Preview
MARCIE ISOM FITZSIMMONS (SBN: 226906)
AMBER A. EKLOF (SBN: 305750)
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
FILED
SAN MATEQ COUNTY
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
L»)
San Francisco, CA 94111 AUG3 12018
'
Telephone: (415) 875-4131
Superior 00"“
_
Facsimile: (415) 986—8054 Clerk '
misom@grsm.com By
U1
aeklof@grsm.com GLEF"
Attorneys for Defendant
TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND
STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, erroneously sued as
THE LELAND STANFORD IUNIOR UNIVERSITY
\DOO\]O'\
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ‘A
rt:
11 ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, ) CASE NO. 17CIV045 70 Le.
LLP
E“
2000
12 Plaintiff, ; REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
94111
Mansukhani,
Suite
13 vs. DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG 5:"-
3
CA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR ) STANFORD’S MOTION FOR
Street,
UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit ) SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR, IN
Scully Francisco,
15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD ) THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
Battery UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, lNC., a Michigan ) ADJUDICATION
Rees
San
16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, )
275
) Accompanying Documents:
Gordon
17 Defendants. ) Notice of Motion; Memorandum of Point
_ n,” _ _ ‘_ “‘ ) and Authorities; Separate Statement of
.18 I1M7s—mv—1Msm
'
\, ) Undisputed Facts; Declaration of Marcie
Dec,” anon m
'
) Isom Fitzsimmons; Proposed Order
SUPP”
19 1350123
Date: November 16, 2018
2o ;
11111111111 Dept: Law and Motion
21 )
22 I, Elsie Wang, declare as follows:
23 1. I am the Division Manager for the Division of Hospital Medicine at the Stanford
24 University School of Medicine. In October 2015, I joined the Stanford PreventiéfikResearch
25 Center (SPRC) as the Assistant Division Manager, and in early January 2016’",:I took over as the
26 Interim Division Manager for SPRC, Where I supervised Ali Taghavi, Communications
27 Manager.
28 2. As Mr. Taghavi’s supervisor, I am aware that his duties included developing a
_1_
DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUIVIMARY ADJUDICATION
9mm
communications plan and other related work for Stanford’s WELL for Life program. Alticor
Inc., also known by its trade name Amway, supports WELL for Life through a recurring gift, and
as a result, Mr. Taghavi worked with Alticor and interacted from time to time with certain
Alticor personnel in performing his day-to-day job duties.
3. During Mr. Taghavi’s employment, I had no knowledge of Mr. Taghavi’s
religion, or that he identified with the Muslim religion. It is only through this lawsuit, filed after
\OOO\]O’\
Mr. Taghavi’s termination, that I have come to learn that Mr. Taghavi identifies as Muslim. I
also had no knowledge of Mr. Taghavi’s age because he never communicated it to me.
4. To my knowledge, former Division Manager Christine Scholberg supervised Mr.
10 Taghavi for a few months before I officially became Mr. Taghavi’s supervisor in January 2016.
LLP
ll Before Ms. Scholberg left SPRC, Ireached out to her to discuss Mr. Taghavi’s job duties,
2000
12 including his obligations to both SPRC and WELL. Ms. Scholberg communicated to me that she
94111
Mansukhani,
Suite 13 and Dr. Sandra Winter, the Director of the WELL Project, had been concerned about Mr.
CA
Street,
14 Taghavi’s production rate since he had not turned in certain projects, specifically the SPRC
newsletter, which had been the subject of discussion in meetings with Mr. Taghavi since his
Scully Francisco,
15
Battery
Rees
16 employment started in July 2015. Ms. Scholberg suggested I work with Dr. Winter to develop a
San
275
Gordon
17 plan to help Mr. Taghavi succeed. A true and correct copy of my email correspondence with Ms.
18 Scholberg from January 12, 2016, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.1
19 5. When Mr. Taghavi started reporting to me in January 2016, I began holding
20 weekly meetings with Mr. Taghavi and Dr. Winter based on Mr. Taghavi’s joint appointment for
21 WELL, and Dr. Winter’s role in the WELL Project. Dr. Winter and I determined it was
22 important to coordinate and outline the deliverables expected of Mr. Taghavi regarding his work
23 for WELL and SPRC, so everyone was clear on the tasks and expectations for each project. I
24 documented Mr. Taghavi’s progress, tasks, and corresponding deadlines in written
25 communications to help keep Mr. Taghavi on track and accountable, and so there would not be
26 ambiguity as to my expectations, or Mr. Taghavi’s deliverables.
27
28
1
Because Plaintiff designated as confidential his deposition testimony and all exhibits, Exhibits are only attached to
the unredacted version of this declaration, and are omitted here in light of Plaintiff’s designation.
-9,
DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR
SUlVflVIARY JUDGEMENT OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUMIVIARY ADJUDICATION
6. During our weekly meetings starting in January 2016, I reminded Mr. Taghavi
about the need for the external WELL Strategic Communications and Recruitment Plan, as well
as the SPRC Communication Plan. Through correspondence with Ms. Scholberg, I know that
these plans and related documents, such as the SPRC Newsletter, had been included in Mr.
Taghavi’s assignments since he started at Stanford, and were explicitly articulated as key
OO\]O\Ul-b
deliverables starting in October 2015. The communications plans were intended to provide a
detailed description of how communications, marketing and recruitment for the project would
move forward, and thus were essential to formulating and discussing the parameters of how
KC Stanford would conduct, recruit for and disseminate the WELL Project.
10 7. In early March 2016, I met with Mr. Taghavi to discuss his midyear performance.
11 During our meeting, we reviewed Mr. Taghavi’s job description and core duties, discussed
LLP
2000
12 feedback and clarified expectations of his role, included developing, coordinating and executing
94111
Mansukhani,
Suite 13 all aspects of the SPRC and WELL Communications Plan and the WELL Recruitment Plan. I
CA
Street,
14 also counseled Mr. Taghavi that he needed to increase his timely follow-through with tasks to
Scully Francisco,
15 meet deadlines, and needed to increase his attention to detail to better review and edit his work.
Battery
Rees
16 We also set up action items for Mr. Taghavi to complete. A true and correct copy of my March 8,
San
275
Gordon
17 2016 email to Mr. Taghavi summarizing his midyear review is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
18 8. On March 10, 2016, Mr. Taghavi finally provided a draft of the SPRC Newsletter.
19 The SPRC Newsletter did not meet expectations because it required substantive editing in terms
20 of phrasing and language, included extraneous information, and was formatted incorrectly. I
21 emailed Mr. Taghavi my comments and revisions to the newsletter the same day. A true and
22 correct copy of my March 10, 2016 email to Mr. Taghavi is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
23 9. Although Mr. Taghavi was aware from our weekly meetings that the SPRC and
24 WELL Communications Plans were key deliverables, as of April 2016, Mr. Taghavi still had not
25 provided drafts of either plan. On April 20, 2016, I met with Mr. Taghavi to discuss his work.
26 During the meeting I emphasized the importance of developing a complete version of the WELL
27 and SPRC Communications Plans — which were key deliverables included in Mr. Taghavi’s core
28 job duties. Mr. Taghavi agreed to provide the finalized WELL Plan to Dr. Winter by April 27,
-3-
DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR
SUMIVIARY JUDGEMENT OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUMMARY ADIUDICATION
2016. We discussed that the plan should include a certain level of detail, including the who,
what, where, when why and how for each planned activity. I reminded Mr. Taghavi that we had
been discussing the importance of these plans for four months (4) — since January 2016 — as had
4:.
Ms. Scholberg during the time she supervised Mr. Taghavi. Accordingly, I noted that my
expectation was comprehensive, final strategic and communication plans by the agreed upon
date. We also discussed that Mr. Taghavi would provide a final l-page WELL factsheet by the
\DOO\]O\U1
end of the week (April 22, 2016). On April 21, 2016, I sent him a follow up email summarizing
our April 20 meeting.
10. Given the continued delay in Mr. Taghavi’s key deliverables and the status of his
1o performance, I forwarded my April 21, 2016 email to Mr. Taghavi summarizing our April 20
11 meeting, to SPRC Director, Dr. John Ioannidis. I was concerned Mr. Taghavi’s delayed and _
LLP
2000
12 deficient work may have an effect on the project, and we might need to work with human
94111
Mansukhani,
Suite 13 resources to discuss next steps based on Mr. Taghavi’s performance. A true and correct copy of
CA
Street,
14 my April 21, 2016 email forward to John Ioannidis is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
Scully Francisco,
15 11. Although Mr. Taghavi eventually provided a draft of the WELL Plan on April 26,
Battery
Rees
San
16 the Plan lacked the necessary operational details, concrete action steps and depth of content to
275
Gordon
17 provide for an engaging and dynamic recruitment and retention strategy, as discussed in our
18 weekly meetings, and our meeting on April 20, 2016. It also did not include the “who, what,
19 when, where, why and how” for each planned activity.
20 12. On April 26, 2016, Dr. Winter and I met with Mr. Taghavi to discuss the status of
21 his deliverables. As of this April 26 meeting, Mr. Taghavi still had not finalized the WELL and
22 China factsheets. Mr. Taghavi had submitted WELL and WELL China factsheets, but the
23 materials required revisions. Mr. Taghavi submitted a revised draft of the WELL and WELL
24 China factsheets on April 29, 2016.
25 13. On April 28, 2016, Dr. Winter and I shared our concerns with Dr. Ioannidis
26 regarding Mr. Taghavi’s ability to timely deliver adequate work product to move the Project
27 forward. Despite numerous counseling and check-in meetings with Mr. Taghavi regarding his
28 key deliverables, his progress, and any issues he may have fulfilling his job duties, Mr. Taghavi
-4-
DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
continued to turn in late and unfinished work. I felt that terminating Mr. Taghavi in his trial
period was appropriate because Mr. Taghavi was unable to meet the needs of SPRC and WELL
to keep the project on track. Based on his past performance, I did not believe Mr. Taghavi would
be able to meet the project’s immediate and imminent needs that would coincide with the launch
of the registry, a component of the Project. Dr. Ioannidis agreed with our recommendation. Mr.
Taghavi’s poor performance is the only reason we proceeded with the trial period termination. A
true and correct copy of my April 28, 2016 email exchange with Sandra Winter and 'John
Ioannidis is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
14. It was not Mr. Taghavi’s role to determine whether Stanford or Alticor were
10 following research protocols. Mr. Taghavi never expressed to me that he believed Alticor or
11 Stanford were not following research protocols. I never learned that Mr. Taghavi had expressed
LLP
2000
12 that to anyone else and I would expect in my role that I would have been informed‘of that had it
94111
Mansukhani,
Suite 13 occurred. Regardless, Mr. Taghavi’s termination had nothing to do with the research protocols
CA
Street,
14 and everything to do with his poor performance.
Scully Francisco,
15 15. As agreed upon and decided by me, Dr. Ioannidis, and Dr. Winter, Stanford
Battery
Rees
16 terminated Mr. Taghavi’s employment effective May 6, 2016 for poor performance. As his
San
275
Gordon
17 supervisor, I was involved in the decision to terminate Mr. Taghavi and communicated the
18 decision to Mr. Taghavi in a meeting on May 6, 2016.
19 16. Alticor played no role in Stanford’s decision to terminate him. I do not recall ever
20 having any direct communications with Alticor, or any of its representatives, regarding the
21 WELL for Life program. I never had conversations with Alticor, or any of its representatives,
22 about Mr. Taghavi. If Alticor was unhappy with Mr. Taghavi or his work, I had no knowledge of
23 it, and to my knowledge, neither did anyone else at Stanford. No one at Alticor asked me — or,
24 to my knowledge, anyone else at Stanford — to terminate Mr. Taghavi. No one at Alticor
25 pressured me ——
or, to my knowledge, anyone else at Stanford — to terminate him. Stanford
26 made the decision to part ways with Mr. Taghavi for business reasons relating to his failure to
27 meet performance expectations despite numerous attempts to help improve his performance
28
-5-
DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUMNIARY ADIUDICATION
1 17. The facts set forth above are of my personal, firsthand knowledge, and if called as
a witness, I could and would testify competently to them.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. f
I 2
Executed thisfl day of August. , 2018 at mm a [+0 , California.
/
W/mmw Elsie Wang
(
LLP
2000
94111
Mansukhani,
Suite
CA
Street,
Scully Francisco,
Battery
Rees
San
275
Gordon
28 " 11213408998705.9V l
3”=‘3' “l121340139987059t "
-5-
DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMIVIARY ADJUDICATION
Preview
MARCIE ISOM FITZSIMMONS (SBN: 226906) AMBER A. EKLOF (SBN: 305750) GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP FILED SAN MATEQ COUNTY 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 L») San Francisco, CA 94111 AUG3 12018 ' Telephone: (415) 875-4131 Superior 00"“ _ Facsimile: (415) 986—8054 Clerk ' misom@grsm.com By U1 aeklof@grsm.com GLEF" Attorneys for Defendant TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, erroneously sued as THE LELAND STANFORD IUNIOR UNIVERSITY \DOO\]O'\ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ‘A rt: 11 ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, ) CASE NO. 17CIV045 70 Le. LLP E“ 2000 12 Plaintiff, ; REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION 94111 Mansukhani, Suite 13 vs. DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG 5:"- 3 CA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR ) STANFORD’S MOTION FOR Street, UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit ) SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR, IN Scully Francisco, 15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD ) THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY Battery UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, lNC., a Michigan ) ADJUDICATION Rees San 16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) 275 ) Accompanying Documents: Gordon 17 Defendants. ) Notice of Motion; Memorandum of Point _ n,” _ _ ‘_ “‘ ) and Authorities; Separate Statement of .18 I1M7s—mv—1Msm ' \, ) Undisputed Facts; Declaration of Marcie Dec,” anon m ' ) Isom Fitzsimmons; Proposed Order SUPP” 19 1350123 Date: November 16, 2018 2o ; 11111111111 Dept: Law and Motion 21 ) 22 I, Elsie Wang, declare as follows: 23 1. I am the Division Manager for the Division of Hospital Medicine at the Stanford 24 University School of Medicine. In October 2015, I joined the Stanford PreventiéfikResearch 25 Center (SPRC) as the Assistant Division Manager, and in early January 2016’",:I took over as the 26 Interim Division Manager for SPRC, Where I supervised Ali Taghavi, Communications 27 Manager. 28 2. As Mr. Taghavi’s supervisor, I am aware that his duties included developing a _1_ DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUIVIMARY ADJUDICATION 9mm communications plan and other related work for Stanford’s WELL for Life program. Alticor Inc., also known by its trade name Amway, supports WELL for Life through a recurring gift, and as a result, Mr. Taghavi worked with Alticor and interacted from time to time with certain Alticor personnel in performing his day-to-day job duties. 3. During Mr. Taghavi’s employment, I had no knowledge of Mr. Taghavi’s religion, or that he identified with the Muslim religion. It is only through this lawsuit, filed after \OOO\]O’\ Mr. Taghavi’s termination, that I have come to learn that Mr. Taghavi identifies as Muslim. I also had no knowledge of Mr. Taghavi’s age because he never communicated it to me. 4. To my knowledge, former Division Manager Christine Scholberg supervised Mr. 10 Taghavi for a few months before I officially became Mr. Taghavi’s supervisor in January 2016. LLP ll Before Ms. Scholberg left SPRC, Ireached out to her to discuss Mr. Taghavi’s job duties, 2000 12 including his obligations to both SPRC and WELL. Ms. Scholberg communicated to me that she 94111 Mansukhani, Suite 13 and Dr. Sandra Winter, the Director of the WELL Project, had been concerned about Mr. CA Street, 14 Taghavi’s production rate since he had not turned in certain projects, specifically the SPRC newsletter, which had been the subject of discussion in meetings with Mr. Taghavi since his Scully Francisco, 15 Battery Rees 16 employment started in July 2015. Ms. Scholberg suggested I work with Dr. Winter to develop a San 275 Gordon 17 plan to help Mr. Taghavi succeed. A true and correct copy of my email correspondence with Ms. 18 Scholberg from January 12, 2016, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.1 19 5. When Mr. Taghavi started reporting to me in January 2016, I began holding 20 weekly meetings with Mr. Taghavi and Dr. Winter based on Mr. Taghavi’s joint appointment for 21 WELL, and Dr. Winter’s role in the WELL Project. Dr. Winter and I determined it was 22 important to coordinate and outline the deliverables expected of Mr. Taghavi regarding his work 23 for WELL and SPRC, so everyone was clear on the tasks and expectations for each project. I 24 documented Mr. Taghavi’s progress, tasks, and corresponding deadlines in written 25 communications to help keep Mr. Taghavi on track and accountable, and so there would not be 26 ambiguity as to my expectations, or Mr. Taghavi’s deliverables. 27 28 1 Because Plaintiff designated as confidential his deposition testimony and all exhibits, Exhibits are only attached to the unredacted version of this declaration, and are omitted here in light of Plaintiff’s designation. -9, DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR SUlVflVIARY JUDGEMENT OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUMIVIARY ADJUDICATION 6. During our weekly meetings starting in January 2016, I reminded Mr. Taghavi about the need for the external WELL Strategic Communications and Recruitment Plan, as well as the SPRC Communication Plan. Through correspondence with Ms. Scholberg, I know that these plans and related documents, such as the SPRC Newsletter, had been included in Mr. Taghavi’s assignments since he started at Stanford, and were explicitly articulated as key OO\]O\Ul-b deliverables starting in October 2015. The communications plans were intended to provide a detailed description of how communications, marketing and recruitment for the project would move forward, and thus were essential to formulating and discussing the parameters of how KC Stanford would conduct, recruit for and disseminate the WELL Project. 10 7. In early March 2016, I met with Mr. Taghavi to discuss his midyear performance. 11 During our meeting, we reviewed Mr. Taghavi’s job description and core duties, discussed LLP 2000 12 feedback and clarified expectations of his role, included developing, coordinating and executing 94111 Mansukhani, Suite 13 all aspects of the SPRC and WELL Communications Plan and the WELL Recruitment Plan. I CA Street, 14 also counseled Mr. Taghavi that he needed to increase his timely follow-through with tasks to Scully Francisco, 15 meet deadlines, and needed to increase his attention to detail to better review and edit his work. Battery Rees 16 We also set up action items for Mr. Taghavi to complete. A true and correct copy of my March 8, San 275 Gordon 17 2016 email to Mr. Taghavi summarizing his midyear review is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 18 8. On March 10, 2016, Mr. Taghavi finally provided a draft of the SPRC Newsletter. 19 The SPRC Newsletter did not meet expectations because it required substantive editing in terms 20 of phrasing and language, included extraneous information, and was formatted incorrectly. I 21 emailed Mr. Taghavi my comments and revisions to the newsletter the same day. A true and 22 correct copy of my March 10, 2016 email to Mr. Taghavi is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 23 9. Although Mr. Taghavi was aware from our weekly meetings that the SPRC and 24 WELL Communications Plans were key deliverables, as of April 2016, Mr. Taghavi still had not 25 provided drafts of either plan. On April 20, 2016, I met with Mr. Taghavi to discuss his work. 26 During the meeting I emphasized the importance of developing a complete version of the WELL 27 and SPRC Communications Plans — which were key deliverables included in Mr. Taghavi’s core 28 job duties. Mr. Taghavi agreed to provide the finalized WELL Plan to Dr. Winter by April 27, -3- DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR SUMIVIARY JUDGEMENT OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUMMARY ADIUDICATION 2016. We discussed that the plan should include a certain level of detail, including the who, what, where, when why and how for each planned activity. I reminded Mr. Taghavi that we had been discussing the importance of these plans for four months (4) — since January 2016 — as had 4:. Ms. Scholberg during the time she supervised Mr. Taghavi. Accordingly, I noted that my expectation was comprehensive, final strategic and communication plans by the agreed upon date. We also discussed that Mr. Taghavi would provide a final l-page WELL factsheet by the \DOO\]O\U1 end of the week (April 22, 2016). On April 21, 2016, I sent him a follow up email summarizing our April 20 meeting. 10. Given the continued delay in Mr. Taghavi’s key deliverables and the status of his 1o performance, I forwarded my April 21, 2016 email to Mr. Taghavi summarizing our April 20 11 meeting, to SPRC Director, Dr. John Ioannidis. I was concerned Mr. Taghavi’s delayed and _ LLP 2000 12 deficient work may have an effect on the project, and we might need to work with human 94111 Mansukhani, Suite 13 resources to discuss next steps based on Mr. Taghavi’s performance. A true and correct copy of CA Street, 14 my April 21, 2016 email forward to John Ioannidis is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Scully Francisco, 15 11. Although Mr. Taghavi eventually provided a draft of the WELL Plan on April 26, Battery Rees San 16 the Plan lacked the necessary operational details, concrete action steps and depth of content to 275 Gordon 17 provide for an engaging and dynamic recruitment and retention strategy, as discussed in our 18 weekly meetings, and our meeting on April 20, 2016. It also did not include the “who, what, 19 when, where, why and how” for each planned activity. 20 12. On April 26, 2016, Dr. Winter and I met with Mr. Taghavi to discuss the status of 21 his deliverables. As of this April 26 meeting, Mr. Taghavi still had not finalized the WELL and 22 China factsheets. Mr. Taghavi had submitted WELL and WELL China factsheets, but the 23 materials required revisions. Mr. Taghavi submitted a revised draft of the WELL and WELL 24 China factsheets on April 29, 2016. 25 13. On April 28, 2016, Dr. Winter and I shared our concerns with Dr. Ioannidis 26 regarding Mr. Taghavi’s ability to timely deliver adequate work product to move the Project 27 forward. Despite numerous counseling and check-in meetings with Mr. Taghavi regarding his 28 key deliverables, his progress, and any issues he may have fulfilling his job duties, Mr. Taghavi -4- DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION continued to turn in late and unfinished work. I felt that terminating Mr. Taghavi in his trial period was appropriate because Mr. Taghavi was unable to meet the needs of SPRC and WELL to keep the project on track. Based on his past performance, I did not believe Mr. Taghavi would be able to meet the project’s immediate and imminent needs that would coincide with the launch of the registry, a component of the Project. Dr. Ioannidis agreed with our recommendation. Mr. Taghavi’s poor performance is the only reason we proceeded with the trial period termination. A true and correct copy of my April 28, 2016 email exchange with Sandra Winter and 'John Ioannidis is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 14. It was not Mr. Taghavi’s role to determine whether Stanford or Alticor were 10 following research protocols. Mr. Taghavi never expressed to me that he believed Alticor or 11 Stanford were not following research protocols. I never learned that Mr. Taghavi had expressed LLP 2000 12 that to anyone else and I would expect in my role that I would have been informed‘of that had it 94111 Mansukhani, Suite 13 occurred. Regardless, Mr. Taghavi’s termination had nothing to do with the research protocols CA Street, 14 and everything to do with his poor performance. Scully Francisco, 15 15. As agreed upon and decided by me, Dr. Ioannidis, and Dr. Winter, Stanford Battery Rees 16 terminated Mr. Taghavi’s employment effective May 6, 2016 for poor performance. As his San 275 Gordon 17 supervisor, I was involved in the decision to terminate Mr. Taghavi and communicated the 18 decision to Mr. Taghavi in a meeting on May 6, 2016. 19 16. Alticor played no role in Stanford’s decision to terminate him. I do not recall ever 20 having any direct communications with Alticor, or any of its representatives, regarding the 21 WELL for Life program. I never had conversations with Alticor, or any of its representatives, 22 about Mr. Taghavi. If Alticor was unhappy with Mr. Taghavi or his work, I had no knowledge of 23 it, and to my knowledge, neither did anyone else at Stanford. No one at Alticor asked me — or, 24 to my knowledge, anyone else at Stanford — to terminate Mr. Taghavi. No one at Alticor 25 pressured me —— or, to my knowledge, anyone else at Stanford — to terminate him. Stanford 26 made the decision to part ways with Mr. Taghavi for business reasons relating to his failure to 27 meet performance expectations despite numerous attempts to help improve his performance 28 -5- DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. SUMNIARY ADIUDICATION 1 17. The facts set forth above are of my personal, firsthand knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to them. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. f I 2 Executed thisfl day of August. , 2018 at mm a [+0 , California. / W/mmw Elsie Wang ( LLP 2000 94111 Mansukhani, Suite CA Street, Scully Francisco, Battery Rees San 275 Gordon 28 " 11213408998705.9V l 3”=‘3' “l121340139987059t " -5- DECLARATION OF ELSIE WANG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMIVIARY ADJUDICATION