q.     Yes, you did.  You worked for Kelley
22   Drye?
23         A.     I worked for Kelley Drye, right.
24         Q.     Kelley Drye, right.  And they were
0152
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   part of that suit?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     If you're asking me whether I
13:41:53  5   remember whether --
 6         Q.     No.  That's not what I asked.
 7         A.     Look, I'm not going to try to help
 8   you here.
 9         Q.     No.  Again, I'm not asking if you
13:42:02 10   remember.  I'm asking if what I say is logical?
11         A.     To me, no.  None of it -- it's not.
12         Q.     Okay.  What part is not?
13         A.     Peter, I'm not following what you're
14   driving at.  I'm trying to short-circuit this and
13:42:19 15   help you get to the point of whatever it is you
16   want to ask me, but I'm confused at this point.
17   So -- well, go ahead.
18         Q.     Did you see in that document, in the
19   settlement document.
13:42:30 20                MS. PARK:  Plaintiff 1.
21         Q.     Plaintiff 1, that Ash Gupta's name
22   is mentioned?
23                MS. PARK:  We stipulate that his
24         name is mentioned.
0153
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     How many times is it mentioned?
 3                MS. PARK:  You want him to count?
 4         A.     You want me to count?
13:42:43  5                MR. LINDNER:  Do you have an answer
 6         so you can stipulate it?
 7                MS. PARK:  The document speaks for
 8         itself.  Wherever the name "Ash Gupta"
 9         appears, we'll stipulate that --
13:42:53 10         Q.     How often?  I'm asking how often?
11         A.     Do you want me to tell you how often
12   it appears?
13         Q.     Yes.
14         A.     I would have to take time for me to
13:43:02 15   count.
16         Q.     Please count.  Please start
17   counting.  Well, start on the back page.
18         A.     You want me to count backwards?
19         Q.     Yes.  Start on the back page.  Is
13:43:12 20   his name there on the back page?
21         A.     Can I make a suggestion?  How about
22   every time I see his name I'll read it off and
23   you keep a tally?
24         Q.     Sure.
0154
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Okay.  That will make it maybe a
 3   little faster.  Peter Lindner, Plaintiff, against
 4   American Express Corporation, Richard Tambor and
13:43:32  5   Ash Gupta.
 6         Q.     Okay.  So he's mentioned there in a
 7   suit; right?
 8         A.     He's mentioned on this page.
 9         Q.     Okay.  What suit is that for?  What
13:43:40 10   court?
11                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12         Q.     What does it say?
13                MS. PARK:  What does the document
14         say?
13:43:44 15                MR. LINDNER:  No.
16         Q.     On that last page?
17         A.     You want me to read this?
18         Q.     Does it mention a court?
19         A.     This page, the first word on this
13:43:51 20   page is -- here, is content.  It's got a date.
21   It's got a signature of --
22         Q.     It says "Civil Court of the City of
23   New York, County of New York."
24         A.     Uh-huh.
0155
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     So what court is it in?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     You're asking me what court that's
13:44:06  5   in.
 6         Q.     Yeah.
 7         A.     The Civil Court of the City of New
 8   York.
 9         Q.     Is that the same as the Southern
13:44:11 10   District of New York?
11         A.     No.
12         Q.     Okay.  It's a different court;
13   right?
14         A.     Yeah.
13:44:16 15         Q.     That's the court where Ash Gupta was
16   supposed to be deposed.
17                MS. PARK:  That's fine, Mr. Lindner.
18         He doesn't have to accept your
19         characterization.  He wasn't part of the
13:44:23 20         settlement.  He wasn't around.
21         Q.     Is he a named defendant?
22                MR. LINDNER:  I understand that.
23         I'm asking him to read that.
24                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, we'll
0156
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         stipulate the document says what it says
 3         all right.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  Everything says what
13:44:37  5         it says.  They don't give sermons to the
 6         bible.  They could say it says what it
 7         says.  Yet somehow people talk about it.  I
 8         accept your characterization that it says
 9         what it says but I asked how many times.
13:44:46 10         Maybe you can spend your time counting.
11         Q.     So that is a suit; right?
12         A.     This is not a suit.  What this
13   says --
14         Q.     What is it?
13:44:54 15         A.     This says it's a stipulation of
16   dismissal with prejudice.  So this was a
17   stipulation?
18         Q.     Of what?
19         A.     Dismissal of your lawsuit.
13:45:07 20         Q.     Of a suit.  So it was a suit.  It
21   was a lawsuit?
22                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23         A.     There was a lawsuit.
24         Q.     That's what I'm asking you.  Was
0157
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   there a lawsuit?
 3         A.     You're asking me if there was a
 4   lawsuit?
13:45:16  5         Q.     Yes.
 6         A.     Okay.  This document says there was
 7   a lawsuit.
 8         Q.     No.  There were two lawsuits.  But
 9   this one involves Ash Gupta.  Is he a named
13:45:25 10   defendant in it?
11         A.     I don't see the lawsuit.  He's
12   named -- let me try to get where you're going to
13   go try to short-circuit this.
14         Q.     Please.
13:45:33 15         A.     His name is in this caption, which
16   is the stipulation of dismissal.  So my guess is
17   he was a named defendant.
18         Q.     Okay.  Do named defendants sometimes
19   get deposed?
13:45:46 20                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21         A.     In lawsuits?  Yeah, sometimes they
22   do.
23         Q.     Okay.  I'm asserting that we set a
24   date for Ash Gupta, the named defendant, to be
0158
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   deposed.
 3                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, I don't care
 4         what you're asserting.
13:45:58  5         Q.     I'm saying I have.
 6         A.     You have.  Okay.
 7         Q.     All right.  I'm saying he didn't
 8   show up for that date.  We can, and I hereby
 9   request, information from American Express to
13:46:16 10   determine whether he showed up for the
11   deposition.
12                MS. PARK:  Request all you want.
13         You're not getting it.  Move on.
14         Q.     The point being here --
13:46:20 15                MS. PARK:  There is no point.
16         Q.     Well, the point being here --
17                MR. LINDNER:  And Ms. Park, if you
18         interrupt one more time, I am going to call
19         Judge Katz.
13:46:27 20                MS. PARK:  Go ahead.  I'm going to
21         be pleased to inform him what you're asking
22         my witness to do.
23                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  I'm going to
24         request a contempt citation for Ms. Park.
0159
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Good.  Why don't we
 3         stipulate that every time I speak you are
 4         going to be seeking contempt against me.
13:46:44  5         That's good.
 6                MR. LINDNER:  And what you said at
 7         1:45 about there is no point, that's not an
 8         objection.
 9                MS. PARK:  Sure.  It's irrelevant
13:46:52 10         and it's harassing.  It's another way of
11         basically saying that you continue on in an
12         irrelevant, argumentative, harassing vein.
13                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  Great.
14         Q.     Do you feel harassed by that?
13:47:05 15         A.     By what?
16         Q.     By me pointing out that Ash Gupta
17   was a named defendant.
18         A.     No, but I don't think that's what
19   you're doing, quite frankly.  I do think that you
13:47:17 20   are bantering me around.  To ask me to count how
21   many times someone's name is in a document that I
22   told you I didn't draft that you have, seems to
23   me to be, if not harassing, certainly a waste of
24   everyone's time.  I'm not sure I get it.
0160
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Let me explain it.  Let me explain
 3   it.  He was a named defendant in this case.
 4         A.     Do you want to clean this up?
13:47:39  5         Q.     Yeah.  We'll clean it up, but we'll
 6   do it while we talk.  He was a named defendant in
 7   this case, and I'm saying that he didn't show up.
 8   And that was a problem.
 9         A.     Okay.  That's what you're saying.
13:47:50 10         Q.     That's what I'm saying.
11         A.     I see.
12                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  I'd like to wipe
13         that off.
14                MR. LINDNER:  Sure.  Please.
13:47:58 15                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Can we go off the
16         record?
17                MR. LINDNER:  Sure.
18                MS. PARK:  Note the time.
19                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're off the
13:48:02 20         record at 1:47.
21                (Recess taken.)
22                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're back on the
23         record at 1:52.
24
0161
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   BY MR. LINDNER:
 3         Q.     Okay.  We're back on the record.
 4   There was a break because of a water spill.  I
13:53:04  5   spilled out some water accidently.
 6                All right.  What I was trying to get
 7   to, just to summarize, is that I was dismissed
 8   from American Express.  I filed a suit with the
 9   EEOC.  I then filed an action against American
13:53:22 10   Express and Ash Gupta.
11                When Ash Gupta did not show up at a
12   deposition, I threatened his lawyers with having
13   the Court get the marshals and have him -- escort
14   him to the deposition, at which point American
13:53:40 15   Express offered to settle.  Then we reached a
16   settlement agreement.
17                Paragraph 13 was specifically added
18   because of the actions of someone at American
19   Express, allegedly, who spoke to General
13:53:57 20   Electric.  And to make sure that didn't happen
21   again, paragraph 13 said seven people,
22   specifically, can't give, quote, any information,
23   unquote, about me, and should refer everything to
24   human resources.
0162
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                Five years later, I referred
 3   somebody at Fisher Jordan to Qing Lin for
 4   reference, and instead of saying talk to HR, he
13:54:27  5   gave them, quote, any information, unquote.  And
 6   that's why I contacted you, Jason Brown, in order
 7   to investigate whether that was the case or not,
 8   not specifically what he said but whether he
 9   gave, quote, any information, unquote.
13:54:49 10                MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
11         Q.     Or whether he violated the
12   settlement agreement.  Does that make sense to
13   you?
14                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13:55:00 15                MR. LINDNER:  Hold it.  It's a
16         hostile witness and I'm allowed objections
17         to form.
18                MS. PARK:  Does what make sense to
19         you?  Your characterization?
13:55:09 20         A.     Yeah.  I really don't know what
21   you're asking me.  Does this whole thing make
22   sense to me?
23         Q.     Yes.
24         A.     No.
0163
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     What part doesn't?
 3         A.     None of it.
 4         Q.     None of it.  Do you understand what
13:55:19  5   a settlement agreement is?
 6         A.     I do.
 7         Q.     Do you understand what a violation
 8   of a settlement agreement is?
 9         A.     I under -- I could make a legal
13:55:27 10   assessment.
11         Q.     And if I complained to you that a
12   settlement agreement was broken by Qing, and
13   that's what I'm asserting I did say to you in
14   July or August 2005, would that be something
13:55:43 15   worthy of investigation?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17         Argumentative.  Mr. Brown has testified on
18         this issue repeatedly.  Characterizing
19         information that Mr. Brown has not
13:55:54 20         testified to.
21                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  Maybe he can
22         make sense of it now.
23         Q.     Can you make sense of it now?
24                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Make
0164
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         sense of you, Mr. Lindner?
 3         A.     I really don't know what you're
 4   asking at this point.
13:56:09  5         Q.     I'm asking you that if I had a
 6   settlement agreement with American Express?
 7         A.     Which you do.
 8         Q.     And I'm asking whether if Qing Lin
 9   violated it, would that be something that you
13:56:17 10   would investigate?
11                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12         A.     Yeah.  Instead of talking about the
13   what ifs --
14         Q.     It's no a what if.  That's what
13:56:33 15   happened in July or August of 2005.  Does that
16   make sense now?
17         A.     So you're telling me this is what
18   happened?
19         Q.     Yes.
13:56:35 20         A.     So what is your question to me?
21         Q.     I'm asking does this make sense?
22                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23         Q.     What part of that does not fit in
24   with your experience?
0165
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3         A.     My experience in terms of my
 4   recollection?
13:56:45  5         Q.     You investigated this in July or
 6   August of 2005; correct?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 8         A.     I investigated -- as I said before,
 9   Mr. Lindner, I don't remember -- when we first
13:56:54 10   spoke, I don't remember what your specific claims
11   were.  I don't remember if at that point you
12   said, I think there's been a breach of a
13   settlement agreement, or if you said there was a
14   code of conduct violation.
13:57:08 15                I do remember that you felt that --
16   at some point throughout this, since you and I
17   connected, let's say it that way, since you and I
18   connected at some point in 2005, as I said
19   before, you have made various types of
13:57:23 20   allegations.
21                So all I'm trying to say to you is,
22   I don't remember at what point you were claiming
23   what.  If you're sitting here and telling me that
24   when you first reached out to me you were saying
0166
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   there's a breach of a settlement agreement, I
 3   don't have a specific recollection of that.
 4         Q.     Okay.  Good enough.  Thank you.  But
13:57:40  5   that's -- that's what I'm asserting right now,
 6   that I did say that.
 7         A.     Okay.
 8         Q.     But let's go a little further.  You
 9   did a second investigation in January, February,
13:57:49 10   March of 2006; correct?
11                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12         A.     When --
13         Q.     Did you do an investigation of Qing
14   Lin in the spring of 2006?
13:57:57 15                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16         A.     I looked into your complaints.
17         Q.     To whom?  Which complaints?
18         A.     Well, this is what I was trying to
19   say before.
13:58:08 20         Q.     Yes.
21         A.     You were calling.  You were sending
22   e-mails.  You were sending letters.  And, you
23   know, my recollection is that at some point we
24   spoke.
0167
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Yes.
 3         A.     And I had given you -- I had said --
 4   I told you essentially that I had looked into
13:58:25  5   whatever you asked me to look into initially and
 6   I told you I couldn't corroborate that there
 7   was -- that anything --
 8         Q.     What's anything?
 9         A.     Again, Mr. Lindner, I don't remember
13:58:35 10   what you were saying at the time.  But there was
11   no -- I couldn't corroborate the allegations.
12                You then started instructing me on
13   very specifics as to how you wanted an
14   investigation at American Express to be
13:58:46 15   conducted.  You were suggesting that I think we
16   had to get sworn statements from people and a
17   number of different things, which I didn't agree
18   with.  But what I did tell you I would do was
19   look into, I think it was additional things that
13:59:01 20   you brought up, and you asked me to speak to
21   additional people.  The guys at Fisher Jordan,
22   which I agreed to do.
23         Q.     Okay.
24         A.     So, again, if you have documents
0168
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   that can refresh my recollection of what you were
 3   claiming at what point in time, that would help
 4   me.
13:59:32  5         Q.     I'm introducing Plaintiff Brown 102.
 6                (Discussion off the record.)
 7                (Plaintiff Brown Exhibit No. 102,
 8         Lindner e-mail to Brown, copy to EEOC,
 9         marked for identification as of this date.)
13:59:45 10                MS. PARK:  This is the end.
11         Q.     We're continuing.
12                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park just made a
13         derisive comment, this is the end.
14         Q.     I have Exhibit Plaintiff Brown 102,
14:00:26 15   which is a five-page exhibit.  It's an e-mail
16   from me, Peter Lindner, to Jason Brown, who I'm
17   deposing, with a copy to the EEOC.
18                Jason, can you take a look at the
19   exhibit.  I'm passing it to you now.
14:00:43 20         A.     Sure.
21         Q.     Does it look familiar?
22         A.     Well, let me take a look at it.
23         Q.     How about the name?
24                MS. PARK:  Let him look at the
0169
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         document.
 3         A.     I see your name.  I see my name.
 4   Both of those names are familiar.  I mean, I
14:01:12  5   haven't looked through the whole thing.
 6                MS. PARK:  And I'm going to note for
 7         the record that once again, Mr. Lindner,
 8         you seem to have materialized an e-mail
 9         communication that you did not produce to
14:01:22 10         me during the course of this litigation.
11         There is no Bates stamp number on here
12         signifying that you gave me a copy of this.
13                MR. LINDNER:  I note for the record
14         that this was a memo to Jason Brown, so
14:01:37 15         Jason Brown had it.
16                MS. PARK:  That does not matter.
17         That does not obviate your obligation to
18         produce responsive records, Mr. Lindner,
19         period.
14:01:46 20                MR. LINDNER:  Would you please stop
21         talking over me.  I was talking.  I note
22         for the record that Jason Brown was
23         e-mailed on it, so Jason Brown had an
24         e-mail.  He keeps e-mail.  He was
0170
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         instructed when the suit happened not to
 3         destroy any e-mails.  So then --
 4         Q.     By the way, Jason, were you ever
14:02:02  5   instructed not to destroy e-mails?
 6         A.     I know not to destroy e-mails.  I
 7   don't need to be instructed.
 8         Q.     You think you have this e-mail in
 9   your file?
14:02:13 10         A.     I think I would, yeah.
11         Q.     Yes.  So if Ms. Park said this
12   completely caught you blindsided, there's no way
13   you could have known about this, would you agree
14   with that assessment?
14:02:27 15                MS. PARK:  No, Mr. Lindner.
16         A.     That's what she said?
17         Q.     I note she said this wasn't turned
18   over.
19                MS. PARK:  This is the fourth or
14:02:30 20         fifth e-mail that you produced magically
21         that you did not produce during the course
22         of discovery.
23                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, did you
24         produce it to me?
0171
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  That doesn't obviate your
 3         obligation to produce it to me.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  And it doesn't obviate
14:02:41  5         yours either.  Okay.  Thank you very much.
 6         Your objection is noted on the record.
 7         Q.     Can you read out the second bullet
 8   point at the top of the page?
 9         A.     "Point out," there?
14:02:50 10         Q.     The second bullet point.  Do you
11   understand what a bullet point is?
12         A.     I do.
13         Q.     Okay.  Then can you read it.
14         A.     Sure.  "Point out how Qing admitted
14:02:58 15   to you (an officer of the court) of him violating
16   the AMEX-Lindner agreement of June 2000 and."
17         Q.     Okay.  What do you think that is,
18   the AMEX-Lindner agreement of June 2000 is?  Do
19   you have -- hazard a guess?
14:03:15 20         A.     Yeah.  Can you just let me read
21   this?
22         Q.     No.
23         A.     Then I'm not going to guess.
24         Q.     Okay.  I understand.  I understand.
0172
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                THE REPORTER:  Wait, wait, wait.
 3         One person speaking at a time.  I can't get
 4         it.
14:03:19  5                THE WITNESS:  You're right.  I'm
 6         sorry.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  I understand.  Thank
 8         you.
 9                THE REPORTER:  It's impossible for
14:03:19 10         me to get it when the two of you are
11         speaking at the same time.
12                MR. LINDNER:  You are totally right.
13                THE WITNESS:  You are right.
14                THE REPORTER:  So please repeat what
14:03:19 15         it is that you said or --
16                MR. LINDNER:  Sure.  I understand.
17         Jason said he wanted to read this document
18         and I said no.  I said I'm going to point
19         out that he look at Exhibit No. 1.
14:03:48 20         Q.     Can you look at Exhibit No. 1,
21   please.
22         A.     Plaintiff's Exhibit 1?
23         Q.     Yes.  What's the title of it?
24         A.     "Settlement Agreement and General
0173
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   Release."
 3         Q.     Okay.  And do you remember what the
 4   date was for that approximately, what month?
14:03:59  5         A.     June 2000.
 6         Q.     Right.  So the second point on the
 7   bullet is Qing admitted to you of Qing violating
 8   the AMEX-Lindner agreement of June 2000?
 9                MS. PARK:  Where are we now?  What
14:04:16 10         exhibit are we on?
11                MR. LINDNER:  We're on Exhibit 102.
12                MS. PARK:  Where in this document
13         are you quoting from or purporting to quote
14         from?
14:04:25 15                MR. LINDNER:  The second bullet
16         point near the top of the page.
17         Q.     So do you understand now what the
18   AMEX-Lindner agreement of 2000 is?
19                MS. PARK:  Based on your e-mail to
14:04:33 20         Mr. Brown?  Are you asking him again to
21         read your mind?
22                MR. LINDNER:  Please.
23         A.     I think that's what -- I think
24   that's what you're trying to get at.
0174
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     There you go.
 3         A.     When I say that, I don't know that
 4   I'm saying that in this agreement, in this
14:04:45  5   e-mail.
 6         Q.     You've answered correctly.
 7         A.     Okay.
 8         Q.     You didn't go to law school,
 9   college, get admitted to the New York State bar,
14:04:53 10   get admitted to the Southern District of
11   New York, get admitted to the Second Circuit
12   Court of Appeals.  Somehow you connected that the
13   AMEX-Lindner agreement of 2000 could quite
14   possibly, in fact, it is, be the agreement that's
14:05:07 15   titled "Settlement Agreement" that was signed in
16   June of 2000.
17         A.     Okay.
18         Q.     Actually, I didn't sign too many
19   agreements with AMEX legally, but this is one of
14:05:19 20   them.  So that is, in fact, the document I'm
21   referring to.
22         A.     Okay.
23                MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
24         Q.     Do you understand that, the second
0175
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   bullet point?
 3         A.     Do I understand what?  What the
 4   second --
14:05:33  5         Q.     What the second bullet point says
 6   without reading the exact words?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 8         Q.     Can you summarize what it says?
 9         A.     Can I summarize what this says?
14:05:43 10         Q.     Yes.
11         A.     This says that you were summarizing
12   that -- it refers to our talk.  And --
13         Q.     What's the second bullet point?
14   Just the second bullet point.
14:05:53 15         A.     Point out that --
16         Q.     Don't read the words.  I want to you
17   summarize it.
18         A.     I don't -- look, Mr. Lindner, with
19   all due respect.
14:06:00 20         Q.     Sure.
21         A.     I'm happy to try to answer your
22   questions.  I'm not sure what you want me to say
23   here, okay.  You're asking me to summarize what
24   this says as I read it right now?
0176
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     I want -- can you give me that
 3   document?
 4         A.     Sure.
14:06:11  5         Q.     Thank you very much.  Okay.
 6                What do you think the second bullet
 7   point intends to do?
 8                MS. PARK:  Let the record reflect --
 9         A.     I don't have it in front of me.
14:06:21 10                MS. PARK:  -- that Mr. Lindner has
11         now taken away Exhibit 102.
12                MR. LINDNER:  The videotape is
13         reflecting it.
14                MS. PARK:  And now wants Mr. Brown
14:06:29 15         to summarize the second bullet point.
16         Q.     To summarize.  Okay.  Let me ask the
17   specific question.  Are you on drugs today?
18         A.     No.
19                MS. PARK:  Are you on drugs,
14:06:36 20         Mr. Lindner?
21                MR. LINDNER:  I'm not being deposed,
22         Ms. Park.  I'm not being deposed.  Are you
23         on drugs, Ms. Park?
24                MS. PARK:  I wish I was.
0177
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  You might be, then.
 3         So you wish you were on drugs.  Does that
 4         mean you have experience using drugs?  Are
14:06:52  5         you a drug addict, Ms. Park?  I'm not
 6         deposing you.  I really don't want you to
 7         depose me.  Please, we've gone through that
 8         already.
 9         Q.     So I want you to read the second
14:07:06 10   bullet point in your head until you think you are
11   able to summarize it without quoting it verbatim.
12                MS. PARK:  You know what?  This is
13         harassment.  I'm going to direct my client
14         not to answer.  Move on.  He's not
14:07:18 15         summarizing your e-mail to him of
16         February 28, 2006.  Move on.
17         Q.     Can you summarize it?
18                MS. PARK:  I'm directing my client
19         not to answer.  This is harassment.  Move
14:07:35 20         on.
21         Q.     Okay.  I'll take this away, again.
22   Given that you've seen this, that second bullet
23   point, do you think I alerted you that the
24   settlement agreement of June 2000 was -- was
0178
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   violated by Qing?
 3         A.     I think you are alleging that.
 4         Q.     I'm alleging that; right?
14:07:52  5         A.     Right.
 6         Q.     And wasn't that -- what was the
 7   reason for our meeting on March 1st, Wednesday,
 8   March 1st?
 9         A.     Just so the record reflects, I don't
14:08:04 10   know that we met on March 1st.
11         Q.     February 28th.  Thereabouts.
12         A.     Of what year?
13         Q.     2006.
14         A.     I think that was a meeting that you
14:08:16 15   requested.
16         Q.     Yup.
17         A.     Okay.
18         Q.     Why?
19         A.     Why did you request a meeting?
14:08:23 20         Q.     Yes.
21         A.     I don't know.  You tell me.
22                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23         A.     You're asking why you requested to
24   meet with me?
0179
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     I'm asking you what we discussed at
 3   that meeting?
 4         A.     What we discussed at the meeting.
14:08:34  5         Q.     What was the purpose of the meeting?
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Which
 7         question do you want him to answer?  What
 8         was discussed or what was the purpose?
 9         Q.     What was the purpose?
14:08:41 10                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Form.  You
11         asked for the meeting.
12         A.     You asked me to meet.  I think we
13   were going to speak over the phone and you said,
14   no, I want to come and see you.
14:08:51 15         Q.     Okay.  But you don't know why?
16         A.     It was all -- it was all surrounding
17   your allegations.  But you're asking me what you
18   were thinking at the time.  I don't know.
19         Q.     No.  Not what I was thinking.  I'm
14:09:02 20   pointing out here that it was about Qing
21   violating the settlement agreement.
22                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23         Q.     Is that --
24                MR. LINDNER:  He's a hostile
0180
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         witness.
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park --
14:09:15  5                MS. PARK:  He's not hostile because
 6         he can't understand what you're asking,
 7         Mr. Lindner.  Ask a coherent question.
 8         Your questions are completely
 9         unintelligible.
14:09:26 10         Q.     Is it sunny and cold outside today?
11         A.     Looks to be.
12         Q.     Now, see, some people would say
13   that's an objection to form, because I didn't see
14   what is the weather.  In fact, I'm sort of
14:09:36 15   suggesting what the weather is, instead of just
16   getting it from you.  That's how I understand
17   objection to form.  But I feel if somebody
18   doesn't want to answer what the weather is, then
19   you might say, hey, is it cold and sunny outside.
14:09:50 20   So I'm asking you in the same way that I'd ask a
21   hostile person who doesn't want to concede an
22   obvious statement.
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         Q.     That we had a meeting on or about
0181
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   February 28, March 1st of 2006 --
 3                MS. PARK:  March 1st?
 4                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, what's your
14:10:14  5         objection?
 6                MS. PARK:  You keep
 7         mischaracterizing his testimony.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  What's your objection?
 9         You said March 1st.  Please explain your
14:10:22 10         objection.
11                MS. PARK:  That wasn't his
12         testimony.  You said you had a meeting on
13         March 1st.
14         Q.     Please, Ms. Park.
14:10:28 15         A.     The memo or this e-mail was --
16                MS. PARK:  Let the record reflect
17         Mr. Brown is referring to Exhibit 102.
18         Q.     What's the date on that?  What's the
19   sent date on it?
14:10:37 20         A.     It was sent on Wednesday, March 1,
21   2006 at one o'clock in the morning.
22         Q.     Okay.  March 1st?  March 1st?
23                MR. LINDNER:  So I'm asking what the
24         objection is, Ms. Park.  And, please, if
0182
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         you have an objection, note it and we will
 3         continue.
 4                MS. PARK:  Ask a question.
14:10:52  5                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking a question.
 6         If you will be a little civil.
 7                MS. PARK:  You are a time waster.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  Please shut up.  How
 9         can I say that gracefully?  Please, if you
14:11:02 10         have an objection, we'll note that on the
11         record, but stop interrupting.
12         Q.     So we had a meeting on or about
13   March 1st.  We met because you were investigating
14   something.
14:11:17 15         A.     Okay.
16         Q.     You're here because of that
17   investigation; correct?
18                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
19         A.     I'm here because you noticed my
14:11:25 20   deposition, but I think that's what you want to
21   ask me about.
22         Q.     And the second bullet point says
23   that I -- I pointed out how Qing admitted to you
24   that Qing violated the Lindner-AMEX agreement of
0183
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   June 2000.  Also known as the settlement
 3   agreement and general release.
 4         A.     Okay.  So, Mr. Lindner, maybe I can
14:11:44  5   try to cut to the chase here.  One of the things
 6   that I do recall about that conversation was
 7   that, somewhat similar so what you're doing now,
 8   is that you were putting all these hypotheticals
 9   out there and asking me to make an assessment of
14:11:59 10   whether there was a violation of the agreement
11   and the conversation was largely circular.
12         Q.     Okay.
13         A.     Is that responsive to what you're
14   trying to get at here?
14:12:10 15         Q.     Do you remember what you said at
16   that meeting?
17         A.     I don't remember everything.  I do
18   remember at one point I said to you, "What are
19   you looking for here?"  Because I felt like this
14:12:21 20   was just --
21         Q.     Do you remember what Qing said to
22   you?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         A.     When?
0184
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     About this investigation?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         Q.     Did you investigate this situation,
14:12:40  5   violation?
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  Good.
 8         A.     I spoke to Qing Lin.  If that's what
 9   you're asking me --
14:12:43 10         Q.     And what did he say?  What did you
11   talk to him about?
12         A.     I asked -- I asked him about your
13   allegations.  He didn't corroborate any of them.
14         Q.     Okay.  But it was about this
14:12:54 15   investigation; right?  So I'm alleging that he
16   violated the settlement agreement by what he said
17   and you're saying his statements didn't
18   corroborate; correct?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14:13:06 20         A.     That's not exactly what I'm saying.
21                MS. PARK:  We stipulate that you are
22         claiming --
23                MR. LINDNER:  No.  I don't want to
24         stipulate what I am claiming.  I want to
0185
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         know what he heard from Qing.
 3         Q.     Did you speak to Qing?
 4                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14:13:19  5         Q.     What did he say?
 6         A.     When?
 7         Q.     When you spoke to Qing about this
 8   investigation before February 28th.
 9                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14:13:27 10         A.     Before February 28th.  I don't
11   remember when I spoke to Qing, okay.  I don't
12   remember if I spoke to him before February 28th.
13         Q.     No.  Whenever.  Before this meeting
14   you told me you spoke to Qing?
14:13:35 15         A.     I just said that?
16                MR. LINDNER:  We'll take a break
17         now.  We only have a minute left on the
18         tape.
19                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This ends tape
14:13:44 20         No. 2.  We're off the record at 2:13.
21                (Recess taken.)
22                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This begins tape
23         No. 3 in the deposition of Jason Brown.
24         We're on the record at 2:23.
0186
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   BY MR. LINDNER:
 3         Q.     Jason, before we -- we took the
 4   break --
14:23:33  5                MR. LINDNER:  Let me say something
 6         on the record here.  Ms. Park was using her
 7         Blackberry to looks like send text
 8         messages, send e-mail, look at e-mail,
 9         which I thought was a violation of what the
14:23:46 10         judge said, that it could only be used for
11         communicating to the judge.
12                MS. PARK:  Do you have a question?
13                MR. LINDNER:  I'm making that note
14         on the record.  And I feel that you
14:23:55 15         violated the judge's order.
16                MS. PARK:  Go ahead.  Do what you
17         want.
18                MR. LINDNER:  I did.  I just did.
19         Thank you.  So now we'll move on.
14:24:03 20         Q.     I was talking about
21   Exhibit Plaintiff Brown 102.  And it says, the
22   second bullet point, that Jason Brown admitted
23   that Qing admitted to Jason Brown -- that Qing
24   violated the settlement agreement of June 2000.
0187
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                Does that sentence make sense?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     Are you asking me if that's what it
14:24:27  5   says?
 6         Q.     Yes.  Is that what it says?
 7         A.     Not literally.
 8         Q.     Can you tell me what it says
 9   literally?
14:24:32 10         A.     It says, "Point out how Qing
11   admitted to you (an officer of the court)
12   violating the AMEX-Lindner agreement of
13   June 2000, and."
14         Q.     You just read it back to me.  Can
14:24:44 15   you tell me what -- does it mean that Qing
16   admitted violating the contract?
17                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
18         A.     No.  All it means is that this is
19   what you were asserting at the time, okay.
14:24:54 20         Q.     Right.  So did Qing violate the
21   contract?
22         A.     You're asking me if I thought Qing
23   violated the settlement agreement?
24         Q.     Yes.
0188
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Objection to
 3         form.  Calls for a legal conclusion.
 4         A.     No.  I do not think he did.
14:25:10  5         Q.     Okay.  And why is that?
 6         A.     A number of reasons.  Because you
 7   told the prospective employer to get a reference
 8   from him.  So I think, you know, as a matter of
 9   law, you have maybe unclean hands there.  I don't
14:25:21 10   know exactly what the doctrine would be.  But
11   more -- I think probably --
12         Q.     Who would know?
13                MS. PARK:  Okay.  Mr. Lindner.
14         A.     You would have to ask your own
14:25:28 15   lawyer.  I don't know who would know.  A lot of
16   people would know.  More to the point, they hired
17   you anyway.  You don't have any damages.  And one
18   of the components of a breach of contract has to
19   be damages.
14:25:41 20                MS. PARK:  That's it.  No.  I'm not
21         going to allow Mr. Brown to provide any
22         more testimony concerning his legal
23         assessment of your claims.  He's here,
24         again, as a fact witness.
0189
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  A fact of what?
 3                MS. PARK:  The fact that he
 4         investigated or looked into certain
14:26:00  5         complaints that you had concerning what
 6         Qing Lin allegedly said to Fisher Jordan.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  Right.  And that's
 8         what I'm asking him about.
 9         A.     That's not what you're asking.
14:26:14 10                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking and
11         pointing to whether Qing admitted to Jason
12         Brown that Qing violated the settlement
13         agreement of June 2000.
14         A.     If that's what you're asking me, the
14:26:24 15   answer is no.
16         Q.     No what?
17         A.     No, Qing did not admit to me that he
18   violated the agreement of June 2000.
19         Q.     Okay.  So now I have a question.
14:26:33 20   This is going back to the agreement, the
21   settlement agreement, paragraph 13.
22                If Qing gave any information to
23   Fisher Jordan, wouldn't that be a violation?
24                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  It's
0190
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         argumentative.  Mr. Lindner -- and,
 3         Mr. Brown, I'm going direct you not to
 4         respond at this juncture.
14:26:50  5                You're asking him to draw a legal
 6         conclusion.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  He was an
 8         investigator.
 9         Q.     Were you investigating this?
14:27:02 10                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11         You've asked him that and he's answered it
12         more than half --
13                MR. LINDNER:  More than half --
14                MS. PARK:  Let me state my
14:27:05 15         objection.
16                MR. LINDNER:  Sure.  Go ahead.
17                MS. PARK:  He's answered it more
18         than half a dozen times.  Move on.
19                MR. LINDNER:  Can you read back his
14:27:12 20         answer on that, that thing?  What was my
21         question, Amy?
22                MS. PARK:  You complained.  He
23         looked into your complaint.
24         Q.     And my complaint was in reference to
0191
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   the settlement agreement; correct?
 3                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, Mr. Brown
 4         said that he cannot recall specifically;
14:27:31  5         that you did raise a whole host of
 6         different claims; that your complaint
 7         changed, that you were asserting a code of
 8         conduct violation at some point, and at
 9         some juncture you did raise a complaint
14:27:45 10         about your June 2000 settlement agreement.
11                MR. LINDNER:  And what point are we
12         at?  This is February of 2006.
13         Q.     What -- does it talk about the code
14   of conduct?
14:27:59 15         A.     You're looking at what, now?
16   Plaintiff Brown 102?
17         Q.     Correct.
18         A.     I have to review it.
19         Q.     Does it talk about the settlement
14:28:07 20   agreement?
21         A.     Yes.
22                MS. PARK:  Let him review the
23         document.
24         Q.     Let's stick with that.  It talks
0192
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   about violating the AMEX settlement agreement.
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         Q.     And so that's why I'm asking you if
14:28:22  5   you were investigating whether Qing violated the
 6   settlement agreement, it would pay for you to
 7   look at the settlement agreement, wouldn't you
 8   say?
 9                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14:28:35 10         A.     Ask me the question again.  I'm
11   sorry.
12         Q.     If you're investing -- investigating
13   whether Qing violated the AMEX-Lindner settlement
14   agreement --
14:28:44 15         A.     Right.
16         Q.     -- you should at least know what the
17   AMEX-Lindner settlement agreement says; right?
18         A.     Yeah.  That sounds reasonable.
19         Q.     And that's why I'm directing you to
14:28:55 20   paragraph 13.
21                MS. PARK:  Why don't you just ask
22         him if he reviewed the settlement agreement
23         in connection with his investigation.
24         Q.     I asked you if he violated it.  You
0193
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   said no?
 3         A.     Right.
 4         Q.     And I'm saying, if Qing gave any
14:29:03  5   information that's in quotes, quote, any
 6   information, unquote, to Fisher Jordan, would
 7   that be a violation of paragraph 13?
 8                MS. PARK:  Okay.  And once again I'm
 9         directing my client not to respond.  This
14:29:17 10         is argumentative.  You're asking him to
11         make a legal conclusion.  Move on.
12                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking -- if his
13         whole purpose was investigation --
14         Q.     Were you investigating whether Qing
14:29:26 15   violated the settlement agreement or not?
16         A.     I was investigating your
17   allegations, which included your allegations that
18   Qing made comments in violation of the settlement
19   agreement.
14:29:38 20         Q.     Okay.  And what type of comments
21   does he have to make in order to violate the
22   settlement agreement?
23         A.     You're asking me a speculative
24   question.
0194
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     No.  I'm asking -- I'm saying that
 3   he can make two types of comments.  He can give
 4   information and he can refer people to HR.  If he
14:29:54  5   referred people to HR, would that be a violation
 6   of the settlement agreement?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  I'm
 8         not going to -- Mr. Brown, let me just --
 9         I'm going to direct you not to respond.
14:30:04 10                Mr. Lindner, you are badgering
11         Mr. Brown.  He is here, once again, to
12         provide factual testimony concerning what
13         he said or did in connection with looking
14         into your complaints, okay.  You're not
14:30:22 15         going to draw out of Mr. Brown what his
16         legal conclusion is concerning whether
17         there was a breach of the settlement
18         agreement.
19                A breach of contract or a breach of
14:30:30 20         agreement comprises several different
21         elements.  We're not getting into that.
22         It's totally, palpably improper.  Move on.
23                MR. LINDNER:  Palpably means you can
24         touch it.  What do you mean by "palpably"?
0195
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  I'm not going to respond
 3         to you.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  What do you mean by
14:30:50  5         it?
 6                MS. PARK:  Too bad.  You don't get
 7         it.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking you what it
 9         means.
14:30:53 10                MS. PARK:  And I'm going to tell
11         you.  You're a smart man.  You should
12         understand what that means.
13                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking you what it
14         means.
14:31:00 15                MS. PARK:  You can ask all you want,
16         I'm not responding.
17                MR. LINDNER:  I'd like to call
18         Magistrate Katz while we're on the record,
19         please.  You were warned about this before,
14:31:08 20         Ms. Park.
21                MS. PARK:  I'm sure.
22                MR. LINDNER:  You were warned that
23         if I ask you a question you are to answer
24         it.  And that if I say I don't understand
0196
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         what you mean, you have to accept it.
 3                (Discussion off the record.)
 4                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Off the record at
14:31:31  5         2:31.
 6                (Discussion off the record.)
 7                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're back on the
 8         record at 2:53.
 9   BY MR. LINDNER:
14:53:09 10         Q.     Okay.  Jason, before the break we
11   were talking about bullet point No. 2.  And that
12   the investigation that you were conducting in
13   this -- that we were having the discussion about
14   on or about this date was about, as I concluded,
14:53:30 15   about violating the settlement agreement of
16   June 2000.  And you were the investigator, so you
17   were going to form an opinion as to whether Qing
18   violated the settlement agreement; is that
19   correct?
14:53:42 20                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
21         A.     I don't know what you were just
22   asking me.  Are you just asking me if that's a
23   recitation of what was just said prior to --
24         Q.     No.  I'm asking you --
0197
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Can you just --
 3         Q.     I'm asking you -- you did that
 4   investigation several months ago; correct?
14:54:02  5                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 6         A.     I did it years ago.
 7         Q.     Years ago.  Thank you.
 8                Knowing what you know now, would you
 9   use the settlement agreement to guide your
14:54:09 10   investigation?
11                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12         You're presuming that he didn't use it.
13         Why don't you ask him.
14                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking --
14:54:16 15         A.     I would -- I did.
16         Q.     You did what?
17         A.     Let me finish.  I did review the
18   settlement agreement at some point during that
19   time.
14:54:23 20         Q.     Okay.
21         A.     Okay.  And I -- and I would, if I
22   had to do it again.
23         Q.     That's good.  I'm glad, because I
24   think that was key.  And do you remember if you
0198
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   reviewed paragraph 13?
 3         A.     I think I did.
 4         Q.     And do you think reading
14:54:40  5   paragraph 13, as you have a few times today, do
 6   you think that Qing violated paragraph 13?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 8         answered, and once again, I'm directing my
 9         client not to respond because, Mr. Lindner,
14:54:53 10         you keep asking him for his legal opinion
11         as counsel for American Express.
12                MR. LINDNER:  No.  As an
13         investigator.
14                MS. PARK:  No.  Move on.  I'm
14:55:01 15         directing my client not to respond.  Move
16         on.
17                MR. LINDNER:  I understand.
18         Q.     I want you to take a look at
19   Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.  Do you recognize that?
14:55:13 20         A.     Yeah.
21         Q.     You do?
22         A.     I do.
23         Q.     How do you recognize it?
24         A.     Well, I recognize it.  It looks like
0199
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   my handwriting, a copy of my handwriting.
 3         Q.     What date is on it?
 4         A.     2/27/06.
14:55:27  5         Q.     Okay.  I'm just for the moment, can
 6   you look at my Plaintiff's Exhibit 102 --
 7   Plaintiff Brown 102.  The memo.
 8                MS. PARK:  It's not a memo.  It's
 9         an e-mail.
14:55:45 10         Q.     E-mail.  Can you read what date
11   that is?
12         A.     Tuesday, February 28, 2006.
13         Q.     So your handwritten note, meaning
14   Plaintiff Qing 11, was one day before that
14:55:55 15   meeting?
16                MS. PARK:  We stipulate that 2/27/06
17         is the day before 2/28/06.
18         Q.     Can you read the first line in
19   Plaintiff 102 memo, Jason?
14:56:11 20         A.     "This memo summarizes"?
21         Q.     Yes.
22         A.     "This memo summarizes our
23   conversation today from six to seven p.m. at the
24   AMEX HQ in NYC."
0200
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  Can you tell me, do you think
 3   that's accurate?  Do you think that the meeting
 4   occurred on that date?
14:56:30  5         A.     You're asking me if I think that we
 6   met on February 28, 2006?
 7         Q.     Yes.
 8         A.     Based on -- I don't have any reason
 9   to believe it's not.  I don't remember when we
14:56:44 10   met.
11         Q.     That's fine.  All right.  So what
12   I'm trying to point out is here we have
13   handwritten notes from the day prior to a
14   meeting.
14:56:52 15                MS. PARK:  Ask a question.
16                MR. LINDNER:  I did.
17                MS. PARK:  No.  You keep talking.
18                MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park.
19         A.     Okay.  So Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 is
14:57:00 20   dated 2/27/06, and Plaintiff Brown 102 is dated
21   February 28, 2006.  So I would agree that what is
22   dated here February 28, 2006 is the day after
23   what was dated --
24         Q.     That's what I was asking.  Thank
0201
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   you.
 3                Can you read -- I'm having trouble
 4   reading your handwriting in Exhibit 11.  Can you
14:57:22  5   read it?
 6         A.     Understandable.  I can.  2/27/06.
 7   The top line says, "Chief credit officer for
 8   institutional" -- I don't know.
 9         Q.     Risk.
14:57:33 10         A.     It's cut off.  Well, it's cut off.
11   I don't see "risk," okay.  Something is cut off
12   and it says "and collections.  Qing Lin" -- you
13   want me to just read the whole thing?
14         Q.     Yes, please.
14:57:45 15         A.     "Qing Lin Boaz consulted at AXP, has
16   own company.  Qing doesn't use Boaz now.
17   Previously worked together.  Occasionally would
18   have a lunch together.  Peter has given your name
19   as reference.  Peter is technical guy.  Whether
14:58:01 20   you hire him or not is your decision.  I'm not
21   sure whether he can be used on an AXP.  Boaz
22   asked, did you mean leadership.  Lin, no
23   discussions with Boaz about this.  At time VP of
24   underwriting.  2000 chief credit officer of
0202
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   consumer lending."
 3         Q.     Okay.  That's very good.  Thanks.  I
 4   wondered what it meant.  Can you turn the page.
14:58:29  5   What's the date on that one?
 6         A.     I can't actually -- I can't read it.
 7   It's -- it looks like it's smudged.  It's
 8   certainly 3.  Looks like 20 something, '06.  But
 9   I don't have -- I can't tell what that date is.
14:58:46 10         Q.     Okay.  Can you read what it says?
11         A.     "TC with Trevor Baron."
12         Q.     What does TC mean?
13         A.     Telephone call.
14         Q.     Oh.
14:58:57 15         A.     Is that pi sign?
16         Q.     Yes.  Plaintiff.
17         A.     Plaintiff, right.  "Plaintiff asked
18   Trevor to work full time.  But Trevor didn't want
19   to hire full time," and it looks like something
14:59:12 20   is cut off there.
21         Q.     Didn't want to hire -- oh, yes.
22   That's full time, yeah.
23         A.     And then it says "7/05.  Trevor told
24   plaintiff didn't have capacity for him as FT."
0203
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   By that I would have meant full time, "but kept
 3   him on project."
 4         Q.     Okay.  Next page.  We're on
14:59:52  5   page DEF372 and the top is a date.  It looks to
 6   me like 2/28/06.
 7         A.     Yeah.  It's either 2/28 or 2/20.  I
 8   can't tell.  Looks like 2/28.  "Meeting with
 9   Mr. Pete Lindner."  I presume you want me to
15:00:08 10   continue to read?
11         Q.     Sure.
12         A.     "Boaz.  917-535-6162.  Peter
13   Lindner, give names of" -- or maybe it says gave
14   names of Alana and Qing for reference."  Then
15:00:26 15   Alana, Qing Lin, names are listed.  David Lin,
16   Chin also spoke to him re --
17         Q.     Now, when you say Chin, what's Chin?
18         A.     I probably meant Qing.
19         Q.     Probably Q-I-N-G?
15:00:42 20         A.     Yeah.  Because my recollection was
21   that you were claiming that Qing Lin called
22   somebody named David Lin.
23         Q.     Right.
24         A.     At some other company.
0204
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Yup.
 3         A.     So I presume that Chin, C-H-I-N, I
 4   was referring to Qing, the same person, Q-I-N-G.
15:01:04  5         Q.     Okay.
 6         A.     Then "Compensation, one to
 7   $10 million.  Punishment of Qing Lin.  Benefits
 8   removed/reduced benefits as punishment."
 9         Q.     Okay.  Next page.  This is
15:01:22 10   Defendant -- excuse me, Bates stamped
11   Defendant 373.
12         A.     "After Boaz spoke," I think it says
13   to Qing, "placed him anyway."
14         Q.     Okay.  Thank you.  Let's go to
15:01:43 15   page 1 of Plaintiff Qing 11.
16         A.     Uh-huh.
17         Q.     There's an indented paragraph in the
18   middle of the -- like five lines down in the
19   document.  Can you give an interpretation to why
15:02:00 20   you indented it?
21         A.     Yeah.  So -- I'll try to explain the
22   note.
23         Q.     Please.
24         A.     So the line above that is, "Peter
0205
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   has given your name as a reference."  My
 3   recollection is that -- well, in reading this,
 4   that Qing told me that that is what -- I think it
15:02:23  5   was Boaz or Fisher Jordan had said to him that
 6   Peter has given your name as a reference.  Qing's
 7   response to -- what Qing told me, he said Peter
 8   is a technical guy.
 9         Q.     Now, wait.  Stop for a moment.  What
15:02:37 10   makes you think that Qing said that?
11         A.     What makes me think that Qing said
12   what?  Peter has given your name as a reference?
13         Q.     No.
14         A.     Peter is a technical -- I have
15:02:46 15   quotes and that's what I remember writing down.
16         Q.     Okay.  So the little -- those double
17   marks at the beginning means this is a quote of
18   your conversation with Qing?
19         A.     No.  Not necessarily.  Sometimes
15:02:59 20   I'll use that as a shorthand.
21         Q.     For?
22         A.     For this is what he said he said.
23         Q.     Okay.
24         A.     Okay.
0206
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     It wouldn't be substance, but it
 3   would be --
 4         A.     Just so -- to be -- to be clear
15:03:10  5   about it, I'm not precise in my note taking
 6   sometimes.
 7         Q.     Okay.
 8         A.     I'll use certain notations for
 9   myself in different ways.  For instance, I use
15:03:19 10   the pi as a plaintiff sometimes.  Sometimes I
11   don't.
12         Q.     Okay.  So the first sentence, "Peter
13   is technical guy."
14         A.     Right.
15:03:29 15         Q.     Do you mean Peter is a technical
16   guy?
17                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
18         A.     You're asking me if that's what I
19   mean now?
15:03:35 20         Q.     Yes.  Yeah.
21         A.     That's not what I was saying.
22         Q.     Is it correct English?
23         A.     Well, okay.  Hold on.  That comment
24   is what Qing told me he said.
0207
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Oh, okay.
 3         A.     And not what I was saying.
 4         Q.     Right.  Okay.
15:03:55  5         A.     So -- yeah.  But maybe to get to
 6   your point, when I'm taking notes I don't take --
 7   necessarily take notes verbatim, so I could leave
 8   out a pronoun, leave out a word.  So he may have
 9   said that he told Boaz that Peter is a technical
15:04:13 10   guy or Peter is technical guy.  He also speaks
11   with a fairly heavy accent, and I do recall that
12   I didn't -- I have -- I had a hard time
13   understanding what he was saying.
14         Q.     Okay.
15:04:28 15         A.     So he may have said Peter is
16   technical guy, as opposed to Peter is a technical
17   guy.
18         Q.     Right.  Actually, I've known Qing
19   for nine years and quiet often he does drop
15:04:40 20   articles.
21         A.     Okay.
22         Q.     Okay.  Now, let's look at that one
23   sentence.  Peter is technical guy or Peter is a
24   technical guy.
0208
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Uh-huh.
 3         Q.     Would you construe that to be any
 4   information in the meaning of paragraph 13 in
15:04:52  5   your investigation?
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7         A.     No.  Because this says, first of
 8   all, that the company was agreeing -- the company
 9   was agreeing that it would instruct employees not
15:05:17 10   to disclose any information about your employment
11   or termination of employment.
12         Q.     Right.  Keep reading.
13         A.     To any person --
14         Q.     Wait, wait.  Disclose?
15:05:41 15         A.     Any information regarding your
16   employment.  So if you're asking me if Peter is a
17   technical guy is necessarily a comment about your
18   employment, it may just be a statement about what
19   you do.
15:05:45 20         Q.     So -- so, for instance, if he said
21   Peter is a really bad technical guy, that's a
22   statement about what I do, and that would be
23   legitimate because it has nothing to do with the
24   information regarding my employment or
0209
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   termination of employment?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         Hypothetical and argumentative.
15:06:06  5         A.     Repeat the question.  What are you
 6   asking me?
 7         Q.     Let's suppose he didn't say Peter is
 8   a technical guy --
 9         A.     Right.
15:06:12 10         Q.     -- and he said Peter is a pretty bad
11   technical guy?
12         A.     Okay.
13         Q.     Would that be -- suppose it were
14   accurate.  Would that be any information?
15:06:21 15         A.     About the termination of your
16   employment?  I don't know why you were
17   terminated.
18         Q.     Or my employment?
19         A.     Okay.  But I don't know why you were
15:06:29 20   terminated --
21         Q.     I know.
22         A.     -- and I don't know if that relates
23   to your employment.  See, again, and this is what
24   happened when we met.
0210
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Sure.
 3         A.     You were asking me all of these
 4   hypothetical questions.  And asking me to give
15:06:41  5   you my opinion on all these hypothetical
 6   questions.
 7         Q.     Right.  And I'm asking you now.
 8                MS. PARK:  And I'm objecting.
 9         Hypothetical and argumentative.
15:06:51 10                MR. LINDNER:  It's not hypothetical.
11         He did say Peter is technical guy.
12                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13         That's not what his testimony was.
14                MR. LINDNER:  What is his testimony?
15:06:59 15         Q.     What was your testimony?
16         A.     About what?
17         Q.     Did you say that Qing said Peter is
18   technical guy?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:07:07 20         A.     Qing told me that he said to --
21         Q.     Boaz.
22         A.     -- Boaz, Peter is a technical guy or
23   technical guy.
24         Q.     Boaz?
0211
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Right.
 3         Q.     Is that any information?
 4         A.     About the termination of your
15:07:19  5   employment?
 6                MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.
 7         Q.     Or employment?
 8         A.     I don't know.  Because -- no.  I
 9   don't really think it is.
15:07:25 10         Q.     Okay.
11         A.     I mean, I don't know what you did
12   there.  I know you were a programmer.
13         Q.     Okay.  Well, but some people would
14   say programming is a technical enterprise.  So --
15:07:35 15   so if you're a technical guy, that would have to
16   do with my employment?
17         A.     It could.  It might not.
18         Q.     It might.  It might not.
19         A.     Right.
15:07:45 20         Q.     If you had a question on whether it
21   does or doesn't, how would you handle that
22   question?
23         A.     If I had question about what?
24         Q.     If you don't understand something,
0212
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   what would you do?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     If I don't understand something
15:07:56  5   about what?
 6         Q.     This contract.
 7         A.     Oh, about the contract?
 8         Q.     Yeah.  About paragraph 13.  What
 9   would you do?
15:08:03 10         A.     If I don't --
11                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12         A.     You're asking me if I don't
13   understand something about this contract, what
14   would I do right now?  I guess it would depend on
15:08:13 15   what I didn't understand.
16         Q.     Well, you don't -- you don't
17   understand whether paragraph 13 is a statement,
18   Peter Lindner is a technical guy, would be a
19   violation of paragraph 13 or not?
15:08:22 20         A.     That's not what I said.
21         Q.     Okay.  Well, let me ask you.  Is it
22   a violation of paragraph 13?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         A.     I already told you, I don't think it
0213
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   is.
 3         Q.     Okay.  But do you know for sure or
 4   you don't think so.  I'm saying, if you have
15:08:38  5   doubt in your mind, what would you do?
 6         A.     No.  Peter --
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection to form on
 8         multiple grounds.
 9         A.     I don't think there was anything
15:08:45 10   untoward here.  I don't think there was a breach
11   of contract.  I don't think there was a violation
12   of code of conduct.  I've said that to you
13   numerous times.
14         Q.     I understand.
15:08:57 15         A.     You disagree wholeheartedly, and I
16   understand that.  But you are asking me about an
17   issue that is obviously not black and white to
18   everyone, right?  So if you're going to sit here
19   and continue to ask me a question, you're not
15:09:10 20   going to change my opinion by asking the
21   question, okay, so I don't know how to answer
22   that.
23         Q.     I might.  I might.  Sometimes I
24   might.  So don't -- don't -- you can't see the
0214
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   future.  So let me -- I'd like you to look at
 3   paragraph 18 of the document.
 4                MS. PARK:  What document?
15:09:25  5         Q.     Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.  Can you read
 6   it out loud, please?
 7         A.     "The language of all parts of this
 8   agreement shall in all cases be construed as a
 9   whole according to its fair meaning and not
15:09:38 10   strictly for or against any of the parties."
11         Q.     Can you summarize that for a jury,
12   as opposed to summarize it for a judge?
13                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14         A.     Look, I didn't draft this agreement.
15:09:51 15         Q.     I know you didn't.
16         A.     This is boilerplate language.
17         Q.     And what does it mean?
18         A.     Essentially, it means that,
19   regardless of who wrote this agreement, the
15:09:59 20   parties are agreeing that it is not drafted in a
21   way that is one-sided.
22         Q.     Okay.
23         A.     That it should be construed
24   objectively, okay.
0215
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  So then I would suggest that
 3   that means, if you look at paragraph 13, that it
 4   would be used objectively, not so -- so if it
15:10:19  5   says you shouldn't give any information, it would
 6   actually mean you shouldn't give any information.
 7   In other words, telling somebody he's a technical
 8   guy as a opposed to literate guy or a musical guy
 9   or a very humanistic guy or somebody who is great
15:10:35 10   at arithmetic, those are all, I would
11   characterize, as information.
12                Would you agree with me?
13         A.     I understand that's your contention.
14         Q.     Right.
15:10:43 15         A.     Okay.
16         Q.     And I'm saying that paragraph 18
17   which is basically -- this is how I would
18   interpret it, if I had to interpret it.
19   Paragraph 13 says, don't give any information to
15:10:55 20   a prospective employer.  And paragraph 18 says we
21   are using regular English.  So when we say "any
22   information," we're not using some technical term
23   of art which will just favor American Express or
24   just favor Peter Lindner, it's in the regular
0216
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   meaning of the words "any information."
 3                Would you agree with that?
 4         A.     No.  I'm not going to agree with
15:11:16  5   your assessment.
 6         Q.     Okay.  So let's go on.
 7                Can you read that third sentence
 8   under your quote marks?
 9                MS. PARK:  We're back to
15:11:26 10         Plaintiff 11?
11                MR. LINDNER:  We're back to
12         plaintiff 11.  DEF00370.
13                MS. PARK:  And what section are you
14         referring to?
15:11:36 15         A.     Where are we?
16         Q.     You see where your quote marks are?
17         A.     "Peter is technical," yeah.
18         Q.     Two lines below that.
19         A.     "I'm not sure whether he can be used
15:11:43 20   on an AXP."
21         Q.     What's AXP?
22         A.     I think it was cut off.  I didn't
23   write project or --
24         Q.     What's AXP?
0217
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Oh, I'm sorry.  American Express.
 3         Q.     Okay.  So Qing is saying that he's
 4   not sure whether Peter Lindner, me, whether I can
15:12:06  5   be used at American Express; is that correct?
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7         A.     Well, let me -- I actually asked
 8   Qing what he meant at a time.  What do you mean
 9   by that or what did you mean by that.  And what
15:12:20 10   he said was, I was unsure as to how he was coded.
11   So we code people or we -- there are times when
12   former employees are noted as ineligible for
13   rehire or I don't know if there's a formal coding
14   system, but that they cannot come back and work
15:12:43 15   with American Express or for American Express or
16   work on AMEX projects.
17                And he was -- he said to me, I just
18   didn't know, based on the separation of Peter's
19   employment back whenever that was, 2000 or
15:12:58 20   earlier, whether or not -- I was unsure whether
21   he -- he was able to come back.
22         Q.     So he expressed his doubt on that to
23   Boaz?
24                MS. PARK:  Object to form.
0218
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     No, no, no.
 3         Q.     He said, I'm not sure?
 4         A.     I'm unsure.  In other words, what he
15:13:14  5   explained to me is he wasn't sure what decision
 6   had been made.
 7         Q.     Did he communicate that to Boaz?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9         Mr. Brown wasn't present.  How is he
15:13:22 10         supposed to testify -- confirm what Mr. Lin
11         said to Mr. Sally?
12                MR. LINDNER:  It's hearsay.  I'm
13         asking what Qing said to Jason Brown.
14         A.     Ask me the question again.
15:13:34 15                MS. PARK:  That's a different
16         question.
17         Q.     What did Qing say to you on that
18   third point --
19         A.     Just what I said.
15:13:40 20         Q.     -- in the quotes?  I know just what
21   you said.  I'm asking did he tell you -- did he
22   tell -- was he communicating to Boaz, quote, I'm
23   not sure if Peter can work at American Express,
24   unquote?
0219
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3         A.     It says -- did he -- you're asking
 4   me, did Qing say that to Boaz?
15:13:58  5         Q.     Yes.
 6         A.     Qing today me that is what he said
 7   to Boaz.
 8         Q.     Thank you.  Okay.  Do you consider
 9   that any information?
15:14:11 10         A.     Meaning what?  Are you talking about
11   back to paragraph 13 again?
12         Q.     Yes.
13         A.     Mr. Lindner, you're asking me the
14   same question over and over again.
15:14:21 15         Q.     Well, I am.  But first it's about
16   technical guy, and now it's whether he can be
17   used on at American Express.
18                MS. PARK:  And I assert -- I assert
19         the same objections to form.
15:14:34 20                MR. LINDNER:  Good.  Noted.
21         Q.     Is that any information?
22         A.     That is information, but I don't
23   know if it's information regarding your
24   employment or termination.
0220
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Well, wait.  Didn't you say whether
 3   he'd be ineligible for rehire?  Wouldn't that
 4   have to be a determination?
15:14:53  5                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 6         Objection to form.  Mischaracterizing
 7         Mr. Brown's testimony.
 8         Q.     Can you -- can you -- explain what
 9   it means?
15:14:58 10         A.     What what means?
11         Q.     "Ineligible for rehire."
12         A.     As I said, sometimes former
13   employees are coded as ineligible for rehire.
14         Q.     What do you mean by "former
15:15:10 15   employees"?
16                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17         A.     Someone who is leaving the company
18   or has just left the company.
19         Q.     So isn't that what termination
15:15:19 20   means?
21                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22         A.     Well -- what do you mean,
23   termination of employment?
24         Q.     Yeah.  Doesn't leaving the company
0221
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   mean termination of employment?
 3         A.     I think that a more pedestrian -- a
 4   more -- most people, when they hear termination
15:15:37  5   of employment, they don't take it literally.
 6   They think it means you've been fired as opposed
 7   to you resign.
 8         Q.     Suppose you leave because you're
 9   pregnant, you know.  That's termination of
15:15:52 10   employment?
11         A.     Technically, that's right.
12         Q.     You say, hey, I'm pregnant --
13         A.     If you resign you've terminated your
14   employment.
15:15:53 15         Q.     I'm going to come back in a year.
16   But then you decide you want to stay with your
17   kids and, you know, you say I'm not coming back.
18   That's termination of employment; correct?
19         A.     Correct.
15:16:02 20         Q.     Would -- would somebody in that
21   situation be coded?
22         A.     Ineligible for rehire?
23         Q.     No.  Would they be coded at all?  Is
24   there a code only for certain people or there's a
0222
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   code for everybody who is termination nature?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     Oh, I don't know.  I don't know if
15:16:22  5   every person gets a codes.
 6         Q.     If somebody were terminated because
 7   they left to raise a family --
 8         A.     Right.
 9         Q.     -- would that -- is there a code for
15:16:29 10   that?
11                MS. PARK:  During what time period?
12         Q.     You work -- you work with employment
13   law.  Are you familiar with those?
14                MS. PARK:  He only joined American
15:16:36 15         Express in 2004.  You're asking about how
16         you were coded going back in 2000?
17                MR. LINDNER:  No.  I'm asking in
18         2006.
19         A.     Okay.  But --
15:16:43 20         Q.     When you use that term, when you say
21   "ineligible for rehire," how was Peter coded?
22         A.     Are you asking me how you were
23   coded?
24         Q.     No.  I'm asking if that has to do
0223
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   with termination of employment?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  And
 4         you are intelligible.
15:16:58  5         A.     Just ask me the question again.  I'm
 6   not following you.  I thought I was.
 7         Q.     Somebody is coded.
 8         A.     Right.
 9         Q.     Somebody.
15:17:04 10         A.     Okay.
11         Q.     Somebody marked them ineligible for
12   rehire.
13         A.     Right.
14         Q.     Does that imply that they were
15:17:15 15   terminated from employment?
16         A.     Well --
17                MS. PARK:  You mean fired?
18         A.     Well, not always.  Not always.
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:17:23 20         A.     Someone -- let me give an example.
21   Someone could apply for a job.  They could not be
22   hired.  Let's say they failed a drug test, okay.
23   Or for some other reason.  We may code that
24   person as ineligible for rehire, even though they
0224
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   were never hired in the first place.  So it's not
 3   always -- is that what you're asking?
 4         Q.     That's among the questions.
15:17:45  5         A.     Okay.
 6         Q.     But you will assert that I was an
 7   American Express employee at one point; correct?
 8         A.     Yes.
 9         Q.     Okay.  So that's not my case; right?
15:17:54 10         A.     No.  I thought you were just asking
11   me general questions.
12         Q.     I understand.  I was asking you
13   general questions.
14                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, you need to
15:18:01 15         let him finish answer the question before
16         you start asking another question.
17                MR. LINDNER:  Okay, Ms. Park.  Good
18         point.  I will take that under
19         consideration and try to live by it.
15:18:10 20         Q.     So if Qing spoke to you and says,
21   how is Peter coded, he did say that; right?
22         A.     No.
23                MS. PARK:  No.
24         A.     No, no, no, no, no.  No.
0225
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     What did he say?
 3         A.     He didn't ask me how you were coded.
 4         Q.     He said?
15:18:24  5         A.     Let me try to explain it again.
 6         Q.     Please.
 7         A.     Okay.  So I sat down and spoke to
 8   Qing, okay, at your request.  You were asking me
 9   to -- I think at this point you were asking me to
15:18:34 10   get written statements from people, sworn
11   statements from people.  You were directing me
12   on -- as to how to do an investigation.  And to
13   try to address your concerns, I sat down with
14   Qing, okay.  And I think this was the second time
15:18:52 15   I spoke to him.  And --
16         Q.     Can you tell me when the first time
17   was, I'm sorry?
18         A.     I don't know when I told you that.
19         Q.     Oh, you mean in July?
15:19:01 20         A.     I don't know when.
21         Q.     Okay.
22         A.     You're asking me can you tell me.  I
23   said no.  Then you said in July.  I don't know
24   when.
0226
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     I thought you meant for the second
 3   time in this one-week period?
 4         A.     No.
15:19:13  5         Q.     You mean a half a year prior?
 6         A.     Much earlier.
 7         Q.     Okay.
 8         A.     Much earlier.
 9         Q.     But just get me right.  You sat down
15:19:19 10   with him or this was a telephone call?
11         A.     No, I think I spoke to him in
12   person.
13         Q.     How would you know if you did or
14   not?
15:19:27 15         A.     Well, my recollection is that I did.
16         Q.     Is there any way to tell?  Is there
17   like a document that would reflect it?
18         A.     I don't think so.  I mean, I didn't
19   write it down here.
15:19:36 20                MS. PARK:  All right.  Just make the
21         record clear that you're referring to
22         Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.
23                THE WITNESS:  Oh.
24         Q.     So if you spoke in person, would you
0227
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   make an appointment?  Would you just drop by?
 3         A.     No.  It depends.  But more likely
 4   than not, I would -- well, I would either call
15:19:59  5   him or I guess make an appointment.  But I
 6   certainly wouldn't just drop by.
 7         Q.     Could you have, for instance, made
 8   just a telephone call on this, and this was just
 9   a phone call instead of being in person?
15:20:14 10                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Asked
11         and answered.  And again, requesting
12         hypothetical.
13         A.     No.  My recollection is that I met
14   with him.
15:20:20 15         Q.     Okay.  His title is the chief credit
16   officer, let me say, for institutional risk and
17   collections.
18                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
19         Q.     Would you speak to him directly or
15:20:30 20   would you ask his leader, his supervisor, whether
21   you can do that?
22         A.     Right now or back then?
23         Q.     Well, both.
24         A.     No, I would speak to him directly.
0228
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   I wouldn't ask a supervisor if I could speak to
 3   him.
 4         Q.     Okay.  And how about back then?
15:20:50  5         A.     I would pick up the phone.
 6         Q.     That's cool.  Do you know who his
 7   supervisor was?
 8                MS. PARK:  When?
 9         Q.     In 2006?
15:20:54 10         A.     I think it was Ash Gupta.
11         Q.     It was?
12         A.     I think so.
13         Q.     All right.  So I'm sorry I
14   interrupted you but I jumped at something.  I
15:21:06 15   thought you said the second.  I thought you meant
16   you spoke to him twice in that period.  But half
17   a year previous.  Go ahead.
18         A.     I was trying to clarify something
19   for you.  I don't even remember what it was at
15:21:19 20   this point.
21         Q.     Okay.  We're talking about the
22   ineligible for rehire sort of implies that they
23   were talking about me being coded as ineligible
24   for rehire.  That implies a termination?
0229
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3         A.     Yeah.  I can't agree with what you
 4   just said because I'm not sure I understand it.
15:21:40  5   But just, again, to try to bring this back about
 6   what I recollect about my conversation with Qing
 7   with respect to this particular statement, "I'm
 8   not sure whether he can be used on on an AXP."  I
 9   don't have another word there to end that
15:21:52 10   sentence.  I don't know what it was, project,
11   something like that.
12                MS. PARK:  Again, let the record
13         reflect Mr. Brown is referring to
14         Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.
15:22:00 15                THE WITNESS:  Right.
16         A.     I asked him what he meant by that.
17   And what he told me was something like, you know,
18   I didn't know what the terms were when he left,
19   and I didn't know if he was coded in any way that
15:22:16 20   he couldn't come back or he was ineligible for
21   rehire.
22         Q.     Okay.  Was I applying for a job at
23   American Express?
24         A.     When?
0230
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     In 2006.
 3         A.     I don't know.
 4         Q.     2005?
15:22:25  5         A.     I don't know.
 6         Q.     I was applying for a job with Fisher
 7   Jordan?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Is
 9         there a question?
15:22:31 10         A.     Okay.
11         Q.     Do you think I was applying for a
12   job at American Express?
13                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14         A.     Did I think you were?
15:22:38 15         Q.     Yes.
16         A.     No.
17         Q.     The prospective employer wasn't
18   American Express; right?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:22:44 20         Q.     Who was the prospective employer?
21         A.     You're talking about at that time?
22         Q.     Yes.
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         A.     Fisher Jordan.
0231
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Fisher Jordan, not American Express?
 3         A.     Right.
 4         Q.     Okay.  Do you feel that that
15:23:34  5   sentence about the unsuredness of Qing expressed
 6   to Fisher Jordan is giving any information to
 7   Fisher Jordan?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 9         answered.
15:23:46 10         A.     If you're asking me if -- if Qing
11   gave any information, had any conversation with
12   Fisher Jordan --
13         Q.     No.  I didn't ask that.
14         A.     Okay.  So what are you asking?
15:23:55 15         Q.     I'm asking if the phrase "I'm not
16   sure whether he can be used on at AXP," at
17   American Express, is giving information to Fisher
18   Jordan?
19         A.     Just is it giving any information to
15:24:16 20   Fisher Jordan?  Sure.
21         Q.     It is?
22         A.     Yeah.  Any information can be
23   anything.
24         Q.     Okay.  See, because I interpret
0232
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   paragraph 13 to say that he's not to give any
 3   information.  But it doesn't say give, it says
 4   disclose.
15:24:31  5         A.     I understand.  Again, you interpret
 6   this one way --
 7         Q.     I know.  I interpret it one way, and
 8   you interpret it another.  And I want your
 9   interpretation because you were the investigator;
15:24:39 10   correct?
11                MS. PARK:  I don't care about your
12         interpretation.
13         Q.     Were you the investigator?
14                MS. PARK:  Yeah.  We stipulate he
15:24:44 15         looked into your complaint.
16                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.
17         Q.     Who assigned you this investigation?
18                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He's
19         asked that.  No one assigned him.  Move on.
15:24:57 20         You're a time waster.
21                MR. LINDNER:  He hasn't.
22                MS. PARK:  Yes, he has.
23                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I've warned
24         you in a letter that you're not to use
0233
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         names like time waster again.
 3                MS. PARK:  It's a statement of fact.
 4         I believe the judge called you a time
15:25:14  5         waster.  Yeah, shared by the Court.
 6                MR. LINDNER:  I note that -- that
 7         you object.
 8                MS. PARK:  Move on.
 9                MR. LINDNER:  And I note that I
15:25:21 10         specifically asked you not to do that.
11                MS. PARK:  I don't care what you
12         asked me to do.  Move on.
13         Q.     So --
14         A.     So, again, you asked me this
15:25:29 15   earlier.
16         Q.     Yes.
17         A.     I'm happy to say it again.  I don't
18   recall how this first came to me.
19         Q.     Well, not first.  This is the second
15:25:36 20   time?
21                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22         A.     What's the second -- at this point,
23   Mr. Lindner, my recollection is that you were
24   incessantly sending e-mails.
0234
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     To whom?
 3         A.     To me.  I think to Steve Norman.
 4   Maybe others.  And calling me.  And, again, as I
15:25:55  5   said, insisting that -- that there was a code of
 6   conduct violation and that -- or some kind of
 7   conflict of interest, I think is maybe what you
 8   were saying.  And that you wanted me to take
 9   people -- get sworn statements and affidavits and
15:26:12 10   you were asking me all these hypothetical
11   questions.  So again, to try to address your
12   concerns, I spoke to Qing.
13         Q.     Good.  Why didn't you just have Qing
14   write you a memo?
15:26:29 15         A.     Because that's not the way I saw fit
16   to do that.
17         Q.     What disadvantage would there have
18   been in writing a memo?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:26:38 20         A.     You know, there could have been
21   many.  There could have been none.  I don't know.
22         Q.     Would one of the objections be that
23   he would commit himself on paper and that that
24   would be discoverable evidence?
0235
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 3         Argumentative.  Mischaracterizing his
 4         testimony.  Argumentative.
15:26:53  5                MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.
 6         Q.     When you make an objection -- when
 7   you do an investigation, do you typically not ask
 8   people to just write you a memo on what happens?
 9                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:27:03 10         A.     No.  I don't ask them to write me a
11   memo.
12         Q.     And why is that?
13         A.     It's just not the way I do
14   investigations.  I don't think it is the -- is
15:27:11 15   the -- it doesn't allow fluidity.  It doesn't
16   allow an ask and answer.
17         Q.     But you could also have him write a
18   memo and then you could talk to him about it?
19         A.     Mr. Lindner, I could do a lot of
15:27:24 20   things.
21         Q.     Yes.
22         A.     You're asking me what I do, and I'm
23   telling you what I do.  If you want to argue with
24   me or debate with me a better way to do it, you
0236
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   know, it's not -- you're not asking me questions,
 3   okay.  And this is reminiscent of, quite frankly,
 4   what we went through when I was trying to
15:27:37  5   investigate this and address your concerns.
 6         Q.     And that is what, that I'm
 7   interminable?
 8         A.     No.  I did not say you were
 9   interminable.
15:27:50 10                MS. PARK:  Those were my words.  You
11         are an interminable time waster, arguer.
12         A.     But you're asking me now
13   hypothetical questions about the way an
14   investigation -- and trying to prove to me that
15:28:02 15   you have -- that you have a better way of doing
16   an investigation or conducting an investigation.
17         Q.     Right.  I was trying to suggest
18   that.  I was suggesting that if you had -- if you
19   had had him write a memo, then you could have had
15:28:13 20   the conversation afterwards.
21                MR. LINDNER:  I'd like to introduce
22         into evidence a one-page document from
23         Peter Lindner to Steven Norman, with a copy
24         to Boaz and Trevor at Fisher Jordan.  And
0237
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         it's dated January 17, 2006.  I'm going to
 3         ask it to be marked as an exhibit.  I
 4         labeled it Plaintiff Brown 103.
15:28:41  5                (Plaintiff Brown Exhibit No. 103,
 6         1/17/06 one-page document from Peter
 7         Lindner to Steven Norman, with a copy to
 8         Boaz and Trevor at Fisher Jordan, marked
 9         for identification as of this date.)
15:28:52 10                MS. PARK:  Looks like another
11         document that has no Bates stamp.
12                MR. LINDNER:  I note for the record
13         that this is going to Steven Norman.
14                Ms. Park, did you --
15:28:58 15                (Discussion off the record.)
16                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.
17                MS. PARK:  Yeah.  I'm going to note
18         for the record that this document does not
19         have any Bates stamp number, once again
15:29:29 20         appears to be an e-mail that Mr. Lindner
21         did not -- did not produce to me during the
22         course of discovery, and that this document
23         also seems to be incomplete insofar as it
24         references a seven-page-long document, when
0238
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         this document is only one page long, and a
 3         summary of some kind with Boaz below that
 4         does not appear in this document.
15:29:53  5                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  Thank you.
 6                MS. PARK:  I also note for the
 7         record that Mr. Brown's name does not
 8         appear on this document anywhere.
 9                MR. LINDNER:  Right.  But Steven
15:30:01 10         Norman's name does appear and he is a
11         member of American Express.  And moreover,
12         if American Express was diligent in getting
13         their electronically stored information
14         ESI, as required by the Supreme Court
15:30:16 15         revision of Federal Rules of Civil
16         Procedure in December 2006, they would have
17         turned over all electronic media and they
18         would have included this document to Steven
19         Norman.
15:30:29 20                MS. PARK:  Yeah.  Where's the
21         complete copy of this document that appears
22         to be in your possession?  Why are you only
23         selectively producing one page of it?
24                MR. LINDNER:  It's -- it's -- Steven
0239
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Norman has it.  You could ask if he has it.
 3                MS. PARK:  Well, you have it,
 4         clearly.  But you've decided that you're
15:30:44  5         only going to produce page one.
 6                MR. LINDNER:  No.  I am assuming
 7         that American Express used due diligence
 8         for searching their files for letters
 9         concerning me, Ms. Park.  You can correct
15:30:55 10         your remark.
11                MS. PARK:  You did your due
12         diligence for page one but didn't bother to
13         produce the rest of the document.
14                MR. LINDNER:  I might have the rest,
15:31:04 15         and maybe I can give it to you.  But right
16         now talking -- I'm saying that you have
17         this document in your files and you chose
18         not to give it to me.  But maybe did give
19         it to me, so maybe you're raising an
15:31:16 20         objection about nothing.
21         Q.     So I'm asking you now, Jason, what's
22   the date on that?
23                MS. PARK:  We'll stipulate that the
24         date written on here says Tuesday,
0240
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         January 7, 2006.  Move on.
 3         Q.     Can you read the first sentence?
 4         A.     "Dear Mr. Norman, Thanks for taking
15:31:30  5   the time to call me this morning about the
 6   serious matter of Mr. Qing Lin violating the
 7   agreement between me and American Express."
 8         Q.     How would you interpret that
 9   sentence?
15:31:39 10                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
11         A.     Yeah.  What are you asking me?
12         Q.     What does that sentence mean?
13         A.     I didn't write it.
14         Q.     I know you didn't write it.  There's
15:31:46 15   a lot of things you didn't write that you
16   understand.
17         A.     Are you asking if I understand it?
18         Q.     No.  I'm asking what does it mean?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:32:02 20         A.     You are thanking Steve Norman for
21   having a telephone call with him about something
22   that you deemed to be serious, and that you
23   deemed that Qing Lin had violated the agreement
24   between you and American Express.
0241
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Is there another name for "the
 3   agreement," do you think?
 4                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:32:12  5         A.     I presume -- I presume you're
 6   referring to the settlement -- the settlement
 7   agreement that you've been referring to
 8   throughout the deposition.
 9         Q.     Right.
15:32:22 10         A.     But I didn't write this letter so I
11   don't know what you meant.
12         Q.     You didn't.  You didn't.  And I am
13   suggesting that I wrote this letter on June -- on
14   January 17, 2006, after Mr. Norman called me to
15:32:37 15   talk about Qing Lin violating paragraph 13 of the
16   June 2000 settlement agreement.
17                MS. PARK:  Who cares what you're
18         suggesting?
19         Q.     This is how we care:  Because I
15:32:51 20   think if we got Steven Norman and asked him why
21   you were assigned to investigate, he would say he
22   asked you to investigate this matter.
23         A.     He may have.
24         Q.     Would you recall it, if he had?
0242
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     No.  I told you, I don't recall.
 3         Q.     But do you get requests from
 4   Mr. Norman frequently?
15:33:12  5         A.     No.
 6         Q.     Is he pretty high up in the
 7   corporation?
 8                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 9         A.     He's a senior person in the
15:33:18 10   corporation, yeah.
11         Q.     How senior?
12         A.     I don't know what you mean by that.
13   I mean --
14         Q.     How many people are in the company?
15:33:24 15         A.     How many people are in American
16   Express?
17         Q.     Yeah.  Roughly.
18         A.     I don't know.  I don't know.
19   50,000.  60,000.  Something like that.
15:33:33 20         Q.     Okay.  Is he among the top 30,000?
21         A.     The top 30,000?  Yeah, I would think
22   so.
23         Q.     Top 1,000?
24         A.     I don't know.  I don't know how many
0243
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   people are higher than him or at the same level
 3   as him.  I don't --
 4         Q.     So if somebody said he's in the top
15:33:49  5   one percent, you'd say probably not?
 6                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, asked and
 7         answered.
 8         A.     I don't know.  I don't even know how
 9   many people there are.  So how can I ever do that
15:33:57 10   calculation?
11         Q.     Do you know where the AMEX corporate
12   secretary is in the American Express
13   headquarters?
14         A.     Where his office is?
15:34:04 15         Q.     Yeah.
16         A.     Yeah.
17         Q.     Do you know what floor it is,
18   approximately?
19         A.     I do know where his floor is.
15:34:08 20         Q.     What floor?
21         A.     The 50th floor.
22         Q.     How many floors are there in the
23   American Express building, roughly?
24         A.     In the tower that I work in, how
0244
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   many floors are there?
 3         Q.     The tower that -- that Steven Norman
 4   works in.
15:34:20  5         A.     Steven Norman works in the same
 6   tower as I do.
 7         Q.     Okay.  So how many floors --
 8         A.     The elevator goes up to 51.
 9         Q.     And he's in the 50th?
15:34:27 10         A.     Right.  But I don't know if there
11   are floors above that.
12         Q.     No.  There might be.  But -- but
13   would you say as a rough -- what floor is the --
14   is the chief executive officer on?
15:34:36 15         A.     51.
16         Q.     What floor are you on?
17         A.     49.
18         Q.     Do you think that the people at the
19   top floors might have a higher status than the
15:34:46 20   people on the lower floors?
21                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, objection to
22         form.  Asked and answered.  Move on.  He
23         doesn't know.
24                MR. LINDNER:  He might know.
0245
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Mr. Lindner, just to -- maybe to try
 3   to get to what you're saying.
 4         Q.     Please.
15:34:59  5         A.     There are people who work on the
 6   51st floor, which is the top floor that the
 7   elevator goes to.  That's the same floor as the
 8   CEO, who are secretaries.
 9         Q.     Right.
15:35:08 10         A.     Okay.  So they are not --
11         Q.     And, in fact, he is a secretary?
12         A.     Well, I mean secretaries in terms
13   of -- he's a corporate secretary.
14         Q.     Well, what's the difference?
15:35:16 15         A.     I'm talking about a secretary who is
16   typing someone's letters, who's answering
17   someone's phones.  And those people are --
18         Q.     Is he one of them?
19                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, you know
15:35:30 20         full well he's not.  Move on.
21                MR. LINDNER:  Right.
22         Q.     So -- so wouldn't you say that aside
23   from the people who are servicing, who work in
24   the direct employ of the top brass at American
0246
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   headquarters, the top brass are located on the
 3   top few floors of the building?
 4         A.     Some of them are.  But there's also
15:35:50  5   another floor that's much further down where
 6   there's top brass.
 7         Q.     Right.
 8         A.     So I guess what I'm trying to say to
 9   you is that while there may be a correlation
15:35:55 10   between the level of someone and the floor that
11   they sit on, it's not -- it's not always the
12   case, okay.  So --
13         Q.     I understand.
14         A.     Steve Norman is a senior person in
15:36:03 15   the organization, but the fact that he sits on
16   the 50th floor doesn't necessarily indicate that.
17         Q.     Yeah.  I don't have a copy of it
18   here.  There's an annual report put out by
19   American Express.  Are you familiar with the
15:36:19 20   annual report?
21         A.     Yes.
22         Q.     On one page they list the chief
23   executive officer and some committee, like an
24   executive committee, that has a chief legal
0247
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   person, a president of banking, a board of
 3   directors.  Are you familiar with a page,
 4   something like that?
15:36:40  5         A.     No.  Not particularly.
 6         Q.     Would you feel that people listed on
 7   that page are important people at American
 8   Express?
 9                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:36:47 10         A.     I don't know who's listed on the
11   page.  But if you're telling me that the chief
12   legal officer, which is the general counsel, is
13   listed on a page, if you're asking me if that is
14   someone who was, quote-unquote, important, I
15:36:58 15   would say yes.
16         Q.     And if on that same page there were
17   like, say, 20 to 40 names, and one of the names
18   was Ken Chenault, and another name was Louise
19   Parent, and another name was Ash Gupta, and
15:37:14 20   another name was the members of the board of
21   director, and also there was Steven Norman on
22   there, you'd have a feeling that they are all
23   pretty important; correct?
24                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0248
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Yeah.
 3                MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.  He's
 4         not going to speculate.  Move on.
15:37:28  5         A.     Look, Mr. Lindner, if you're asking
 6   me if I think Steve Norman is a, quote-unquote,
 7   important person for American Express --
 8         Q.     Yes, that's what I'm asking.
 9         A.     -- in my opinion, he is an important
15:37:38 10   person to American Express.
11         Q.     And would you say like in the top
12   1,000?
13                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14         A.     I'm not talking about what -- how
15:37:46 15   many people are more senior to him in terms of
16   his band level or, you know, seniority.
17         Q.     Status?
18         A.     Status.
19         Q.     Not seniority.  You could you have
15:37:54 20   somebody who worked on the telephone for 30
21   years.
22         A.     I wasn't talking about tenure.  I'm
23   just trying to -- look, again, Mr. Lindner, I'm
24   trying to answer your question, as opposed to
0249
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   circling around it.
 3         Q.     I feel you're circling around it.
 4         A.     I'm really trying not to.  If you're
15:38:09  5   asking me if Steven Norman is a senior person at
 6   the company --
 7         Q.     Yes.
 8         A.     -- the answer is yes.
 9         Q.     Yes.  Thank you.  So I'm asking you
15:38:15 10   how often would a senior person at the company
11   ask you to do an investigation?
12                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13         A.     That's --
14                MS. PARK:  He's already testified
15:38:20 15         that he has no recollection --
16         Q.     Has Ken Chenault ever asked you to
17   do an investigation?
18         A.     No.
19         Q.     Do you know any other senior people
15:38:29 20   who have asked you to do investigations?
21         A.     Yes.
22         Q.     Good.  Would they ask you directly
23   or would they go through your boss?
24                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
0250
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Could be either way.
 3         Q.     Okay.  Is Steven Norman in your
 4   organization?
15:38:47  5                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 6         A.     At American Express?
 7         Q.     Yes.
 8         A.     You mean, is he in the general
 9   counsel's office?
15:38:54 10         Q.     Yes.
11         A.     Yes.
12         Q.     He's part of the general counsel's
13   office?
14         A.     Well, the secretary's office rolls
15:38:58 15   into -- I don't know if technically it's part of
16   the general counsel's office.  But if it's not,
17   it all rolls into Louise Parent.  Just so you
18   understand, the lawyers work closely with him.  I
19   work closely with him.  So Steve -- it's not rare
15:39:12 20   that I speak to Steve Norman or I would say hi to
21   him in an elevator or in the hallway.
22         Q.     What I wanted to say is that I wrote
23   to Steven Norman on January 17th, and a few weeks
24   later you were doing an investigation.  To the
0251
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   best of my knowledge, Steven Norman informed me
 3   that you were going to do the investigation.  I
 4   don't have that document.  Do you have such a
15:39:37  5   document of who told you to do the investigation?
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7         A.     I already told you that I don't,
 8   okay.  You're talking about the investigation
 9   going back to 2005 or are you talking --
15:39:47 10         Q.     No.  2006.  I'm talking after
11   January 17, 2006.
12         A.     Mr. Lindner, my recollection is at
13   that point I was already engaged in this, and I
14   was again trying to address your concerns.
15:40:02 15         Q.     Great.
16         A.     Okay.  So I don't know that anyone
17   asked me to do anything different other than you.
18   You were coming up with all of these suggestions
19   and -- and, again, sending a tremendous amount
15:40:18 20   of e-mail traffic, and I was trying to address
21   your concerns.
22         Q.     Okay.  But what I'm suggesting is
23   that this document is the link because this is
24   the link where I first called -- well, actually
0252
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   Steven Norman first called me and we spoke, and
 3   then I summarized that conversation in that
 4   letter.
15:40:34  5                MS. PARK:  That's your contention.
 6         Move on.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  It is my contention.
 8         A.     Okay.  I don't know.
 9                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  Another
15:41:27 10         exhibit.  A lot of these exhibits I feel
11         American Express should have because
12         they're addressed to American Express.  And
13         American Express had a document that asked
14         them to maintain and deviate from their
15:41:52 15         destruction policy.
16                MS. PARK:  Yeah.  And that does not
17         obviate your obligation under the federal
18         rules to make a production in response to
19         our document request.  This exhibit is
15:42:01 20         going to be yet another e-mail that you
21         failed to produce to me in response to my
22         document requests.
23                MR. LINDNER:  So I'm giving
24         Plaintiff Brown 104 to Amy.
0253
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                (Plaintiff Brown Exhibit No. 104,
 3         Lindner e-mail to Norman, with cc's to Boaz
 4         and Trevor, marked for identification as of
15:42:12  5         this date.)
 6                MS. PARK:  Please give me a copy.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much,
 8         Amy.
 9         Q.     I'm going to hand over Plaintiff
15:42:35 10   Brown 104, which is a one page e-mail from me,
11   Peter Lindner, to -- from me to me, and also to
12   Steven Norman, with a copy to Boaz and Trevor.
13   And --
14                MS. PARK:  And I'll note for the
15:42:55 15         record that once again, I believe this is
16         either the third or fourth e-mail
17         communication, that Mr. Lindner is showing
18         to Mr. Brown that seems to have not been
19         sent to Mr. Brown under any circumstance.
15:43:08 20         And, in fact, in this document there is no
21         reference to Mr. Brown whatsoever.
22                MR. LINDNER:  Right.  Thank you for
23         your comment.
24                By the way, these might be Bates
0254
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         stamped, but you gave a Bates stamp in a
 3         whole bunch of e-mails that I sent to
 4         American Express.  I, meaning, Peter
15:43:31  5         Lindner, sent to American Express.  So it's
 6         probably in there.  However, I'm just
 7         saying that this is my copy that I produced
 8         at home on my computer.  So it might be
 9         Bates stamped, but I don't have the Bates
15:43:40 10         stamp with me.  But Ms. Park, you can
11         check.  So a lot of your allegations might
12         be true, but it might actually be false.
13                So --
14                MS. PARK:  You did not produce this
15:43:51 15         record.
16                MR. LINDNER:  Well, maybe I didn't,
17         but maybe you did.  And -- maybe --
18                MS. PARK:  It doesn't matter.  It
19         doesn't obviate --
15:44:00 20                MR. LINDNER:  I understand.  I
21         understand.
22                MS. PARK:  -- your obligation to
23         produce records in your custody,
24         possession, or control.
0255
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  Or in your custody,
 3         possession, or control.
 4                MS. PARK:  And I'm going to be
15:44:06  5         seeking a preclusion against you,
 6         Mr. Lindner.  You could have been squatting
 7         on documents that are responsive.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  Well, you know,
 9         Ms. Park, I think that's interesting.  I
15:44:12 10         haven't been squatting on documents.
11                MS. PARK:  Sure, you have.
12                MR. LINDNER:  I have been in
13         possession of documents, but I asked that
14         we have ESI where I would hand over
15:44:24 15         thousands of documents to you on CD-ROM, as
16         specified by the Federal Rules of Civil
17         Procedure.
18                MS. PARK:  No.  You were ordered by
19         the judge to produce e-mails.
15:44:35 20                MR. LINDNER:  Excuse me.  Please let
21         me finish.  Please.  That I was to turn
22         over thousands of documents to you in ESI
23         that would include metadata so that you can
24         confirm their authenticity, and I asked to
0256
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         do that and you turned us down.  And, in
 3         fact, you got a court order to say that we
 4         win wouldn't do that.
15:44:49  5                So, you know, my prior attorneys
 6         could have given this to you.  This
 7         document is several years old.  If I'm not
 8         mistaken, Tom Lutz was my attorney at the
 9         time, and he failed in doing so.  But I am
15:45:03 10         saying that if -- if you agree, and let me
11         ask you right now here --
12                MS. PARK:  No.  Ask Mr. Brown a
13         question.
14                MR. LINDNER:  No.  I'm asking you.
15:45:10 15                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm not going to
16         respond.
17                MR. LINDNER:  You don't have to
18         respond.  I'd like to say on the record
19         that I am open to turning over all the
15:45:17 20         e-mails that I have that I sent to American
21         Express and to Fisher Jordan, and I'm
22         asking that -- that they be in ESI so
23         they're easily searchable, in other words,
24         that a computer can read it instead of
0257
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         going through mounds of paper, and that
 3         American Express in turn give me all of
 4         their electronically stored information so
15:45:36  5         that I can go through it instead of having
 6         to deal with paper.  And that's my
 7         proposal.  Ms. Park --
 8                MS. PARK:  I don't care what your
 9         proposal is.
15:45:46 10                MR. LINDNER:  Please take it under
11         consideration.
12                MS. PARK:  You were ordered by the
13         Court to produce these records.  You failed
14         to do so.
15:45:52 15                MR. LINDNER:  Maybe I did.  Maybe I
16         didn't.  I really don't know.
17         Q.     So, anyhow, you see that it's from
18   me to Steven Norman?
19         A.     Well, this is from you to you.
15:46:02 20         Q.     And who's next to the name?
21         A.     Steve Norman, Boaz Salik, Trevor
22   Baron.
23         Q.     Yeah.  But it's from me to Steven
24   Norman.  Do you see that?
0258
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Yeah.  I just -- I just read it to
 3   you.
 4         Q.     Okay.
15:46:06  5         A.     What I said.
 6         Q.     Okay.  When I said it was from me to
 7   Steven Norman, you said no?
 8         A.     Well, it's not only from you.
 9         Q.     That's true.  All right.  So I said,
15:46:15 10   "Boaz, I forget to mention in the summary of our
11   conversation."  Can you read it?
12                MS. PARK:  No.  Ask him a question.
13                MR. LINDNER:  I asked.
14         Q.     Can you read it, please?
15:46:29 15         A.     I can.
16         Q.     Can you please read it out loud?
17                MS. PARK:  No.  He's not reading it
18         out loud.
19                MR. LINDNER:  Why not?
15:46:37 20                MS. PARK:  Ask him a legitimate
21         question.  This is ridiculous.
22                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking him to read
23         it out loud.
24                MS. PARK:  No.
0259
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                THE WITNESS:  I'll read it.
 3         A.     You, open paren.
 4         Q.     Meaning Boaz?
15:46:52  5         A.     Do you want me to read it?
 6         Q.     Yeah.  But, you know, open paren, I
 7   think that throws people.  Go ahead.
 8         A.     "You, Boaz, said we (Boaz and Peter)
 9   never talked about your conversation with Qing
15:47:01 10   Lin.  I reminded you that when you came to MBNA
11   in Wilmington, DE I spoke to you as you were
12   getting in the taxi for the train station to
13   return to NYC.  I talked about," bullet point,
14   "Qing's comment and," bullet point, "that he
15:47:19 15   (Qing) said I did not fit into the culture.  You
16   replied then (July/August 2005) that what Qing
17   said to you (Boaz) was in confidence and that
18   Trevor probably should not have told me (Peter)
19   that.  Regards Peter.  Peter W. Lindner, 1" --
15:47:42 20         Q.     That's okay.  You don't have to read
21   the address.
22         A.     I do note it's actually dated
23   1/15/2009.  I don't understand that.
24         Q.     That's when it was printed.  So --
0260
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   so what I'm saying here is I'm telling Boaz about
 3   some comments that I made to him, that Qing made
 4   comments to Boaz and that Qing said that I, Peter
15:48:06  5   Lindner, did not fit into the culture.  Those are
 6   the two bullet points.  Do you see that?
 7         A.     If you're asking me if that's what
 8   this said -- says, I don't even know.
 9         Q.     Okay.
15:48:27 10         A.     I couldn't --
11         Q.     Well, look at the second bullet
12   point.
13         A.     I read it already.  That he, Qing,
14   said, I did not fit into the culture.
15:48:30 15         Q.     So I'm alleging that Qing said that
16   to Boaz.
17         A.     Okay.
18         Q.     Okay.  But I copied Steven Norman on
19   that.
15:48:36 20         A.     Okay.
21         Q.     And so I was trying to let Steven
22   Norman what Qing said.
23                MS. PARK:  Who cares?
24         A.     Okay.
0261
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  You're not dragging
 3         Mr. Norman into this suit.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  Well, actually, I am.
15:48:48  5         He's the one who -- who commissioned Jason
 6         to get into this investigation.
 7         Q.     Did he or not?
 8                MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.
 9         A.     Mr. Lindner, you've asked me this at
15:49:02 10   least three times.
11         Q.     Yes.
12         A.     What have I told me?
13         Q.     You told me no.  You told me, no,
14   you didn't say that.  You said you don't recall;
15:49:08 15   is that correct?
16         A.     I don't think that is correct.  I
17   don't recall how I got involved in this.
18         Q.     Right.
19         A.     But what I have said repeatedly is
15:49:14 20   that at this point, okay, so when we were -- when
21   we were at the point of, let's say, sometime in
22   2006, you were incessantly e-mailing me and you
23   were calling me and you had taken issue with the
24   way the investigation was being conducted or had
0262
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   been conducted.  And, therefore, I -- I was
 3   trying to address your concerns.
 4         Q.     That's good.
15:50:07  5                Do you need a break, Jason?
 6         A.     I've got a little more in me.  Thank
 7   you.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  How much time do we
 9         have, Dmitry, on the tape?
15:50:19 10                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  13 minutes.
11                (Discussion off the record.)
12                MR. LINDNER:  Maybe we'll take a
13         break in 13 minutes.  Is that okay?
14                THE REPORTER:  Great.
15:51:20 15                MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.  Okay.  I
16         have two exhibits in a row, which I will
17         call Plaintiff Brown 105 and 106.  Okay.  I
18         am handing them both to Amy.  105 and 106.
19         Before I hand it to her, I'd just like to
15:52:39 20         describe the documents.
21                MS. PARK:  Can I have a copy as
22         you're describing it.
23                MR. LINDNER:  Yes, you can.
24                MS. PARK:  What is 105 and what is
0263
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         106?  What's this?
 3                MR. LINDNER:  So I'll describe the
 4         documents.
15:52:56  5                MS. PARK:  Well, what is 105?  How
 6         are you marking them?
 7                MR. LINDNER:  I'll describe it.
 8         Please listen.
 9                One is a letter that's marked, it's
15:53:05 10         105, and it's marked to Ash Gupta and on
11         the top right-hand corner is a Xerox copy
12         of a postal document that's either -- it's
13         a certified mail type.  There's a little
14         check mark.  And document -- it's a
15:53:25 15         one-page document.
16                And then the next document is a
17         multipage document, actually, eight-page
18         document, which is dated Saturday,
19         October 7th and it's to Ash Gupta, and it
15:53:41 20         has a certified return receipt requested
21         number that ends with the following four
22         digits:  1018.
23                I note that the previous exhibit in
24         this pair of exhibits that has the
0264
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         certified mail from Plaintiff Brown 105
 3         also end in the digits 1018.  So I'm saying
 4         these were a pair of documents.  I hand it
15:54:09  5         to Amy now.
 6                (Plaintiff Brown Exhibit No. 105,
 7         October 7 document to Ash Gupta, bearing
 8         certified mail receipt, marked for
 9         identification as of this date.)
15:54:10 10                (Plaintiff Brown Exhibit No. 106,
11         eight-page document to Ash Gupta bearing
12         certified return receipt with numbers
13         ending in 1018, marked for identification
14         as of this date.)
15:54:19 15                MS. PARK:  Which one is 105 and
16         which one --
17                MR. LINDNER:  105 is one page.  The
18         multipage is 106.
19                (Discussion off the record.)
15:54:54 20                MS. PARK:  I'm going to note for the
21         record that nowhere on either Plaintiff
22         Brown 105 or 106 is there any indication
23         that either of these documents was
24         addressed to Mr. Brown, so it's yet another
0265
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         document that you're asking Mr. Brown to
 3         testify about which he was neither a
 4         recipient of nor author of.
15:55:19  5                MR. LINDNER:  Right.  Okay.  Thank
 6         you very much, Ms. Park.
 7         Q.     So Jason, I'd like you to look at
 8   the number on the two -- on the certified return
 9   receipt request number from both documents and
15:55:34 10   tell me if they are identical?
11         A.     You're asking -- help me out here.
12   What are you looking for me to compare?  This
13   number?
14         Q.     Yes.
15:55:44 15         A.     On this page it's blocked out.
16         Q.     With the image of the card.  It has
17   a number on it.  It says, "Article Number."  Do
18   those two article numbers compare?
19         A.     Article number -- you want me to
15:56:03 20   compare this number and this number (indicating)?
21         Q.     Correct.
22                MS. PARK:  We stipulate that they
23         are the same.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.
0266
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         I really do appreciate that.  Saves a
 3         little time.
 4         Q.     All right.  So as you can see, this
15:56:16  5   is a letter to Ash Gupta.
 6         A.     Which one are you looking at now?
 7         Q.     No. 106.  Actually, 105 and 106 are
 8   the same document.  The only difference is that
 9   105 is the first page of it with the certified
15:56:31 10   mail receipt from the postal service.  And
11   basically it's a two-page letter with
12   attachments.
13                And the two-page letter starts
14   saying that I formally, hereby formally ask you
15:56:53 15   to investigate your employee Qing Lin as to
16   whether Qing violated the agreement you
17   personally signed with me in June 2000,
18   considering that Qing admitted to the AMEX lawyer
19   saying something about me to my prospective
15:57:17 20   employer in the spring or summer of 2005.
21                MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
22         Q.     I want that to sink in, first.
23                Do you know who that AMEX lawyer is?
24                MS. PARK:  Oh, my goodness.
0267
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Mr. Lindner, you're asking Mr. Brown to
 3         interpret what you were saying in your --
 4                MR. LINDNER:  Yes.  Please --
15:57:31  5         Q.     Do you have --
 6                MS. PARK:  Object to form.
 7         Q.     Do you know who that AMEX lawyer is?
 8         A.     No.  What you're referring to in the
 9   third line here?
15:57:38 10         Q.     Yes.
11         A.     No.
12         Q.     Okay.  I'll tell you, it's you.
13         A.     Okay.
14                MR. LINDNER:  Did you think it was
15:57:47 15         obvious that it was him?
16                MS. PARK:  No.  I think you're
17         ridiculous is what I think you are.
18                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking, do you
19         think that it was obvious that it was him.
15:57:54 20         That's what your objection is, is that it
21         was too obvious?
22                MS. PARK:  First of all, let me
23         make -- let me make clear.  This in fact is
24         a document that I raised to Judge Kodal
0268
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         (ph) as you improperly addressing to
 3         Mr. Gupta after this lawsuit was filed and
 4         was well on its way.
15:58:10  5                MR. LINDNER:  When did you raise
 6         that objection to Judge Kodal?
 7                MS. PARK:  I raised it when the
 8         parties appeared in November 2006 for oral
 9         argument.  You filed this lawsuit in April
15:58:18 10         of 2006.  And, nonetheless, you felt
11         somehow that it was your right to continue
12         with your e-mailing or letter-writing
13         campaign directly to American Express, not
14         withstanding the pendency of your lawsuit.
15:58:33 15         Judge Kodal directed to you cease and
16         desist from having any direct
17         communications with American Express about
18         the matter alleged in your complaint.
19                MR. LINDNER:  And so this is before
15:58:43 20         that --
21                MS. PARK:  This is after you filed
22         your lawsuit.
23                MR. LINDNER:  But you said that.
24         I'm asking, was this document after the
0269
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         judge ordered me not to have writings to --
 3         to American Express people?
 4                MS. PARK:  No.  The judge wouldn't
15:59:00  5         have done that unless you had first
 6         violated --
 7                MR. LINDNER:  Right.  So this was
 8         before -- before he ruled.  Thank you.
 9         Q.     So now, reading that first sentence
15:59:14 10   again, does it all seem to fit in that I'm
11   talking about the settlement agreement of June
12   2000, and that the AMEX lawyer is Jason Brown who
13   investigated and spoke to Qing Lin?
14                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:59:26 15         A.     You just told me that's what you
16   meant so I --
17         Q.     Does it -- does it fit in with what
18   that says or doesn't it?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
15:59:33 20         A.     Does what fit in with what it says?
21         Q.     That first sentence.  Is it
22   consistent with that?
23         A.     Is what you just told me you meant
24   consistent with this sentence?
0270
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Yes.
 3         A.     I'm going to say that since you were
 4   the author of this --
15:59:52  5         Q.     I'm asking you for your
 6   interpretation.
 7         A.     My interpretation of what you meant
 8   here?
 9         Q.     Yes.
15:59:57 10         A.     That you're referring to me?
11         Q.     Yes.
12         A.     Yes.
13         Q.     Okay.  Read the second paragraph.
14         A.     "Qing admitted to Jason Brown, your
16:00:04 15   in-house counsel, that Qing spoke to Boaz Salik
16   at Fisher Jordan about me and admitted saying I
17   don't think he can work here.
18         Q.     Okay.  That fits in with the note
19   DEF00370, does it not?
16:00:17 20         A.     Which one is that one?
21         Q.     That was the handwritten notes that
22   you had --
23                MS. PARK:  Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.
0271
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     No.  I don't think I would agree
 3   with that.
 4         Q.     Okay.  I don't think he can work
16:00:30  5   here.
 6         A.     Well, first of all, I think you're
 7   mischaracter -- mischaracterizing my conversation
 8   with Qing as an admission, quite frankly.  The
 9   conversation was not, in my mind, any kind of
16:00:40 10   admission.  But the quote you have here, it
11   says -- it says, "admitted saying I don't think
12   he can work here," and what I wrote here in my
13   notes is "I'm not sure whether he can be used on
14   an AXP."  Like I said, I didn't write down the
16:00:56 15   last word but probably project.  So they're not
16   the same.
17         Q.     They're not.
18         A.     Isn't that what you're asking me, if
19   they're the same?
16:01:07 20         Q.     Yeah.
21         A.     Okay.  So they're not the same.
22         Q.     Are they close?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         A.     Yeah.  They're in the same ballpark,
0272
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   but it doesn't say the same thing.
 3         Q.     Well, is one a negative comment and
 4   one's a positive comment?
16:01:18  5         A.     That's a matter of your opinion.
 6         Q.     It is?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Asked
 8         and answered.
 9         Q.     I'm asking, is it a matter of my
16:01:29 10   opinion?
11                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
12         Argumentative.
13         Q.     In other words, you don't agree with
14   that opinion?
16:01:33 15                MS. PARK:  Argumentative.
16         A.     Mr. Lindner, I'm starting to lose
17   your train here.  Just ask me what you want to
18   know.
19         Q.     That statement, if Ash Gupta looked
16:01:43 20   at Exhibit 106 and said, Qing admitted to Jason
21   Brown, your in-house counsel, that Qing spoke to
22   Boaz Salik at Fisher Jordan about me, is that
23   part true?
24                MS. PARK:  You're asking Mr. Brown
0273
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         to testify what Ash was thinking we he
 3         received this?
 4                MR. LINDNER:  No.
16:02:02  5         Q.     I'm saying is that statement true?
 6                MS. PARK:  What statement?
 7         A.     What statement?
 8                MR. LINDNER:  Please don't interrupt
 9         me.  We have one minute on the tape.
16:02:11 10         Q.     I'm asking you, is the statement
11   Qing admitted to Jason Brown, your in-house
12   counsel, that Qing spoke to Boaz Salik at Fisher
13   Jordan about me.  Is that part true?
14         A.     I wouldn't say I admitted anything.
16:02:28 15         Q.     Not he admitted.
16         A.     I'm sorry.  That he admitted
17   anything, but Qing told me that he did speak to
18   Boaz Salik.
19         Q.     Okay.  And did he say, I don't think
16:02:35 20   he can work here?
21         A.     No.  Based on my notes -- look, I
22   wasn't there, obviously.
23         Q.     I understand.  Neither was I.
24         A.     Okay.  Right.  So you're asking what
0274
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   he said.  I don't know what he said.  All I can
 3   tell you is what Qing said.  And based on my
 4   notes, it says I'm not sure whether he can be
16:02:52  5   used on an AXP.
 6         Q.     Okay.  Thank you.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  We'll take a break
 8         now.
 9                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This ends tape
16:02:57 10         No. 3.  We're off the record at 4:02.
11                (Recess taken.)
12                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This begins tape
13         No. 4 in the deposition of Jason Brown.
14         We're on the record at 4:29.
16:29:33 15   BY MR. LINDNER:
16         Q.     Okay.  I'm going back.
17                MR. LINDNER:  This is Peter Lindner.
18         Q.     I'm going back to Plaintiff Qing 11.
19   And so are you there, the handwritten notes?
16:29:43 20         A.     Yes.
21         Q.     Now, you mentioned that when Qing
22   said I'm not sure whether he can be used on at
23   American Express that you talked to Qing at
24   length about that and Qing wondered about coding;
0275
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   is that correct?
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         Characterizing the testimony.
16:30:09  5         Q.     Can you say what Qing was referring
 6   to?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Asked
 8         and answered.
 9                THE WITNESS:  Can you read it back
16:30:18 10         to me?
11                (Discussion off the record.)
12         Q.     Can you just answer it instead of
13   doing that?
14         A.     Well, I don't know what your
16:30:34 15   question is.  You've asked -- I know I've -- I
16   know I've explained this at least twice.
17         Q.     Right.  But I have a specific
18   question.
19         A.     What is your specific question?
16:30:42 20         Q.     The question is --
21                MR. LINDNER:  Are you back on the
22         record?
23                THE REPORTER:  I'm on.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Good.
0276
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Did Qing talk about how was Peter
 3   coded or how Peter was coded?
 4                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16:30:54  5         A.     Did he talk to me about it?
 6         Q.     Yes.
 7         A.     Are you asking, did he ask me how
 8   you were coded?
 9         Q.     In your discussion with Qing Lin on
16:31:01 10   February 22nd, which is recorded in your notes on
11   Plaintiff Qing 11 --
12         A.     Right.
13         Q.     It says -- Plaintiff -- yeah,
14   Plaintiff Qing 11 --
16:31:07 15                MS. PARK:  We know what it says.
16         Ask the question.
17         Q.     After the American Express, you said
18   you discussed this at length --
19         A.     I didn't say I discussed it at
16:31:16 20   length.  I said I asked him about it.  I asked
21   him what it meant.  I didn't say anything about
22   discussing it at length.
23                MS. PARK:  Let Mr. Brown finish.
24         Q.     Go ahead.
0277
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     I'm just correcting you so we don't
 3   have to go back and have her read back the
 4   testimony because you keep mischaracterizing it.
16:31:30  5         Q.     So please go.  Go ahead.
 6                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm just saying,
 7         you've got to let Mr. Brown finish talking
 8         before you start talking because the court
 9         reporter is not going to be able to
16:31:38 10         transcribe both of you talking at the same
11         time.
12         Q.     Please continue.
13                MS. PARK:  No.  There's not a
14         question.
16:31:44 15         A.     All I -- I said what --
16                MR. LINDNER:  I wasn't interrupting
17         him, please, Ms. Park.  He had finished.
18         That's why I said, "Please continue."
19         A.     What can I tell you?  What are you
16:31:54 20   asking me?
21         Q.     He talked about how he didn't know
22   how Peter was coded.
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         A.     You're asking me if that's what he
0278
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   said to me?
 3         Q.     Yeah.
 4         A.     I don't know that he used those
16:32:04  5   words per se.
 6         Q.     What words did he use?
 7         A.     I don't remember exactly.  But the
 8   essence of what he was saying when I asked him,
 9   what do you mean by that.  He was saying, well, I
16:32:15 10   don't know, based on the way Peter separated or
11   Peter's separation from the company whether or
12   not he -- I'm unsure as to whether or not he is
13   able to be hired back at American Express or work
14   on an American Express project.  I don't know if
16:32:29 15   he talked about coding per se or used that word.
16         Q.     Okay.  But something to the effect
17   about separation from the company?
18         A.     Well, something of the effect of he
19   was unsure as to whether or not there was any
16:32:41 20   agreement or there were any actions or coding or
21   anything like that that would indicate one way or
22   the other as to whether or not you were eligible
23   to be rehired or work on a project.
24         Q.     And that was part of --
0279
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     That's what he -- that's how he
 3   explained to me what he was speaking to when he
 4   made that comment.
16:32:59  5         Q.     I understand.
 6         A.     Okay.
 7         Q.     But did you use the term "separation
 8   from the company"?
 9         A.     You asked me if I just used it?
16:33:07 10         Q.     Yes.
11         A.     I think I did.
12         Q.     Okay.  Separation from the company
13   had something to do with termination of
14   employment, does it not?
16:33:13 15         A.     Your termination of employment?
16         Q.     No.  When you talk about
17   separation -- how -- whether Peter was sep -- had
18   separation from the company, that talks about
19   Peter's termination of employment, doesn't it?
16:33:26 20         A.     If you're asking that's what -- if
21   those two terms are interchangeable?
22         Q.     Yes.
23         A.     Termination and separation.  Yeah, I
24   would say they're pretty close.
0280
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Okay.  Could you please refer to
 3   Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, which is paragraph 13.
 4         A.     Yes.
16:33:43  5         Q.     And doesn't it say in that that you
 6   should not talk about -- disclose any information
 7   regarding --
 8         A.     Again, Mr. Lindner, what it says is
 9   the company agrees --
16:34:05 10         Q.     No.  After reading --
11         A.     The company agrees to instruct and
12   direct the following employees not to disclose
13   any information regarding Mr. Lindner's
14   employment or termination of employment from the
16:34:11 15   company.
16         Q.     Okay.  So isn't this what Qing was
17   talking about, about my termination of employment
18   from the company?
19         A.     Do you think it was?
16:34:18 20         Q.     I'm asking you.
21                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
22         answered.
23         A.     Yeah.  We've been through this a
24   number of times.
0281
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Please answer it.  I'm instructing
 3   you to answer.
 4         A.     I think that he was explaining to me
16:34:29  5   what he meant.
 6         Q.     And did it have to do with
 7   termination of employment?
 8         A.     No, it had to do with your -- look,
 9   maybe this is what you're getting at, okay.  It
16:34:39 10   had to do with whether or not you were eligible
11   or his uncertainty or lack of knowledge as to
12   whether or not there was any coding as to your
13   being eligible to be rehired or brought back to
14   work on a project.
16:34:52 15                Really, I think, my assessment is
16   that it had to do with his lack of knowledge of
17   terms of -- of your ability to come back and work
18   for the company or work with the company.  So if
19   you were connecting that to the termination of
16:35:07 20   your employment because it would be something
21   that would necessarily happen thereafter, then I
22   guess you could connect them that way.
23         Q.     Well, will you connect it that way?
24   I'm asking you what your opinion was.  You were
0282
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   the investigator.
 3                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 4         A.     You're asking --
16:35:23  5         Q.     As the investigator.
 6         A.     As the investigator, yeah.
 7         Q.     Does Qing's statement about how
 8   Peter was coded or Peter's separation from the
 9   company, does that have to do with, quote,
16:35:36 10   Mr. Lindner's employment or termination of
11   employment from the company, unquote?
12                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
13         A.     You're asking me right now?
14         Q.     Yes.
16:35:45 15         A.     I've got to be honest with you, I
16   don't even know how to answer your question
17   anymore.
18                MS. PARK:  You're picking out two
19         words -- let me just -- Mr. Lindner, you're
16:35:54 20         picking out two words.  You want to go
21         further?
22                MR. LINDNER:  What two words?
23                MS. PARK:  Oh, three words.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Which words?
0283
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Termination of employment
 3         to any person outside of the company.  So
 4         guess what?  Mr. Brown, Mr. Lin, both
16:36:07  5         within the same company.  You can sit here
 6         and parse out ad infinitum little clauses
 7         within paragraph 1.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  Stop, stop.  I
 9         understand it.  Your objection is noted.
16:36:17 10                MS. PARK:  No, move on.
11                MR. LINDNER:  Your objection is
12         noted.
13         Q.     However, I'm asking you here, was
14   this comment -- comment about separation from the
16:36:24 15   company to you or was it this the comment that
16   Qing made to Boaz?
17         A.     That was a comment -- when I -- when
18   I was explaining or when I used the words
19   "separation of employment," that was Qing
16:36:41 20   explaining to me what he meant when he said, I'm
21   not sure whether he can be used on an AXP,
22   whatever he said, I don't know, project.  That
23   was his explanation to me.
24         Q.     I understand.
0284
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Okay.
 3         Q.     And he was talking about what he
 4   said to Boaz; right?
16:36:57  5         A.     He was explaining to me, when I
 6   asked him what did you mean by that --
 7         Q.     Right.
 8         A.     -- that was his explanation to me.
 9         Q.     Right.  So I'm saying that, thus, he
16:37:05 10   was giving information to Boaz about his
11   unsureness about the circumstances of my
12   termination of employment?
13         A.     If that's what you're saying, that's
14   fine.
16:37:16 15         Q.     No.  I'm asking what Qing was saying
16   to Boaz.
17         A.     But I just told what you Qing told
18   me he said to Boaz, and then I also told you what
19   he said to me, after I asked him, what did you
16:37:26 20   mean by that.
21         Q.     Right.  So -- so does it have any
22   other meaning, aside from termination or
23   separation from the company?
24         A.     Does what have any other meaning?
0285
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     I'm not sure whether he can be used
 3   on at American Express.
 4         A.     It's not -- again, he explained it
16:37:48  5   to me as whether or not there was any agreement
 6   or there was any coding, any condition on your
 7   being able to come back and work with American
 8   Express or for American Express.
 9         Q.     I understand.
16:38:02 10         A.     Okay.  So -- so does that answer
11   your question?
12         Q.     No.
13         A.     Okay.  So what's your question?
14         Q.     My question is, this statement that
16:38:09 15   Qing made --
16                MS. PARK:  What statement?
17         Q.     -- to --
18         A.     To me?
19         Q.     No.
16:38:14 20                MS. PARK:  Let's just make sure the
21         record's clear.  The video camera --
22                MR. LINDNER:  I understand.  Jean,
23         please.
24                MS. PARK:  What statement are you
0286
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         referring to?
 3                MR. LINDNER:  Jean, please.
 4         Q.     When Qing said to Boaz, I'm not sure
16:38:26  5   whether he can be used on at American Express.
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 7         A.     Uh-huh.
 8                MS. PARK:  That's not what that
 9         document represents.
16:38:35 10                MR. LINDNER:  What does it
11         represent, Ms. Park?
12                MS. PARK:  It represents what
13         Mr. Lin reported to Mr. Brown in February
14         of 2006.
16:38:43 15                MR. LINDNER:  That's right.
16         Q.     So in February of 2006, Qing
17   reported to you that he told Boaz, I'm not sure
18   whether he can be used on at American Express.
19   And let me rephrase it.
16:39:00 20                Qing said to Boaz that I'm not sure
21   whether Peter can be used on at American Express.
22   Is that a fair characterization of what he said?
23         A.     That he told me, yeah.  You're
24   inserting Peter for he?
0287
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Yes.
 3         A.     Yes.  He's referring to you.
 4         Q.     That's what I'm doing.  And doesn't
16:39:17  5   that refer to my termination from the company?
 6                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 7         answered.
 8         A.     Let me try it another way,
 9   Mr. Lindner.  If I read this paragraph, okay, and
16:39:26 10   we're talking about disclose any information
11   regarding your termination of employment, okay,
12   that could mean a lot of different things.  But I
13   think typically it would probably mean why were
14   you fired, okay.  And that's not what this is
16:39:43 15   talking about.  Why is someone fired?  For poor
16   performance, for insubordination.  Because there
17   was a reduction in jobs.
18         Q.     Well, let me ask you a question.
19   Suppose he had said Peter can't work because of
16:39:56 20   poor performance.  Would that have been a
21   violation of paragraph 13?
22                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23         Hypothetical.
24         A.     Yeah.  I have no idea.
0288
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Suppose he said, I'm not sure
 3   whether Peter can be used on at American Express.
 4   Would that be a violation?
16:40:10  5                MS. PARK:  And suppose he said,
 6         Peter Lindner can fly over the moon.
 7         Mr. Lindner, ask a fact-based question.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, if you have
 9         an objection, please state it.
16:40:20 10                MS. PARK:  And I've said it.
11                MR. LINDNER:  What is your
12         objection?
13                MS. PARK:  Hypothetical.  Ask him
14         for facts.
16:40:25 15                MR. LINDNER:  It's not hypothetical.
16         According to -- according to Jason, Qing
17         did say that.  It's not hypothetical.  Qing
18         did say -- and let me read it --
19                MS. PARK:  No.
16:40:40 20                MR. LINDNER:  Let Amy read back --
21                MS. PARK:  No.  Move on.
22                MR. LINDNER:  What did I ask Jason
23         Brown?  I thought I asked him that Qing
24         said to Jason Brown that Qing told Boaz,
0289
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         I'm not sure whether Peter can be used on
 3         at American Express.
 4                Can you find that sentence?
16:41:02  5                MS. PARK:  No.  That wasn't the
 6         question.
 7                MR. LINDNER:  She's looking it up.
 8         She's looking it up.  Please look it up.
 9                (Record read.)
16:41:43 10         Q.     Is that a fair characterization?
11                MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.
12         A.     Of what Qing said to me?
13                MS. PARK:  He's answered.
14         Q.     Yes.
16:41:48 15         A.     Yes.  As I said, other than
16   inserting the word "Peter" for "he," I think
17   that's pretty much what is written here.
18         Q.     Thank you.  Good.
19                Is there any other interpretation
16:42:06 20   than it having to do with my termination of
21   employment?
22                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23         A.     Yeah.  I don't know what you mean by
24   that.  Is there any other interpretation by whom
0290
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   of what?
 3         Q.     In other words, one way to interpret
 4   this, for instance, if -- if Qing were speaking
16:42:21  5   to you internally and said, I'm not sure whether
 6   Peter can be used on at American Express, you
 7   would take that to mean something about a
 8   termination of employment; correct?
 9                MS. PARK:  No.  Objection.  Asked
16:42:34 10         and answered.  Move on.
11                You are arguing with --
12                MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park.
13                MS. PARK:  No.  I'm directing my
14         client not to respond.  Move on.
16:42:41 15                MR. LINDNER:  On what basis?  On
16         what basis?
17                MS. PARK:  Because you are arguing
18         with him, Mr. Lindner.
19                MR. LINDNER:  Can you give me the
16:42:46 20         basis for your objection?
21                MS. PARK:  You want him to say, oh,
22         yes, Mr. Lindner, I agree with you.  My
23         notes as reflected in Plaintiff 11, that
24         statement that Qing reported to me, I'm not
0291
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         sure whether Mr. Lindner can be used on an
 3         AXP, that relates to termination of my
 4         employment.  And guess what?  You're not
16:43:05  5         going to get that testimony.
 6                MR. LINDNER:  That's not what I'm
 7         asking him.
 8                MS. PARK:  Yeah, you are.
 9         Q.     Well, then let me restate it.
16:43:12 10                I'm asking what else can it mean
11   outside of termination of employment?
12         A.     Again, it's talking about rehire.
13   Whether you can be rehired or used on a project.
14   That's what --
16:43:23 15         Q.     So rehire would be employment;
16   correct?
17         A.     Rehire would be if you were to be
18   employed, right.
19         Q.     Okay.  But again paragraph 13, after
16:43:32 20   the words "Mr. Lindner," would be any information
21   regarding Mr. Lindner's employment or termination
22   of employment from the company.  So it either
23   refers to termination of employment or
24   employment.  Yes?
0292
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Mr. Lindner, again.
 3         Q.     Pardon?
 4         A.     I've tried, I think a couple of
16:43:50  5   different ways, to explain to you what -- what he
 6   said, what I thought the comment meant, what -- I
 7   just tried to give you just an explanation of an
 8   objective -- fairly objective reason of
 9   termination of employment.  I don't know what
16:44:07 10   else to say to you.
11         Q.     You did say something else.  You
12   just did say something else.
13                MS. PARK:  No.  Let him finish.
14         Q.     You said two things.  You said he
16:44:22 15   doesn't know what else he could say.  And he did
16   say something else.  He said it could either
17   refer to termination of employment or it could
18   talk about employment commencing.
19                MS. PARK:  All right.  Move on.
16:44:27 20         Q.     Yes?
21                MS. PARK:  Enough.  Mr. Lindner,
22         you're harassing my witness.
23         A.     Mr. Lindner, Mr. Lindner,
24   Mr. Lindner --
0293
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Jason.
 3                THE WITNESS:  That's fine.  That's
 4         fine.
16:44:34  5         A.     Mr. Lindner, you could interpret
 6   this 15 different ways.
 7         Q.     I'm asking how you would interpret
 8   it.
 9         A.     And I'm answering your question,
16:44:37 10   okay.
11         Q.     Please.
12         A.     Give me a second to respond.  I'm
13   starting to get very frustrated with this, okay.
14         Q.     I apologize.
16:44:44 15         A.     You have asked me if we could
16   interpret this different ways.  You and I
17   interpret this different ways, don't we?  We do.
18         Q.     Actually, I don't think so.  I
19   think -- I think we both agree.  Go ahead.
16:44:54 20         A.     You're asking me hypothetical
21   questions.
22         Q.     No, it's not.
23         A.     I've tried -- I've tried to answer.
24   This is very similar and, again, as I've said
0294
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   before, as I testified before today, this is
 3   similar to the conversation that you and I had
 4   when we met where you were asking me all of these
16:45:08  5   hypothetical questions and, you know, we're --
 6   we're just going around in circles here, okay.
 7                I'm trying to answer your questions.
 8   I'm trying to give you the information you want,
 9   but I am not going to sit here and just continue
16:45:18 10   to engage in hypothetical discussions.
11         Q.     What part of it is hypothetical?
12                MS. PARK:  Okay.  Mr. Lindner, no.
13         Mr. Brown, please.  There is no -- there
14         will be no --
16:45:29 15                MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking --
16                MS. PARK:  No, no, no, no, no.  You
17         need to move on and ask another question.
18         You're not going to argue.  No, I'm
19         directing my client not to answer.  Enough
16:45:36 20         of this garbage.
21                MR. LINDNER:  On what basis are you
22         objecting?
23                MS. PARK:  You're argumentative.
24         You're irrelevant, and you're asking
0295
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         irrelevant questions.  Move on.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  I asked him what was
 4         hypothetical.
16:45:47  5                MS. PARK:  Move on.  No.  And I'm
 6         directing him not to engage --
 7                MR. LINDNER:  I'd like to call the
 8         judge.  We will go off the record now.
 9                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're off the
16:45:59 10         record at 4:45.
11                (Recess taken.)
12                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We're back on the
13         record at five~o'clock.
14                MR. LINDNER:  Thank you.  We just
17:00:50 15         had a break to talk to -- to Magistrate
16         Judge Katz's law clerk, and while talking
17         to her and having the record read to her
18         where I had asked Jason Brown what he meant
19         by "hypothetical," during that time Judge
17:01:09 20         Katz walked in and heard the conversation
21         and made a ruling, and that ruling is that
22         the time is shortened by one hour and that
23         we should move on.  And so I just wanted to
24         fill people in on that.  So now let me
0296
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         continue.
 3   BY MR. LINDNER:
 4         Q.     We discussed earlier that you have a
17:01:29  5   file with the name "Peter Lindner" on it?
 6         A.     Yes.
 7         Q.     Or something to that effect;
 8   correct?
 9         A.     Yeah.  Whether P. Lindner or Peter
17:01:36 10   Lindner.
11                MR. LINDNER:  I'd like to request
12         the full contents of that file.
13                MS. PARK:  I don't care what you
14         request.  Move on.
17:01:42 15                MR. LINDNER:  I know you don't.
16                MS. PARK:  Move on.  Ask a question.
17                MR. LINDNER:  I just did.  I'd like
18         to request it.  And I have to write that
19         down in my notes.  5:02, requested copy of
17:02:05 20         entire file.
21         Q.     Do you happen to know how thick or
22   thin it is?
23         A.     I don't.
24         Q.     Like, is it like one or two pages or
0297
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   100 pages?
 3                MS. PARK:  Asked and answered,
 4         Mr. Lindner.
17:02:17  5         A.     I don't know how many pages it is.
 6   Certainly more than two.
 7         Q.     Okay.
 8         A.     My file includes the pleadings in
 9   this case.
17:02:27 10         Q.     I'm not even sure what pleadings
11   mean.
12         A.     The complaint.
13         Q.     Thank you.  When you -- when you
14   interviewed the different people, did you ever
17:02:39 15   coach them in what they should say?
16         A.     If you're -- if you're asking me
17   about the different people being Qing or Boaz
18   or --
19         Q.     Trevor.
17:02:50 20         A.     -- Trevor, the answer is no.
21         Q.     Okay.  You wrote a letter to me,
22   which I thought I have, but maybe you remember
23   it, I can't find it just now, where you wrote it
24   around April 10th and --
0298
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     What year?
 3         Q.     Of 2006.  And -- and you then sent
 4   another copy of it to me on like April 23rd and
17:03:17  5   you said, I might not have sent this to you while
 6   I was on vacation.  However, that was a summary
 7   of your investigation.  And in that summary you
 8   felt that there was no violation of the code of
 9   conduct.  Do you remember such a document?
17:03:37 10         A.     I don't know what you're referring
11   to.
12         Q.     Well, did you -- did you ever -- did
13   you ever summarize your investigation or you just
14   never summarized it?
17:03:47 15                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16         A.     Summarize it in writing to you?
17         Q.     To anyone.
18         A.     I don't -- I don't know that I ever
19   summarized it in writing.
17:03:56 20         Q.     Did you ever verbally summarize it?
21                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
22         A.     You know, I don't know that I
23   verbally sat down and talked to anyone about my
24   investigation results per se.  I mean, I had
0299
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   conversations with you about it.  But if you're
 3   asking if I had a formal summary -- a formal
 4   meeting of a summary, no.
17:04:29  5                MR. LINDNER:  I'm quickly going
 6         to -- I'm going to give another exhibit,
 7         and that's going to be Plaintiff Brown 107.
 8         It's a one-page document.  It's an e-mail
 9         from Jason Brown to Peter Lindner.  It was
17:04:55 10         dated Wednesday, March 15th at 8:57 a.m.
11         So nine o'clock in the morning.  Plaintiff
12         Brown.  Handing it to Amy.
13                I'm sorry.  Let me say that's a
14         duplicate of documents we already have.
17:05:34 15         There is no need for it.  It's already
16         Exhibit Plaintiff Qing 6 and Plaintiff
17         Qing 7.  So I'm going to hand those to
18         Mr. Brown.
19         Q.     And you can -- does --
17:05:56 20         A.     You have two?
21         Q.     Yeah.  Take a look at Qing 6 and the
22   one that I said -- what is it?  Plaintiff
23   Brown --
24         A.     107.
0300
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     -- 107, and tell me if one e-mail
 3   includes the other?
 4         A.     So Plaintiff Exhibit 6 is an
17:06:16  5   e-mail from me to you, dated or sent Sunday,
 6   April 23, 2006 at 5:29.  And then this one -- oh,
 7   I see.  Okay.  Right.  So you want me just to
 8   describe what I'm looking at here?
 9         Q.     Please.
17:06:40 10         A.     Okay.  So I'm looking at Plaintiff's
11   Exhibit 6, and that looks like a forward -- it
12   looks like the top e-mail -- the top of the
13   page was forwarding a prior e-mail, and that
14   prior e-mail is the same e-mail that you just
17:07:01 15   had marked as Plaintiff Brown 107.
16         Q.     And both are from you; correct?
17         A.     Yes.
18         Q.     Okay.  So let me -- let me summarize
19   it in my own words.  You sent me an e-mail on
17:07:13 20   March 15th that you were sorry you missed my
21   call, and then a few weeks later you sent a
22   second e-mail with that attached.  And what's
23   the date of that second e-mail?
24         A.     April 23rd.
0301
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     April 23rd.  So it's a -- it's a
 3   month and a week after that.  And what do you say
 4   in that e-mail?
17:07:36  5         A.     This top part?
 6         Q.     Yes.
 7         A.     "Peter, I am unsure whether this was
 8   sent to you last week while I was on vacation.
 9   Please see the attached and call me if you have
17:07:44 10   any questions.  Regards, Jason."
11         Q.     Okay.
12         A.     But --
13         Q.     But what?
14                MS. PARK:  There is no attachment.
17:07:56 15         A.     I don't see any attachment here.
16         Q.     Well, actually, that was in a
17   separate document, and that is labeled Plaintiff
18   Qing 7.  What's the date on that?
19         A.     April 10, 2006.
17:08:06 20         Q.     And what does the date of the
21   attachment say?
22         A.     That's what I was looking at.
23   You're saying this is the attachment
24   (indicating)?
0302
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     I'm saying it is.
 3         A.     Okay.
 4         Q.     But that document -- that document
17:08:16  5   has a --
 6                MS. PARK:  And, Mr. Brown, let me
 7         just tell you these are documents that were
 8         not -- that were produced by plaintiff for
 9         the first time at Mr. Lin's deposition.
17:08:26 10         Were produced as separate documents.  I do
11         not know if Mr. Lindner's representation is
12         accurate or not.
13         Q.     Okay.  But who is it from?
14                MS. PARK:  What?
17:08:37 15                MR. LINDNER:  The e-mail.
16                MS. PARK:  You have three exhibits
17         now in front of him.
18         A.     So Plaintiff's Exhibit 7?
19         Q.     Is from whom?
17:08:42 20         A.     This is from me to you.
21         Q.     Okay.  How about the other one?
22                MS. PARK:  What other one?
23         A.     Which one?
24         Q.     The next one.  She said you have
0303
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   three exhibits.  Who is that from?
 3         A.     Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 is an e-mail
 4   from me to you.
17:08:52  5         Q.     And how about the other exhibit?
 6         A.     This is part of Plaintiff's
 7   Exhibit 6.
 8         Q.     And who is it from?
 9         A.     This is from me to you also.
17:09:01 10         Q.     So, therefore, all three are from
11   you; correct?
12         A.     Yes.
13         Q.     All three are to me.  All three, in
14   other words, are from you to me; correct?
17:09:09 15         A.     Yeah.
16         Q.     That's what I'm saying.  I'm saying
17   these are all your e-mails.
18                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park --
19                MS. PARK:  Who cares what you're
17:09:18 20         saying.
21                MR. LINDNER:  Do you stipulate?
22                MS. PARK:  I'm not stipulating to
23         anything.  Ask him a question.
24         Q.     I'm asking you, will you stipulate
0304
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   that these are your e-mails?
 3         A.     This doesn't look like an e-mail.
 4                MS. PARK:  Let the record reflect
17:09:31  5         that Mr. Brown is referring to Plaintiff's
 6         Exhibit 7.
 7         A.     Okay.  Let me try to do this
 8   referring to the exhibit.  So you've handed me a
 9   document that's marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.
17:09:37 10         Q.     Yup.
11         A.     I've handed me Plaintiff's Exhibit 6
12   which refers in an e-mail that I sent to you
13   that refers to an attachment but there is no
14   attachment here.  You're telling me that this --
17:09:46 15         Q.     Does it identify the attachment?
16         A.     It says, "Please see the attached."
17         Q.     It doesn't have -- it doesn't have
18   the name of the attachment?  Sometimes on a
19   computer document e-mail it would actually have
17:09:55 20   the name of the document.
21                Can I take a look at that for a
22   moment, please?
23         A.     Yeah.  I don't know what you're
24   talking about.  Maybe it does.
0305
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Yes.  Can you please read the "To"
 3   and "From."  Just read the lines.
 4         A.     "To Peter Lindner."
17:10:09  5         Q.     Yeah.
 6         A.     "From Jason Brown."
 7         Q.     Yeah.  Keep going.
 8         A.     You want the e-mail address?
 9         Q.     Keep reading.
17:10:24 10         A.     What do you want me to read?
11         Q.     The next line.
12         A.     Sent Sunday, April 23rd, 2006,
13   5:29 p.m.  "Attach AMEX 1-26-8984 - letter to
14   Peter Lindner.doc."
17:10:30 15         Q.     Okay.  That's the attachment.
16         A.     That's in response to your
17   complaint.
18         Q.     Hold it.  Does that number look
19   familiar?
17:10:35 20         A.     No.
21         Q.     The attachment number?
22         A.     No.
23         Q.     Not at all?
24         A.     I'm not suggesting that I didn't
0306
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   send this e-mail.  I just don't recognize the
 3   number.  When we generate documents on our
 4   system, they generate an automatic number.  I
17:10:48  5   don't know what the numbers on documents are.
 6   But all I'm telling you is, this document doesn't
 7   have a number.
 8         Q.     I understand.
 9         A.     Do you have a copy?
17:10:54 10         Q.     But somehow in your system there
11   would be a document number that would relate this
12   AMEX 1, dash, and then a string of six digits,
13   268984, and then followed by a dash, followed by
14   the phrase Lindner -- "letter to Peter
17:11:18 15   Lindner.doc"?
16         A.     Yeah.  I would think so.
17         Q.     Does that sound like the numbering
18   system your system has?
19         A.     Yes.  We had that system at the
17:11:28 20   time.  We have a new system now.
21         Q.     Okay.  Do you think you'd be able to
22   retrieve this e-mail?
23         A.     Wait, wait.  Just so you're clear.
24   The way our system -- you're a technology guy, so
0307
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   you'll understand this.  The way the system works
 3   is that, if I want to attach a document from our
 4   document system, which is -- are typically or
17:11:50  5   were typically numbered similar to that, that's
 6   on Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 --
 7         Q.     Yes.
 8         A.     -- in the attached file, I would go
 9   into the e-mail.  I would have to pull that
17:12:02 10   document and attach it to the e-mail system.
11         Q.     Right.
12         A.     Okay.  So if you were asking me if
13   there's -- in my e-mail system there are
14   documents with these numbers, the answer is I
17:12:13 15   don't -- I don't know that it still resides
16   there.  It would reside on our document system.
17         Q.     It might have been destroyed, for
18   instance?
19         A.     No.  I don't think it would be
17:12:21 20   destroyed.  I just don't know that it remains
21   there.
22         Q.     I'm making a request for that
23   document.
24         A.     I can get you the document.  I don't
0308
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   know -- all I'm saying is I don't know if it's on
 3   our e-mail system or it's in my --
 4         Q.     I understand.  I'm going to --
17:12:35  5                MS. PARK:  You've made your request.
 6         Ask him a question.
 7         Q.     I'm going to make the silly comment
 8   that if we had exchanged ESI, electronically
 9   stored information, we would have a CD-ROM that
17:12:49 10   would have all the documents together in one
11   place.
12                MS. PARK:  You're right.  It is a
13         silly comment.
14         Q.     This appears to be --
17:12:58 15                MS. PARK:  What?
16         Q.     A summary --
17                MS. PARK:  What document are you
18         referring to?
19         Q.     Plaintiff Qing 7, which is called
17:13:04 20   Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.
21                MS. PARK:  Can he have it back?
22                MR. LINDNER:  Not yet.  You can't
23         have it back because I can't find my copy.
24         Q.     But I'll just read the beginning.
0309
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   It says, "Dear Mr. Lindner, I write in response
 3   to the allegations" --
 4                MR. LINDNER:  Oh, you have a copy?
17:13:21  5         Thank you.
 6         Q.     "I write in response to the
 7   allegations raised in your numerous letters and
 8   e-mails to me, Steven Norman and Ash Gupta.  I
 9   have investigated your allegations and find them
17:13:33 10   to be without merit.  There is no evidence that
11   Qing Lin or anyone else at American Express
12   breached the settlement agreement and release
13   between you and the company."
14                Then it continues.  "As you and I
17:13:48 15   discussed, Qing Lin denies making any statements
16   to Mr. Salik regarding your 'work ethic' or
17   'whether you fill into the culture,'" that's in
18   quotes, or "whether you, quote, work well with
19   the group, as your letters allege.  Similarly,
17:14:05 20   neither Mr. Salik nor Mr. Baron" -- excuse me,
21   "corroborated that Mr. Lin made any such comments
22   to them or that Mr. Lin expressed any negative
23   opinion about you.  In fact, Mr. Salik's
24   consulting company hired you after Mr. Boaz asked
0310
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   Mr. Lin for a reference about you."
 3                Then I go on to the next paragraph.
 4   "It is also important to note" --
17:14:32  5                MS. PARK:  No.  Why don't you
 6         read -- read the whole letter. Why don't
 7         you read the last sentence.  "Mr. Salik
 8         informed me that his organization would not
 9         have hired you" --
17:14:43 10                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I remind you
11         that if you have an objection, state your
12         objection.
13                MS. PARK:  I'm stating my objection.
14         You're not going to read selectively from
17:14:50 15         this letter.  Mr. Lindner just omitted
16         another sentence.  "Mr. Salik informed me
17         that his organization would not have hired
18         you, had Mr. Lin expressed any negative
19         opinion about you."
17:15:01 20                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  I'm amused that
21         you call attention to that.
22                MS. PARK:  And I'm amused that you
23         decided to like not recite that into the
24         record.
0311
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  That's right.
 3         Q.     In your knowledge of paragraph 13 --
 4         A.     Of the agreement?
17:15:20  5         Q.     -- of the agreement, does it say
 6   anything about a negative comment?
 7         A.     I have to look at it.
 8         Q.     Please do.
 9                MS. PARK:  We stipulate that
17:15:34 10         paragraph 13 does not have the words
11         "negative comment" or the phrase "negative
12         comment."
13                MR. LINDNER:  Or "negative" in it.
14         The word "negative" is not in there.
17:15:38 15                MS. PARK:  The document speaks for
16         itself and, yes, we stipulate that
17         paragraph 13 does not have the word
18         "negative" in it.
19                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  But I think we
17:15:46 20         established repeatedly --
21                MS. PARK:  Ask a question.
22         Q.     -- that --
23                MR. LINDNER:  I am.
24                MS. PARK:  I don't care what you
0312
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         think we established.
 3         Q.     -- that paragraph 13 talks about
 4   giving any information about Peter Lindner.
17:16:00  5                MS. PARK:  No.
 6         Q.     And here you're saying that you're
 7   talking about negative information.  You realize
 8   there's a difference between those two phrases;
 9   correct?
17:16:09 10         A.     Between the two phrases "negative
11   information" and "any information"?
12         Q.     Yes.
13         A.     Yes.
14         Q.     So if Qing Lin had made a positive
17:16:15 15   comment --
16         A.     Again, you're asking me a
17   hypothetical question, Mr. Lindner.  I've already
18   answered this question or questions that you've
19   asked about this numerous times.  The judge just
17:16:24 20   said to move on from this line of questions.
21         Q.     I am.  I am moving on.  This a new
22   thing.  The negative opinion is a new thing;
23   right?
24         A.     What negative?
0313
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     It says, the last sentence that I
 3   omitted, was that Mr. Lin expressed negative
 4   opinion about you.  So I'm asking, for instance,
17:16:43  5   you said in your notes in DEF0370, that Qing had
 6   said Peter is a technical guy?
 7         A.     Yeah.  But Mr. Lindner --
 8         Q.     Yes.  That's not a negative comment;
 9   right?
17:16:54 10         A.     Part of your allegations -- part of
11   your allegations were, and this is refreshing my
12   recollection.
13         Q.     Thank you.
14         A.     -- that you claimed that someone
17:17:04 15   told you, someone at Fisher Jordan told you that
16   Qing Lin made comments about your work ethic,
17   whether you fit into the culture or whether you
18   work well with the group.
19         Q.     Yup.
17:17:14 20         A.     That's what -- that's what you put
21   in your letters.
22         Q.     Yup.
23         A.     And you were claiming those were
24   negative comments.
0314
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     No.  I didn't use the word
 3   "negative."
 4         A.     Okay.  Then maybe I took some poetic
17:17:25  5   license in saying negative.  But you were
 6   claiming that that had some kind of negative
 7   impact on you.
 8         Q.     No.
 9         A.     Okay.  Well, then, I still don't
17:17:34 10   understand what you're saying.
11         Q.     I'm saying that it had an impact on
12   me that he violated the agreement.
13         A.     Okay.  Well, then I --
14         Q.     I'm saying that -- that Qing
17:17:41 15   violated that agreement.
16                MS. PARK:  We don't care what you're
17         saying.  Ask him a question.
18         A.     I know that's what you're saying.
19         Q.     Okay.  Did Mr. Lin -- when Mr. Lin
17:17:49 20   said, Peter is a technical guy --
21         A.     You're not asking me about this
22   letter anymore?
23         Q.     No.  DEF370?
24         A.     Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.
0315
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     What does that first sentence in the
 3   quote say?
 4         A.     "Peter is technical guy."
17:18:04  5         Q.     Is that a negative comment?
 6         A.     You're asking my opinion?
 7         Q.     Yes.
 8         A.     I don't think that's negative.
 9         Q.     Is it a positive comment?
17:18:12 10         A.     Maybe.
11         Q.     If -- I'll tell you something about
12   Fisher Jordan.  They are a small --
13                MS. PARK:  No.  Ask him a question.
14                MR. LINDNER:  I am.  Please,
17:18:22 15         Ms. Park.
16         Q.     They're a small computer company
17   that gives advice to large companies like
18   American Express.
19                MS. PARK:  No.  You're going to ask
17:18:33 20         him another hypothetical question.  Move
21         on.
22                MR. LINDNER:  No.  It's not.
23         Q.     So is the comment that Peter is a
24   technical guy a positive, negative or indifferent
0316
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   statement?
 3         A.     Didn't I just answer that question?
 4         Q.     Please answer it.
17:18:45  5         A.     Do I -- wait.  Now you're asking me
 6   a compound question.  What are you asking?
 7         Q.     Is the statement "Peter Lindner is a
 8   technical" --
 9         A.     I said I don't think it's a negative
17:18:56 10   comment.  My opinion, my own opinion --
11         Q.     Yes.
12         A.     -- is that I don't think that's a
13   negative comment.  You're asking is it a positive
14   comment.  I'm saying it could be.
17:19:03 15         Q.     It could be.  Okay.  Good.
16                Is it any information?
17         A.     Is it information?
18         Q.     Yes.
19                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
17:19:11 20         answered.  No, no.  Move on.
21                MR. LINDNER:  I'm making note of the
22         fact that that statement is not negative.
23         Please, Ms. Park, if you have an
24         objection --
0317
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  I don't care what you
 3         make note of.  Move on.  Ask him a
 4         question.
17:19:23  5         Q.     Do you have a basis for making that
 6   statement?  Do you have a -- is there a
 7   confidentiality here?
 8                MS. PARK:  No.  It's called
 9         harassment.  It's called asked and
17:19:33 10         answered.  It's called move on.
11                MR. LINDNER:  I think -- I
12         understand.  If you don't have a basis for
13         that statement on the basis of
14         attorney-client privilege, then I'd like to
17:19:45 15         note in the record that your objection is
16         invalid.
17                MS. PARK:  No.
18         Q.     Okay.  But it also continues.
19         A.     Where are you now?
17:20:03 20         Q.     The next-to-last or whatever, after
21   negative opinion.
22         A.     This is -- what is it?  Exhibit 4?
23         Q.     Exhibit 7.  You're looking at it.
24   "It's also important to note that the company
0318
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   complied with paragraph 13 of the agreement."
 3                How did you make that assessment?
 4         A.     That the company complied?
17:20:14  5         Q.     Yes.
 6         A.     Because the company, as I was
 7   explaining to you before -- well, there's --
 8   there's a lot of ways the company complied with
 9   the agreement but --
17:20:25 10         Q.     No.  Paragraph 13.
11         A.     I'm getting there.  Will you please
12   give me a minute to answer.
13         Q.     Sure.  I'm sorry.
14         A.     As I said, the company was agreeing
17:20:37 15   to instruct and direct employees to do something.
16   And the company did instruct and direct the
17   employees, as set forth in this paragraph 13.
18         Q.     So, in other words, there's no
19   violation, as long as the company instructs and
17:20:56 20   directs.  So they could say what they want, but
21   as long as American Express instructs and
22   directs, their obligation is done?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection.
24         A.     You're asking me another
0319
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   hypothetical question.
 3         Q.     No.  This is what you're saying;
 4   right?  What's the interpretation?  The company
17:21:11  5   complied with paragraph 13 because they
 6   instructed and directed.
 7                MS. PARK:  And he's answered that.
 8         Move on.  You're argumentative.
 9         Q.     It doesn't have to do with what he
17:21:20 10   says?
11         A.     What who says?
12         Q.     What Qing says to Fisher Jordan.
13                MS. PARK:  What?  Objection to form.
14         He's answered your question.
17:21:26 15         Q.     It says he --
16                MS. PARK:  Move on.
17                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, please.  I
18         have a half an hour left.  I wish to use
19         it, and I don't want you to keep saying
17:21:34 20         "move on."
21                MS. PARK:  You're not entitled to
22         it.  I would hazard a guess that if we read
23         to Judge Katz what you're asking now, he
24         would end the deposition immediately.
0320
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MR. LINDNER:  That's good.  This is
 3         a summary of the investigation by Jason
 4         Brown.
17:21:49  5                MS. PARK:  No.  And you're arguing
 6         with him again.  Answered the question.
 7         Ask your next question.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park.
 9         Please stop.  If you have an objection,
17:22:01 10         please note it.
11                MS. PARK:  You are a colossal time
12         waster.
13                MR. LINDNER:  And I asked you not to
14         say that.
17:22:07 15                MS. PARK:  Too bad.  You are.
16                MR. LINDNER:  You know what people
17         say about you, Ms. Park?
18                MS. PARK:  I don't care.
19                MR. LINDNER:  You know, not just me,
17:22:12 20         but other people?
21                MS. PARK:  I don't care.
22                MR. LINDNER:  I'm going to tell you.
23                MS. PARK:  I don't care.
24                MR. LINDNER:  I'm not going to tell
0321
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         you.  I'm just making a point here, that I
 3         wish you would not say, "you're a time
 4         waster" and then say "other people say that
17:22:22  5         about you, too."  I really don't want to
 6         hear that.  I don't want to hear what
 7         people say about you.  I don't think you
 8         want to hear.  I want to depose Jason
 9         Brown.
17:22:33 10         Q.     In it you say the company complied
11   with paragraph 13.  And you're stating that the
12   compliance is with regard to instructing and
13   directing.
14         A.     That's right what I say.  That's the
17:22:44 15   next sentence.
16         Q.     Right.  But -- and I'm agreeing that
17   that's a part of it.  But I'm saying that if Qing
18   said something --
19         A.     Here you go with hypotheticals
17:22:54 20   again.
21         Q.     No.  He did say something.
22         A.     You're asking me if this, then that.
23   And what's your assessment of that.
24         Q.     No.  I'm not saying -- I'm saying
0322
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   that Qing said that Peter is a technical guy to
 3   Boaz; correct?
 4                MS. PARK:  What?  No.
17:23:08  5                Mr. Lindner --
 6         Q.     That's not hypothetical; right?
 7   That's a real statement?
 8                MS. PARK:  No.
 9         A.     This is what Qing told me.
17:23:14 10         Q.     Right.  And that's -- that's how
11   made your report.  So -- so when Qing gave that
12   statement, you're saying, whatever Qing says is
13   not a violation of paragraph 13.  Paragraph 13
14   only means that the company would instruct and
17:23:28 15   direct.  It has nothing to do with what he says?
16         A.     If you think that my testimony
17   reflects that, then that's fine.
18         Q.     I'm asking if it does it?
19         A.     No.  I don't think -- I don't think
17:23:38 20   I've said anything close to that.
21         Q.     Well, then, could something -- could
22   that sentence that says, "Peter is a technical
23   guy," mean a violation of paragraph 13?
24                MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.
0323
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     In whose eyes?
 3         Q.     Your eye.  The investigator's eye on
 4   April 10, 2006.
17:23:54  5         A.     If you're asking me if I thought
 6   based on my investigation --
 7         Q.     Yes.
 8         A.     -- whether the agreement was
 9   violated, the answer is no.
17:24:00 10         Q.     Okay.  Then you say after that,
11   "Shortly after the agreement was finalized, the
12   company instructed the employees listed therein
13   of the prohibition against disclosing information
14   regarding your employment to anyone outside the
17:24:13 15   company and of the requirement that they direct
16   requests for references to human resources."
17                Did Qing request -- direct the
18   references to human resources?
19         A.     As far as I know, he did not.
17:24:25 20         Q.     Okay.  Thank you.  You say that Qing
21   was instructed and directed.  Was he?
22                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
23         answered.  Move on.
24         A.     You asked me this before.
0324
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Was Ash -- was Ash instructed and
 3   directed?
 4         A.     As far as I know, the people who are
17:24:50  5   listed in the agreement were instructed.
 6         Q.     How do you know?
 7                MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.  Move
 8         on.
 9                MR. LINDNER:  No.  Please, Ms. Park.
17:24:53 10         I want him to answer.
11                MS. PARK:  No.  Asked and answered.
12         Move on.
13         Q.     How do you know that Ash was
14   instructed and directed?
17:24:56 15         A.     I spoke to my boss who told me.
16         Q.     Who's your boss?
17         A.     John Parauda.  Who told me that he
18   had sent an e-mail to the people listed.
19         Q.     And that means that they did what
17:25:09 20   they said or would there be like a confirmation?
21   In other words, if John Parauda sent an e-mail
22   saying, do the following, instruct and direct
23   your employees, does that mean they instructed
24   and directed their employees?
0325
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     I'm sorry, I'm not understanding
 3   what you're asking me.
 4         Q.     When somebody sends an e-mail --
17:25:28  5   if Parauda sends an e-mail, is that e-mail an
 6   instruction and direction?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
 8         A.     Yeah.  I think what you're saying is
 9   would his e-mail have given them direction.
17:25:39 10         Q.     Given them direction?
11         A.     Yeah.  I think so.  It may be that
12   he instructed -- you're asking me if he sent an
13   e-mail to these people, is that what you're
14   saying?
17:25:48 15         Q.     Yes.
16         A.     Yes.
17         Q.     He sent an e-mail to these seven
18   people?
19         A.     I don't know if he sent it to all of
17:25:53 20   them directly.  He may have sent it to one person
21   and asked them to cascade it.
22         Q.     And if they cascaded it, that person
23   would have been instructed by whom?
24         A.     By whoever sent it to them.
0326
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Let him finish.
 3         Q.     John Parauda?
 4         A.     Go ahead.
17:26:11  5                THE REPORTER:  Wait, wait.  One at a
 6         time.  One at a time.
 7         Q.     So we heard testimony last week from
 8   Qing Lin, and he said that Ash Gupta instructed
 9   and directed him on this?
17:26:20 10         A.     Okay.
11         Q.     Does that sound plausible?
12         A.     Yeah.  It does.  Because, as I
13   testified before, Ash Gupta was I think Qing's
14   leader, his boss, so it's certainly plausible to
17:26:31 15   me that John Parauda instructed Ash and
16   instructed Ash to instruct people who worked for
17   him.
18         Q.     Okay.  And you made that assumption?
19         A.     Well, I asked John.  And based on
17:26:41 20   what you're telling me now, yeah, I'm certainly
21   making that assumption.
22         Q.     And maybe we could find out for sure
23   by asking John Parauda what the case is, whether
24   he did that or whether he got a confirmation
0327
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   e-mail back from Ash that said, I accept your
 3   instructions, and I not only accept it, but I've
 4   also, on such and such a date, instructed and
17:27:05  5   directed the people.
 6                MS. PARK:  Is there a question?
 7         Q.     It didn't happen simultaneously;
 8   correct?
 9         A.     What are you asking me?
17:27:14 10         Q.     Would John Parauda know if Ash
11   carried out the instructions on all seven people?
12                MS. PARK:  The witness can't testify
13         as to what was in Mr. Parauda's mind.  Ask
14         another question.
17:27:26 15                MR. LINDNER:  I understand that.
16         I'm requesting the testimony of John
17         Parauda, who could indicate whether he got
18         a confirmation from Ash --
19                MS. PARK:  Request all you want.
17:27:35 20         Ask Mr. Brown a question.
21                MR. LINDNER:  I'm stating this for a
22         record.  That I'm requesting we get John
23         Parauda's testimony on that.
24         Q.     Do you think that that's the type of
0328
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   information that would be written down or would
 3   be verbal?
 4                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17:27:48  5         A.     I have no idea.  I don't even know
 6   what information you're referring to.
 7         Q.     When -- when John Parauda
 8   communicated to Ash Gupta, would he have
 9   communicated that by an e-mail?
17:27:58 10                MS. PARK:  Objection to the form.
11         Asked and answered, repeatedly.
12         A.     Yes.
13         Q.     It would have been by e-mail.  Has
14   that e-mail been produced?
17:28:04 15         A.     No.
16         Q.     Why not?
17         A.     Because we don't have a copy of it.
18         Q.     Why not?
19         A.     Because the e-mail was sent prior
17:28:12 20   to September 11th, and John Parauda's e-mail --
21         Q.     September 11th, you mean the
22   destruction of the World Trade Center?
23         A.     Yes.  And after destruction of the
24   World Trade Center the company was displaced and
0329
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   many e-mails prior to that time were lost.
 3         Q.     Do you have an off-site storage of
 4   e-mails?
17:28:33  5         A.     I don't know.  We do have -- I know
 6   that the company does have some kind of backup of
 7   e-mails, and we actually asked to find -- asked
 8   if that e-mail was in the backup, and it was
 9   not.
17:28:44 10         Q.     So you were part of the group that
11   looked for the e-mails?
12         A.     Well, I didn't look for it.
13         Q.     That were supervising the production
14   of the e-mails?
17:28:51 15         A.     No.  I didn't supervise.  I asked
16   that the technology -- it's a whole pros -- you
17   did technologies in American Express.
18         Q.     I was in risk management.
19         A.     Okay.  Well, there's a whole
17:29:03 20   technology group that deals with this stuff.  I'm
21   not overseeing, looking for e-mails that are
22   potentially on backup storage.
23         Q.     So it may or may not be on backup
24   storage?
0330
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     We were told that it is not.
 3         Q.     Okay.
 4                MR. LINDNER:  So I'm making the
17:29:19  5         request that the person knowledgeable about
 6         such document retention be deposed so we
 7         could find out what he did to check if such
 8         documents were located off-site.  Whether
 9         it was prohibitively expensive or whether
17:29:40 10         they didn't bother doing it or whether the
11         document was lost because of the -- of the
12         destruction.
13                MS. PARK:  Fine.  Ask Mr. Brown a
14         question.
17:29:44 15                MR. LINDNER:  I'm -- I'm requesting
16         the -- the testimony, first I said of John
17         Parauda, and now of the people --
18                MS. PARK:  I don't care what you're
19         requesting.  Ask Mr. Brown a question.  You
17:29:53 20         are wasting this witness' time.
21                MR. LINDNER:  That's right.  I am.
22         But if you cut me off, it wastes even more
23         time.  So please let me finish.
24                MS. PARK:  No guess what?  Why don't
0331
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         you let us leave, and then you can make all
 3         kinds of requests on the record that you
 4         want to make.  Okay?  We don't have to sit
17:30:10  5         here and listen to you.
 6                MR. LINDNER:  If you wish to leave,
 7         you can leave.  But Jason Brown is here
 8         till seven.
 9                THE WITNESS:  Six.  The judge said
17:30:20 10         six.
11         Q.     Till six.  Thank you.
12                MR. LINDNER:  But I'm specifically
13         requesting John Parauda.
14         Q.     And who is the head of the
17:30:25 15   technical -- who is the keeper of the documents
16   in charge of it?
17         A.     I don't know.
18         Q.     What organization is it?
19         A.     Technologies.
17:30:33 20         Q.     It's called the technology group?
21         A.     Yeah.  Maybe American Express
22   technologies.  I don't know what the -- I refer
23   to it as technologies.
24         Q.     Do you think there's a person in
0332
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   charge, like a director of technology who's in
 3   charge of, the keeper of the documents?
 4         A.     I don't know what the -- I don't
17:30:54  5   know --
 6                MR. LINDNER:  I note for the record
 7         that Halia Barnes, Magistrate Judge Katz's
 8         clerk, has just walked in.
 9         A.     Sorry.  I didn't know who that was.
17:31:05 10                MR. LINDNER:  This is Jason Brown,
11         the deponent.
12         A.     I don't -- I don't know who oversees
13   that function in technologies, and I don't know
14   their level, whether they're a director or
17:31:14 15   something else.
16         Q.     Okay.  Well, then I'm specifically
17   requesting whoever that is, who is the keeper of
18   the documents, please be available -- please let
19   me finish -- to testify whether the document that
17:31:24 20   we're talking about was destroyed, whether it's
21   on backup, whether it was prohibitively expensive
22   to retain it.  And that's what I'm making the
23   request.
24                MS. PARK:  Fine.  Ask Mr. Brown a
0333
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         question.
 3                MR. LINDNER:  I did.  I asked him
 4         about why that -- why that document was not
17:31:40  5         available, and he said it was destroyed in
 6         9/11.
 7         A.     No.  That's not what I said,
 8   Mr. Lindner.
 9         Q.     What did you say?
17:31:49 10                THE WITNESS:  Can you read back my
11         testimony.
12                MR. LINDNER:  Please read it back.
13                (Record read.)
14         Q.     So -- and that's -- and that's the
17:33:48 15   person that I'm asking for, making the request
16   that that person in charge of -- of knowing the
17   details of your storage system be deposed so we
18   can find out if that -- that e-mail does exist.
19                MR. LINDNER:  So then -- and the
17:34:01 20         e-mail we're speaking of Halia, is the
21         one --
22                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, ask
23         Mr. Brown a question, please.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Yes.  We will.  The
0334
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         question, just to clue you in, that
 3         question was asking that Jason Brown and
 4         this document, April 10th at the end of the
17:34:19  5         investigation, said that -- that the
 6         company complied with paragraph 13 by
 7         instructing and directing employees not to
 8         say anything.  And I said, well, how do you
 9         know.  And he said, well, an e-mail was
17:34:31 10         sent from John Parauda to presumably Ash,
11         and then Ash cascaded to the people under
12         him.
13                And I said, well, wouldn't Ash reply
14         back to John Parauda saying, I've completed
17:34:44 15         that task, you know.  I've talked to the
16         seven individuals, and they all understand.
17         They've all be instructed and directed.
18         And that's when Jason said, well,
19         presumably he did, but we lost all of the
17:34:59 20         e-mails, and that's why I asked maybe we
21         could find that e-mail.  Okay.
22         Q.     I'm continuing now.  It also said
23   the fact that you directed --
24                MS. PARK:  What's "it"?  What
0335
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         document are you referring to?
 3                MR. LINDNER:  On the same document.
 4         Q.     I'm continuing where I left off on
17:35:18  5   Plaintiff Qing 7, which is Exhibit -- Plaintiff
 6   Exhibit 7.  And it says, "The fact that you
 7   directed Mr. Salik to contact Mr. Lin for
 8   reference further belies your allegations that
 9   the company breached the agreement."
17:35:29 10                Now, as your understanding of
11   paragraph 13, doesn't it provide a certain code
12   word or phrase that Qing Lin could have used when
13   responding to a request for a reference?
14                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17:35:44 15         A.     Can you be more specific?
16         Q.     Sure.  Look at paragraph 13.
17         A.     I'm looking at it.  I don't see any
18   code words in here.
19         Q.     It says, refer all requests to human
17:35:52 20   resources.
21         A.     Words to that effect.
22         Q.     Could he have said that?
23                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
24         Q.     Would that have been appropriate?
0336
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     He could have said anything.
 3         Q.     Does that -- does that document --
 4         A.     It would have been appropriate.
17:36:04  5         Q.     Given that you were -- if Qing Lin
 6   came to you today and said, Pete Lindner has sent
 7   some prospective employer to me, and they want to
 8   get information about Peter Lindner, what should
 9   I say, what would you tell him now?
17:36:17 10         A.     Mr. Lindner, particularly in light
11   of the fact that I have been sitting here all day
12   answering your questions, I would say, do not say
13   anything, because I don't want to be dragged
14   into --
17:36:34 15         Q.     Right.
16         A.     -- having to be deposed again.
17         Q.     So that would have been okay, if he
18   said nothing.  But if he used that phrase,
19   couldn't he also say and be consistent with
17:36:39 20   paragraph 13, I'm directing you to contact human
21   resources?
22         A.     Mr. Lindner, again, now I feel like
23   you're getting into these hypothetical questions
24   about what Qing Lin could have said or would have
0337
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   said.
 3         Q.     Well, I'm not talking about Qing
 4   Lin.  Maybe the other people.  I'm asking, does
17:36:56  5   paragraph 13 give instructions on how to answer
 6   when somebody asks for a reference?
 7         A.     The paragraph speaks for itself.
 8   You already asked me about -- I don't know what
 9   you called it, code word, catch phrase.  Whatever
17:37:09 10   it was.
11         Q.     Yes.
12         A.     So you're asking me about the
13   reference to human resources?
14         Q.     Yes.
17:37:17 15         A.     Okay.  There is a reference to human
16   resources.
17         Q.     Yes.  Could he have said -- can
18   somebody say -- would it be appropriate for
19   somebody who was instructed and directed to say,
17:37:26 20   I'm going to refer your request to human
21   resource?
22                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23         A.     In my opinion --
24                MS. PARK:  Hypothetical.
0338
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     In my opinion --
 3         Q.     Yes, in your opinion.
 4         A.     It would have been fine.
17:37:37  5         Q.     It would have been fine.  Thank you.
 6   That's what I'm saying.
 7         A.     But --
 8         Q.     So -- so, in other words, if -- if
 9   Mr. Salik goes to Boaz and Mr. Salik --
17:37:48 10   Mr. Salik.  If Boaz went to Qing, asked about a
11   reference, it would have been perfectly
12   acceptable for Qing to say, please contact human
13   resources; correct?
14         A.     Can you say that again?
17:38:03 15         Q.     Yes.
16         A.     If Boaz went to Qing.
17         Q.     Yes.
18         A.     And said what?
19         Q.     And said, can you tell me about
17:38:10 20   Peter Lindner, about his employment with American
21   Express or his termination of employment with
22   American Express, that Qing can answer a certain
23   catch phrase, which is, sure, I'll give you
24   information.  Just contact human resources.
0339
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     I don't have a problem with that.
 3         Q.     That would be okay; right?
 4   Specifically by paragraph 13; right?
17:38:35  5         A.     Yes.  Or otherwise.
 6         Q.     Thank you.  So you say, "Finally,
 7   there is no evidence of any code of conduct
 8   violation."  Yes?
 9         A.     That's what this letter says.
17:38:48 10         Q.     Okay.  I'm going to reference a code
11   of conduct in a moment.  But Qing also made
12   another statement on the third statement in your
13   handwritten notes.  What is that third statement?
14         A.     Which one are you referring to?
17:39:04 15         Q.     The handwritten notes.
16         A.     I know.  When you say, "the third
17   statement" --
18         Q.     You have the part which is indented
19   where it has a quote.  I'm talking about
17:39:11 20   Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.  Can you read that
21   sentence?
22         A.     "I'm not sure whether he can be used
23   on an AXP."
24         Q.     Why did you not include that in your
0340
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   letter?
 3         A.     Why did I not include this in my
 4   letter to you?  Is that what you're asking me?
17:39:25  5         Q.     Yes.
 6         A.     There was no reason for me to
 7   include it.
 8         Q.     Do you think anybody still has a
 9   copy of this letter?
17:39:40 10         A.     I don't know who you would have sent
11   it to.
12         Q.     Would you have sent it to anyone
13   else?
14         A.     I don't think so.  Well, you've
17:39:44 15   shown me the e-mail that you said attached it.
16   And it was only to you.
17         Q.     Could you have bcc'd it?
18         A.     I could have.  I don't recall doing
19   it.
17:39:57 20         Q.     What does bcc mean?
21         A.     Blind copy.
22         Q.     And would that show up on a
23   document?
24         A.     I don't know.  If it was -- no.  I
0341
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   don't think it would show up on a document.
 3         Q.     That's why it's called blind?
 4         A.     Okay.  Thank you for that
17:40:12  5   enlightenment.
 6         Q.     Not at all.
 7         A.     But if you're asking me, do I
 8   believe bcc'ing anyone on it --
 9         Q.     Yes.
17:40:19 10         A.     -- the answer is no.
11         Q.     But one way to tell if it was bcc'd
12   is by searching, for instance, Steven Norman's
13   files, and Qing's files, and Ash Gupta's files to
14   see if they got a copy of it.  And if they got a
17:40:33 15   copy, it would show up as a letter from you to me
16   without their names attached; correct?
17         A.     I don't know how it would appear.
18         Q.     If it's a bcc?
19         A.     Right.
17:40:41 20         Q.     If you bcc'd Steven Norman, would
21   Steven Norman have it on his e-mail?
22         A.     He would have received it on his
23   e-mail, yes.
24         Q.     And that's what I'm requesting, that
0342
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   we get that e-mail.  We search Steven Norman's
 3   e-mails and Ash Gupta's e-mails to determine if
 4   they were informed by Jason Brown, the
17:41:04  5   investigator of a complaint, for both the
 6   violation of the code of conduct, which you
 7   reference in the next-to-last sentence, and of
 8   the settlement agreement, which you mention in
 9   the first paragraph, and see if they ever got
17:41:20 10   this summary, which states that there is no
11   violation of said agreement.  There is no
12   violation agreement, correct, of the settlement
13   agreement?
14                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
17:41:32 15         A.     Yes.
16         Q.     And that there is no evidence of a
17   code of conduct violation; correct?
18         A.     That's what it says.
19         Q.     And you omitted -- now, if they got
17:41:49 20   that -- that letter, you omitted one of Qing's
21   statements, namely, that I don't know whether
22   Peter can work here at American Express.
23         A.     Did I include any of his statements
24   in here?
0343
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Yes, you did.
 3         A.     Oh, I didn't realize.
 4         Q.     Yes, you did.  You said in the
17:41:57  5   second paragraph that he denies making statements
 6   regarding work ethic or fit into the culture or
 7   whether you worked well with your group.
 8         A.     Again, Mr. Lindner, just -- just to
 9   try to explain.  These were allegations that you
17:42:09 10   had made to me.
11         Q.     Yes.
12         A.     None of this is referenced in my
13   handwritten notes.  So are you asking me about
14   allegations that you made to me or what is
17:42:21 15   written in my handwritten notes?
16         Q.     I'm asking -- I'm asking -- you said
17   that you didn't have any statement from Qing Lin
18   in there.  And I'm saying you did.  You're saying
19   that Qing Lin didn't make certain statements.
17:42:34 20   But the -- one statement that he did make to you
21   omitted.
22                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
23         Argumentative.
24         Q.     Did you make that statement?
0344
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  What
 3         are you talking about?
 4         A.     I don't understand the question.
17:42:46  5         Q.     I'll summarize.
 6         A.     Are you asking if I wrote this?
 7         Q.     Yes.
 8         A.     I wrote this.
 9         Q.     I'm asking also, is it likely that
17:42:53 10   you sent a copy to Steven Norman?
11         A.     I don't remember.
12         Q.     Okay.  My --
13         A.     I don't know why I would.
14         Q.     I can tell you why.  Because --
17:43:02 15                MS. PARK:  No.  Mr. Lindner, ask him
16         a question.  We don't care what you think.
17                MR. LINDNER:  Ms. Park, I understand
18         that.
19                MS. PARK:  No.
17:43:08 20         Q.     We talked about an exhibit,
21   January 17, where Steven Norman contacted me and
22   I wrote him back that was very nice that he did,
23   and that I hoped he looks into the violation of
24   Qing Lin of the settlement agreement of
0345
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   June 2000.  I didn't use those exact words, but
 3   that was the substance.  I didn't mention the
 4   code of conduct, I just said that Qing Lin
17:43:32  5   violated the settlement agreement.
 6                And here it is, three months later,
 7   you have a letter to me saying that Qing Lin did
 8   not violate the settlement agreement.  Wouldn't
 9   it be appropriate that you not only sent it to
17:43:43 10   me, but you also sent it to Steven Norman, who
11   may have -- may have been the one, but you can't
12   remember if he was, he may have been the one
13   who -- who directed you to do the investigation?
14         A.     Mr. Lindner --
17:43:56 15                MS. PARK:  I'm going to direct you
16         not to answer that question.  Enough.
17         Enough, Mr. Lindner.  Enough.  Move on.
18                MR. LINDNER:  I am suggesting
19         here --
17:44:05 20                MS. PARK:  No.  You're arguing with
21         him.  You're asking him wouldn't it have
22         been appropriate.  He's answered your
23         question.  Move on.  Enough.
24                MR. LINDNER:  How did he answer?
0346
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Can you read back what he answered to would
 3         it have been appropriate.  I can't recall
 4         his answer.
17:44:20  5                Do you recall it, Ms. Park?
 6         Ms. Park?
 7                MS. PARK:  I'm not responding to
 8         you.
 9         Q.     Jason, do you recall your answer?
17:44:26 10                MS. PARK:  No.
11         A.     Not at all.  I don't even know -- i
12   don't know what you're asking me.
13         Q.     Ms. Park said she's instructing you
14   not to answer because you've already answered.
17:44:35 15                MS. PARK:  You're arguing with
16         Mr. Brown.  No, enough.  Move on.
17                MR. LINDNER:  Please, please.
18         Q.     That you didn't --
19                MR. LINDNER:  Can you read back my
17:44:40 20         question, Amy?
21                THE REPORTER:  What question?
22                MR. LINDNER:  The last question I
23         asked Jason Brown.
24                (Record read.)
0347
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     So what's your question?
 3         Q.     Would it have been appropriate if
 4   Steven Norman had requested the investigation to
17:46:00  5   send him a copy of this letter which concludes
 6   your findings?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
 8         answered.  I am directing --
 9                MR. LINDNER:  And what is his
17:46:09 10         answer?  His answer was -- I didn't catch
11         his answer.  Please just say the answer.
12         Q.     Yes, it's appropriate.  No, it's
13   appropriate.  I don't know.
14         A.     Mr. Lindner, I've testified numerous
17:46:20 15   times today that you -- during this time period,
16   you were calling me.  You were sending me
17   e-mails.  Therefore, I looked into your
18   complaints.  I was trying to address your
19   concerns, okay.  Whether or not it would have
17:46:41 20   been appropriate for me to copy -- bcc Steve
21   Norman or not, I don't remember whether I did it.
22   It would have been -- it wouldn't have been
23   inappropriate to do it.  As I think I said
24   before, I don't know that I would have had any
0348
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   reason to do so.
 3         Q.     Would you have copied Qing Lin on
 4   it?
17:46:59  5         A.     I didn't -- I didn't copy Qing Lin.
 6   No, I would not have.
 7         Q.     How do you know?
 8         A.     I would have remembered if I copy
 9   Qing Lin.
17:47:07 10         Q.     Would you have copied Qing Lin's
11   boss?
12         A.     I don't think so.
13         Q.     Okay.
14         A.     Again, I don't remember copying
17:47:13 15   anyone.
16         Q.     But we could find out by looking
17   through their documents; correct?
18         A.     You might be able to.
19                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  And that's what
17:47:21 20         I'm requesting.
21                MS. PARK:  I don't care what you're
22         requesting.  Just ask him a question.
23                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  I will.
24         Q.     Please let me say I'm requesting the
0349
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   documents from Steven Norman and from Ash Gupta
 3   and from Qing Lin to see if they have an e-mail
 4   with this particular designation that you said,
17:47:45  5   which is AMEX 1 followed by a three-digit number
 6   followed by --
 7         A.     Plaintiff's 7 is what you're talking
 8   about.
 9         Q.     Yes.  Whether this particular
17:47:49 10   document was received or sent to them.  That's
11   what I'm asking for, okay.
12                Now, I'd like to go into the code of
13   conduct violation, all right.
14                MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner, the code of
17:47:57 15         conduct has nothing to do with this case.
16                MR. LINDNER:  Well, he brought it
17         up.  He said there's no evidence of any
18         code of conduct violation.
19                MS. PARK:  He didn't bring it up.
17:48:06 20         You were alleging a code of conduct
21         violation.  I have told you repeatedly, and
22         I believe Judge Katz has also said, this is
23         not about a code of conduct case.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.
0350
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Jason, can you explain why on the
 3   next-to-last sentence what that sentence means?
 4         A.     "There's no evidence of any code of
17:48:23  5   conduct violation"?
 6         Q.     Yes.
 7         A.     You were claiming that there was
 8   some kind of conflict of interest or that Qing
 9   and I think me and others -- you were -- at some
17:48:33 10   point you were claiming a massive conspiracy
11   that.  That I violated the code of conduct.  That
12   Qing had violated the coated of conduct.  I don't
13   remember who else was violating the code of
14   conduct in your eyes.  But that sentence was me
17:48:48 15   saying to you, I didn't find any evidence that
16   anyone who you had alleged had violated the code
17   of conduct had violated it.
18         Q.     I want to go into the code of
19   conduct, but I want to quickly turn your
17:49:07 20   attention to Exhibit 51.
21                MR. LINDNER:  Can you get
22         Exhibit 51, Amy.  Do you have it?  Oh,
23         that's from you.  You have it.
24                MS. PARK:  Do you have a copy of it,
0351
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Mr. Lindner?
 3                MR. LINDNER:  Yes, I do.  I only
 4         have my own copy.  I'll summarize it.
17:49:28  5         Q.     Exhibit 51 is from January 7 --
 6         A.     I don't have it.
 7         Q.     No, it's okay.  It's from -- it was
 8   from -- it says DEF00061, and it's from Jason
 9   Brown to Peter Lindner, and it's a six-page
17:49:42 10   document.  And it has my e-mail to Jason, and
11   the e-mail date is the one that we talked about
12   before, Tuesday, February 28, 2006, where it
13   says, three bullet points, where I, Peter
14   Lindner, ask you, Jason.  I want to summarize the
17:50:02 15   talk, that's first.
16                Second, I want to point out that
17   Qing admitted to you of Qing violating the AMEX
18   agreement of 2000, and I want to suggest what you
19   should do next to conclude the matter.  And you
17:50:15 20   replied in that on the same day, within 24 hours.
21   In other words, mine was March 1st at one o'clock
22   in the morning.  And your reply was on March 1st
23   at seven~o'clock in the evening, so it's within
24   24 hours.
0352
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                And you said, regarding the summary
 3   face-to-face meeting at AMEX on Tuesday,
 4   February 28th, with your admissions by Qing Lin.
17:50:43  5   And it says, "Mr. Lindner, rather than respond
 6   point by point to your e-mail, I write to
 7   inform you that I do not agree with much of what
 8   is raised below, including but not limited to
 9   your memorialization of our conversation."
17:51:07 10                So the memorialization of the
11   conversation, bullet point 2, which is "Point out
12   that Qing admitted violating the AMEX-Lindner
13   agreement of June 2000," you still maintain that
14   he didn't violate?
17:51:23 15                MS. PARK:  Can we see the document
16         that you're quoting from?
17                MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
18         Q.     That second bullet point.
19                MS. PARK:  And I believe just
17:51:29 20         listening to you, Mr. Lindner, that this 51
21         also includes Plaintiff Brown 102.
22                MR. LINDNER:  Could be.
23                MS. PARK:  Why don't you confirm
24         that.
0353
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         Q.     Just read that, please.
 3         A.     You want me to read all these pages?
 4         Q.     No.  First of all, verify that the
17:51:48  5   top of that thing says you're not going to
 6   memorialize my -- my summary of the conversation,
 7   and you don't want to go on a point-by-point
 8   basis.
 9         A.     It doesn't say that I'm going to
17:51:58 10   memorialize or not memorialize anything.
11         Q.     What does it say?  Without reading
12   the words.  Summarize it.  Okay.  Okay, read the
13   words.
14         A.     "Rather than respond point by point
17:52:07 15   to your e-mail, I write to inform you that I do
16   not agree with much of what is raised below,
17   including but not limited to your memorialization
18   of our conversation."
19         Q.     Okay.  So I'm asking --
17:52:20 20         A.     And this document is --
21         Q.     Is seven pages long.
22         A.     -- seven pages long.
23                MS. PARK:  Let him finish.
24         Q.     I understand, but I'm not asking
0354
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   about that.  I'm asking about the second bullet
 3   point.
 4                MS. PARK:  Again, the second bullet
17:52:40  5         point.  We spent the whole afternoon on the
 6         second point.
 7         A.     What do you want to know?
 8         Q.     So you can quickly answer.  So
 9   you're saying I'd like you to memorialize that.
17:52:43 10   Did Qing say that?
11         A.     Memorialize what?
12         Q.     That second bullet point.  Did Qing
13   admit to violating the -- the document?
14                MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
17:52:55 15         answered.
16         A.     No.  We've been around this over and
17   over again.  Qing did not admit -- you're asking
18   me if Qing admitted to me that he violated the
19   agreement.
17:53:03 20         Q.     I'm not saying those words.  He
21   didn't say, Jason Brown, I violated that
22   agreement.
23         A.     So what are you asking me?
24         Q.     I'm saying that when Qing said, I
0355
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   don't think Peter can work here --
 3                MS. PARK:  Same thing.  Objection.
 4         Argumentative.
17:53:18  5         Q.     -- that that would be a violation of
 6   the agreement?
 7                MS. PARK:  Objection.
 8         Argumentative.  Asked and answered.
 9         Directing him not to respond.
17:53:25 10         Q.     Let me -- let me do it a different
11   way.
12                MS. PARK:  I feel like I am in
13         Guantanamo.  Really.
14                MR. LINDNER:  Well, then you'd be
17:53:34 15         free today.
16         Q.     So -- what did -- in your
17   investigation, did you take notes of what Trevor
18   and Boaz said?
19                MS. PARK:  Objection.  That's
17:53:52 20         already been covered.  You didn't ask him
21         questions about the notes.
22         A.     Oh, yeah.  So let's see.  You're
23   talking about these notes?
24         Q.     Yes.
0356
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         A.     Okay.
 3                MS. PARK:  Which is Plaintiff Brown
 4         Exhibit --
17:54:08  5                THE WITNESS:  Plaintiff Exhibit 11.
 6         A.     So the second page here, DEF00371,
 7   are notes from a telephone call I had with
 8   Trevor.  But there are no notes of a conversation
 9   I had with Boaz, so I don't know that I took
17:54:29 10   notes.
11         Q.     Okay.  Thank you.  I'm going to
12   direct you to the corporate code -- the company
13   code of conduct, Plaintiff Qing 4.  Do we have
14   that in here?  Yeah, here it is.  Okay.  I want
17:54:44 15   you to take a look at that.  I want you to -- are
16   you a reader, as defined by this document?
17         A.     I'm a people leader.  I don't
18   know --
19         Q.     Okay.  I'm directing you to the --
17:55:01 20   let's see.  I think it's page 34, but I might be
21   wrong.
22         A.     I'm not looking at the same
23   document.
24         Q.     Look at page 32, the bottom left.
0357
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   No. 32.  All right.  It's under a page that says,
 3   "Compliance with the code," and it says,
 4   "Disciplinary Action"; right?
17:55:38  5         A.     Right.
 6         Q.     Okay.  The paragraph above
 7   "Disciplinary Action."  It says, "You should
 8   report actual, suspected violations to your
 9   leader."  Are you a leader to anybody, as this
17:55:51 10   thing refers to?
11         A.     Yes.
12         Q.     Thank you.  Is Qing a leader?
13         A.     Yes.
14         Q.     Okay.  Then it lists a bunch of
17:56:00 15   people.  The leader, your human resources
16   representative, your business unit, compliance
17   officer, the general auditor, the general
18   counsel's office.  That's your office; correct?
19         A.     Right.  I work in the general
17:56:14 20   counsel's office now.
21         Q.     Thank you.  Or the corporate
22   secretary.  Would it be a fair characterization
23   that it's going higher up the food chain?
24         A.     Well, in some -- the leader is going
0358
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   higher up the food chain.  But the reason that
 3   these different offices are listed is because
 4   different aspects of the code implicate different
17:56:35  5   regulations, rules, policies.  So if there's an
 6   allegation of accounting malfeasance or problems,
 7   that might go to the auditor.  If there's
 8   something else, it might go somewhere else.
 9         Q.     But would you say that in general
17:56:53 10   that the -- the general counsel's office is
11   higher than the -- the business unit compliance
12   officer?
13         A.     No.
14         Q.     Would you say that the corporate
17:57:06 15   secretary is higher than the general auditor?
16         A.     No, I don't think they are.
17         Q.     Do you think -- is the corporate
18   secretary on the par with the leader?
19         A.     Let me -- let me try to clarify.
17:57:20 20         Q.     Because I thought it was going
21   higher hierarchy.
22         A.     As I was just explaining to you, not
23   necessarily.  Okay.  So a leader means someone
24   who is a people leader, okay.  So what this is
0359
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   saying, essentially, is that if you suspect
 3   something, you can either talk to your leader
 4   about it, the person who's your boss, in
17:57:39  5   layperson's terms, and/or you can talk to various
 6   groups, people, employees in these different
 7   groups who may have subject matter expertise.
 8                So the general auditor may be more
 9   senior than -- I think she is -- more senior than
17:57:56 10   the corporate secretary, but that's not
11   necessarily --
12         Q.     Senior in terms of what?
13         A.     I thought what you were talking
14   about, on the food chain, the hierarchy.
17:58:04 15         Q.     Right.  So which one is higher than
16   the corporate secretary?
17         A.     The -- the person who was the
18   general auditor, I think.  I don't know -- look,
19   all right.  Let me back up.
17:58:13 20         Q.     How many general auditors are there?
21                MS. PARK:  Okay.  Enough,
22         Mr. Lindner.
23         A.     There is one.  But these people are
24   either -- let me say it another way.  The general
0360
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   auditor is maybe an EVP, maybe an SVP.  The
 3   corporate secretary I believe is an SVP.  So I
 4   don't know who is technically higher up in the
17:58:35  5   organization in terms of their band.
 6                MS. PARK:  You have three minutes.
 7         A.     If that's what you're asking me.
 8                MS. PARK:  You have three minutes.
 9         Q.     Yes.  I'm asking you that.
17:58:45 10                So you're very familiar with this
11   code of conduct; yes?
12         A.     Yes.
13         Q.     If there's a question about it, who
14   would you -- and if you had a question about it,
17:58:55 15   whom would you go to?
16         A.     It depends on what my question was
17   about.
18         Q.     You just had a question about it.
19   You were not familiar with it, and you had a
17:59:02 20   question.  There was something you were not sure
21   of.  Whom would you go to?
22         A.     I would, if I didn't know anything
23   about this document --
24         Q.     If you had -- no.  If you had a
0361
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   specific question about whether something was
 3   against or in favor of -- of the code, who would
 4   you go to?
17:59:17  5         A.     It would depend on what part of the
 6   code.  That's what I was just trying to explain
 7   to you.
 8         Q.     Could you go to your leader?
 9         A.     Yes.
17:59:24 10         Q.     Okay.  If Qing had a question about
11   what he said to Boaz Salik, could he have gone to
12   his leader?
13                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
14         A.     If he had a question about what he
17:59:33 15   said --
16         Q.     Yes.
17         A.     -- could he have gone to his leader?
18                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
19         Q.     Does the code direct him to go to
17:59:39 20   the leader, if you have a question?
21         A.     Mr. Lindner --
22         Q.     Yes.
23         A.     -- you're asking me if Qing Lin
24   should have gone to his leader to ask him what?
0362
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   About something that he said?
 3         Q.     Yes.  If he had a question whether
 4   he should say, for instance, I'm not sure whether
18:00:01  5   Peter Lindner can work on at American Express.
 6   Like he's not sure.  So that means he could tell
 7   Boaz.  He did tell him that.  But he could have
 8   also not told him that.  So I think that means he
 9   had a question.
18:00:13 10                Wouldn't have that been appropriate
11   for him to not say that to Boaz but instead say,
12   I'll get back to you, and then ask his leader, is
13   it okay for me to say, I'm not sure that Peter
14   can work on at American Express?
18:00:27 15                MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
16         A.     Okay.  If I understand what you're
17   asking, I think I might, not based on the
18   question, but based on all of our history, and I
19   think I've explained this to you in the past,
18:00:38 20   what you're claiming does not fall, in my
21   opinion, does not fall within the code of
22   conduct.  So if you're claiming that there's a
23   breach of a contract --
24         Q.     Right.  If there is a breach of the
0363
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2   contract.
 3         A.     I don't think that squarely falls
 4   within the code of conduct.
18:01:04  5         Q.     Right.  I understand it's not
 6   square.  So it's a grey area; correct?
 7                MS. PARK:  Time over.
 8                MR. LINDNER:  It's not.  It's one
 9         minute to, please.
18:01:09 10         Q.     So I'm asking, if he has a question
11   about it, and you said it's a grey area; correct?
12         A.     No, I didn't say it's a grey area.
13   You said it's a grey area.
14                MS. PARK:  No.
18:01:15 15         Q.     Is it a grey area?  Is that a fair
16   characterization?
17         A.     I don't think it is.  My opinion is
18   that it has nothing to do with the code of
19   conduct, quite frankly.  Your complaints don't
18:01:22 20   have anything to do with the code of conduct, as
21   far as I'm concerned.
22         Q.     Well, that's what you stated in your
23   summary; right?  That you said there was no
24   violation in the next-to-last sentence.
0364
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2                Finally, there is no evidence
 3   that -- there is no evidence that -- of any code
 4   of conduct violation in Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.
18:01:40  5         A.     Okay.
 6         Q.     Right?
 7         A.     That's what that letter says.  What
 8   I'm saying to you now is, I don't even think the
 9   two -- I don't -- I don't think your allegations
18:01:51 10   fall within the code of conduct.  In my mind,
11   they are two different things.
12         Q.     Okay.  Turn to page 32 again.
13                MS. PARK:  No.  That's it.
14         Six o'clock.  No.  This deposition is over
18:02:02 15         by order of Judge Katz.
16                MR. LINDNER:  I'd like to finish
17         this question.
18                MS. PARK:  No.
19                MR. LINDNER:  It's in the middle of
18:02:05 20         a question.
21                MS. PARK:  No.  You're in the middle
22         of an irrelevant question.  The code of
23         conduct has nothing to do with this case.
24                MR. LINDNER:  Please, Ms. Park, I'd
0365
 1                      J.K. Brown
 2         like to finish my question.
 3                MS. PARK:  No.  Unless Ms. Barnes
 4         orders me.
18:02:18  5                MR. LINDNER:  I'd like to finish my
 6         question.
 7                MS. PARK:  No.
 8                MS. BARNES:  Mr. Lindner, the judge
 9         said six o'clock.  That's it.
18:02:27 10                MR. LINDNER:  Even in the middle of
11         a question?
12                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  I have five
13         seconds on the tape.
14                MR. LINDNER:  Okay.  Then that's the
18:02:27 15         end.  I would like to say I object to
16         the -- that I was interrupted for the
17         middle of the question.  I end the
18         deposition under protest.
19                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  This concludes
18:02:34 20         today's proceeding.  The total number of
21         tapes used was four.
22                We're off the record at 6:02.
23                (Time noted:  6:02 p.m.)
24                     _________________________
0366
 1
 2
 3   Subscribed and sworn to before me
 4   this _____ day of ______________, 2009.
18:02:44  5   ___________________    ______________________
 6   (Notary Public)        My Commission Expires:
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0367
 2                     C E R T I F I C A T E
 3   STATE OF NEW YORK    )
                           :ss
 4   COUNTY OF NEW YORK   )
 5             I, AMY E. SIKORA, CRR, CSR, RPR, CLR, a
 6   Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified Shorthand
 7   Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter,
 8   Certified LiveNote Reporter, and Notary Public
 9   within and for the State of New York, do hereby
10   certify that the foregoing deposition of JASON K.
11   BROWN was taken before me on the 22nd day of
12   January, 2009;
13             That the said witness was duly sworn
14   before the commencement of the testimony;
15   that the said testimony was taken
16   stenographically by me and then transcribed.
17             I further certify that I am not related
18   by blood or marriage to any of the parties to
19   this action nor interested directly or indirectly
20   in the matter in controversy; nor am I in the
21   employ of any of the counsel in this action.
22             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
23   my hand this 10th day of February, 2009.
24                 _________________________________
0368
 2   January 22, 2009
 3                       I N D E X
 4   WITNESS            EXAMINATION BY            PAGE
 5   JASON K. BROWN
 6                      MR. LINDNER                  4
 7   ---TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION/REQUESTS/DIRECTIONS---
 8                       REQUESTS
 9   (page/line)
10     296   12     I'd like to request the full
11                  contents of that file.
12     307   23     I'm making a request for that
13                  document.
14     330    4     So I'm making the request that the
15                  person knowledgeable about such
16                  document retention be deposed so
17                  we could find out what he did to
18                  check if such documents were
19                  located off-site.  Whether it was
20                  prohibitively expensive or whether
21                  they didn't bother doing it or
22                  whether the document was lost
23                  because of the -- of the
24                  destruction.
0369
 2                       I N D E X
 3                      (Continued)
 4   ---TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION/REQUESTS/DIRECTIONS---
 5                       REQUESTS
 6   (page/line)
 7     348   24     Please let me say I'm requesting
 8                  the documents from Steven Norman
 9                  and from Ash Gupta and from Qing
10                  Lin to see if they have an
11                  e-mail with this particular
12                  designation that you said, which
13                  is AMEX 1 followed by a
14                  three-digit number followed by --
15
16                        RULINGS
17   (page/line)
18      53   17
19                    E X H I B I T S
20   PLAINTIFF BROWN                              PAGE
21     101       11/9/06 e-mail correspondence     131
22               to S. Norman from P. Lindner,
23               cc's to H. Schwartz and SEC
24               Corporate Finance
0370
 2                       I N D E X
 3                      (Continued)
 4                    E X H I B I T S
 5   PLAINTIFF BROWN                              PAGE
 6     102       Lindner e-mail to Brown, copy     168
 7               to EEOC
 8     103       1/17/06 one-page document         237
 9               from Peter Lindner to Steven
10               Norman, with a copy to Boaz
11               and Trevor at Fisher Jordan
12     104       Lindner e-mail to Norman,         253
13               with cc's to Boaz and Trevor
14     105       October 7 document to Ash         264
15               Gupta, bearing certified mail
16               receipt
17     106       eight-page document to Ash        264
18               Gupta bearing certified
19               return receipt with numbers
20               ending in 1018
21
22
23
24