interview-memo-serena-whitcomb.docx

1017-00005 · Aurelius Global Media Group · Witness Interviews

interview-memo-serena-whitcomb.docx DOCUMENT Funds

36 / 38 ← → ✕

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL — DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067

INTERNAL MEMORANDUM

This memorandum was prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP at the direction of counsel in connection with the firm's engagement as outside counsel to Aurelius Global Media Group PLC. This memorandum constitutes attorney work product and is protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is intended solely for the use of counsel and authorized representatives of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC in connection with the internal investigation referenced herein. This memorandum should not be disclosed, disseminated, distributed, or copied, in whole or in part, to any person or entity without the prior written authorization of Calderwood & Harkness LLP and authorized in-house counsel for Aurelius Global Media Group PLC.

Matter No.: 1017-00005

TO: Investigation File — Aurelius Global Media Group PLC Workplace Investigation

FROM: Devon Archer, Lead Associate, Labor & Employment, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

DATE: June 22, 2023

RE: Privileged Interview Memorandum — Serena Whitcomb (Former Employee, Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc.)

INTERVIEW DATE: June 22, 2023

INTERVIEW LOCATION: Conducted via secure videoconference (Calderon Software for Government, encrypted session). Whitcomb is a former employee no longer located at Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. ("APS") offices. Whitcomb participated from her personal residence in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

INTERVIEWERS: Devon Archer, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

ALSO PRESENT: No counsel was present on behalf of Whitcomb. At the outset of the interview, Whitcomb was informed of her right to consult with and retain personal counsel prior to or during the interview. She elected to proceed without personal counsel.

DURATION: Approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes (10:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. PDT)

I. Upjohn Admonition and Preliminary Instructions

At the outset of the interview, Devon Archer administered the standard Upjohn / corporate representation admonition consistent with the firm's template script that has been used throughout the course of this investigation, which commenced on May 22, 2023. The admonition was read from the firm's standard form and the following principal points were communicated to Whitcomb:

1. Calderwood & Harkness LLP represents Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("AGMG") and its subsidiaries, including Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. ("APS"), in connection with this internal investigation. Calderwood & Harkness LLP does not represent Whitcomb individually in any capacity.

2. The purpose of this interview is to gather facts relevant to the internal investigation being conducted at the direction of counsel for AGMG.

3. The interview is protected by the attorney-client privilege. That privilege belongs solely to the company — AGMG — and not to Whitcomb. The company, in its sole discretion, may choose to waive or assert the privilege, and may elect to disclose the contents of this interview to third parties, including regulators, government agencies, or other parties, without Whitcomb's consent.

4. Whitcomb was instructed not to discuss the substance of the interview, the questions asked, or the answers provided, with any other person, including current or former employees of AGMG, APS, or any affiliated entity.

5. Because Whitcomb is a former employee of APS, the admonition further clarified that Calderwood & Harkness LLP does not represent APS or AGMG in any capacity vis-à-vis Whitcomb, and that no attorney-client relationship exists or is being created between Calderwood & Harkness LLP and Whitcomb by virtue of this interview. Whitcomb was advised that she should not construe any statements made during the interview as legal advice to her personally.

6. Whitcomb was advised that her participation in this interview is entirely voluntary. As a former employee, she is under no obligation to participate and may decline to answer any question or terminate the interview at any time.

Whitcomb verbally acknowledged her understanding of each of the foregoing admonitions. She confirmed that she understood that Calderwood & Harkness LLP does not represent her, that the privilege belongs to the company, and that her participation was voluntary. She stated that she was willing to proceed with the interview and to answer questions to the best of her recollection.

II. Background and Employment History

Whitcomb provided the following background information regarding her employment with APS:

Full Name: Serena Whitcomb

Former Title: Executive Assistant to the President, Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc.

Employment Dates: Approximately April 2019 through September 2021

Reporting Relationship: Whitcomb reported directly to Marcus Hale, President of Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc.

Primary Work Location: APS headquarters, located at 3200 West Alameda Avenue, Suite 400, Burbank, California 91505

Whitcomb described her role and responsibilities in detail. She stated that as Executive Assistant to the President, she was responsible for managing Hale's professional calendar, coordinating domestic and international travel arrangements, handling incoming and outgoing correspondence on Hale's behalf, managing office logistics and day-to-day administrative operations for the President's office, and serving as the primary gatekeeper for Hale's schedule and communications. She stated that she was frequently the first point of contact for individuals — both internal and external — seeking access to or time with Hale. She described the role as requiring close physical proximity to Hale throughout the workday, as her workstation was located directly outside Hale's office.

Whitcomb stated that she was hired shortly after Hale commenced his role as President of APS in January 2019. She stated that her start date was in April 2019, approximately three months after Hale's appointment. She recalled that she was hired through a staffing agency and converted to a full-time, direct APS employee within the first ninety days of her assignment.

Whitcomb described her initial working relationship with Hale as professional and positive during the first approximately one to two years of her tenure. She stated that Hale was initially a "demanding but fair" manager and that the professional dynamic was, in her view, appropriate and respectful during this period. She stated that she enjoyed the work and felt valued in the role during the earlier portion of her employment.

III. Account of Inappropriate Conduct by Marcus Hale

A. Nature and Timing of Alleged Inappropriate Comments

Whitcomb stated that over the course of her employment, and particularly during the period of approximately early 2021 through her departure in September 2021, Hale made comments to her that she considered inappropriate, unwelcome, and inconsistent with a professional working relationship.

She described these comments as falling into two general categories. First, Hale made repeated comments about her physical appearance, including her clothing, her physical attributes, and how she "looked" in certain outfits. Second, Hale made remarks that Whitcomb characterized as "overly personal" and "crossing the line," including questions and comments about her personal life, romantic relationships, and social activities outside of work. Whitcomb stated that these comments were unwelcome and that she did not invite or encourage them.

Whitcomb provided several specific examples of the types of comments Hale made:

• Comments on attire in the office setting. Whitcomb stated that on multiple occasions, Hale commented on her clothing in a manner that went beyond a casual, professional compliment. She recalled Hale making statements to the effect of describing how certain outfits "looked on her," with particular attention to how clothing fit her body. She stated that the nature and tone of these comments conveyed a focus on her physical form rather than her professional presentation. While she could not pinpoint exact dates for each incident, she stated that these comments occurred with regularity during the spring and summer of 2021.

• Personal questions about her dating life and social activities. Whitcomb stated that Hale frequently asked her about her personal life, including whether she was dating anyone, what she did on weekends, and who she spent time with socially. She stated that she found these questions intrusive and unwelcome given the professional context and the nature of their reporting relationship. She stated that Hale would sometimes ask these questions first thing in the morning or at the end of the workday, in a manner that felt overly familiar and probing.

• Comments made in the presence of other staff. Whitcomb stated that on occasion, Hale made comments about her appearance in the presence of other employees. She could not identify with certainty which employees were present during specific incidents but recalled feeling embarrassed by the comments and by the fact that they were made in a setting where others could hear. She stated that this added an element of public humiliation to the experience.

Whitcomb noted that the frequency and explicitness of Hale's comments escalated during the period of approximately spring and summer 2021 — roughly March through August 2021. She stated that earlier in her employment, Hale's remarks were less frequent and more ambiguous in nature, making it easier for her to dismiss or rationalize them. By early-to-mid 2021, however, Whitcomb stated that the comments had become more frequent, more pointed, and more explicitly focused on her physical appearance and personal life in a way that she felt was unmistakably inappropriate.

Whitcomb stated that the comments made her uncomfortable and affected her ability to perform her duties. She described a growing sense of anxiety about her interactions with Hale and stated that she began to dread certain work situations — such as closed-door meetings or one-on-one conversations — because of the likelihood that Hale would make an inappropriate remark. She stated that the cumulative effect of the comments created a working environment that felt hostile and uncomfortable.

B. Whitcomb's Responses to Hale

Whitcomb stated that she initially tried to deflect or ignore Hale's comments, hoping that the behavior would cease on its own without the need for a direct confrontation. She described strategies such as redirecting the conversation to work-related topics, responding with brief or neutral remarks to avoid engaging with the personal nature of the comments, and physically removing herself from situations where the comments were being made (e.g., stepping out to attend to another task).

She described attempting to keep her interactions with Hale as strictly professional as possible and stated that she consciously tried to limit one-on-one time with Hale where circumstances allowed. She acknowledged, however, that the nature of her role as his Executive Assistant made it impossible to entirely avoid close, one-on-one interactions.

Whitcomb stated that she did not directly confront Hale about his comments at any point during her employment. She cited several reasons for this decision. Primarily, she referenced the significant power differential between them: Hale was the President of the studio, the most senior executive at the APS subsidiary, and she was his direct-report executive assistant. She expressed concern that a direct confrontation could result in retaliation — including negative performance reviews, marginalization in her role, or termination — and that such retaliation would be difficult to prove and harmful to her career. She stated that she felt she was in a "no-win situation" in which raising the issue directly with Hale could have been more professionally dangerous than attempting to manage the situation through avoidance.

IV. The July 2021 Informal Complaint

A. Decision to Report

Whitcomb stated that in approximately July 2021 — she could not recall the precise date but believed it was during the first or second week of July — she decided to raise her concerns about Hale's conduct with Victor Gallegos, Vice President of Human Resources at Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. She stated that by that point, Hale's comments had become frequent enough, and troubling enough, that she felt she needed to bring them to the attention of someone in a position of authority within the organization.

Whitcomb described approaching Gallegos informally. She stated that she went to Gallegos's office in the APS Burbank headquarters during a workday and asked if she could speak with him privately. She stated that the conversation was not pre-scheduled; rather, she approached Gallegos when she saw an opportunity to speak with him without being observed by Hale or other colleagues. She characterized the report as an informal, in-person conversation rather than a formal written complaint. She did not submit anything in writing to Gallegos or to any other member of the APS or AGMG human resources team, either before or after the conversation.

Whitcomb confirmed that she did not use the Meridian Compliance Solutions ethics hotline — which is operated by Meridian Compliance Solutions LLC and uses a case reference numbering system prefixed "MCS-" — to file the report. She stated that she was generally aware of the hotline's existence but chose to go directly to Gallegos in person because she wanted to speak with someone she knew and because she was uncertain about the confidentiality protections of the third-party hotline system. She also stated that she felt an in-person conversation would allow her to better convey the nuance and context of her concerns.

B. Content of the Report to Gallegos

Whitcomb stated that during her conversation with Gallegos, she told him that Hale had been making comments about her physical appearance and asking personal questions that made her uncomfortable. She stated that she provided Gallegos with specific examples of the types of comments Hale had made, including comments about how clothing looked on her and intrusive questions about her dating life, similar in substance to the examples described in Section III above. She stated that she conveyed to Gallegos the frequency and escalating nature of the comments and her discomfort with the situation.

Whitcomb stated that she told Gallegos she wanted the behavior to stop. She also expressed uncertainty to Gallegos about whether she wanted a formal investigation to be initiated. She stated that she was concerned about the potential consequences — both professional and personal — of a formal complaint process, including the likelihood that Hale would learn of the complaint and the possibility of retaliation or damage to her professional reputation. She recalled telling Gallegos something to the effect of, "I just need this to stop, but I don't want to make it into a whole thing."

Whitcomb recalled that Gallegos listened attentively during the conversation and appeared to take the matter seriously. She stated that Gallegos took some handwritten notes during their discussion, writing on what she recalled was a yellow legal pad. She could not confirm the exact duration of the conversation but estimated it lasted approximately twenty to thirty minutes.

C. Gallegos's Response (as Recounted by Whitcomb)

Whitcomb stated that at the conclusion of their conversation, Gallegos told her that he would "handle it" and would speak with Hale. She recalled Gallegos using language indicating that he intended to address the situation through what he described as a "coaching conversation" with Hale, rather than through a formal disciplinary process. Whitcomb stated that she understood this to mean that Gallegos would speak to Hale privately and counsel him to modify his behavior.

Whitcomb stated that she did not receive any written follow-up from Gallegos or from any member of the APS or AGMG human resources department confirming the substance of her complaint, the steps being taken to address it, or the outcome of Gallegos's conversation with Hale. She was not asked to provide a written statement memorializing her account. She was not provided with a copy of any internal report or memorandum regarding her complaint.

Whitcomb stated that she was not informed by Gallegos — either at the time of the complaint or at any point thereafter — of her rights under the APS Employee Handbook (CA Supplement), including Section 5.3 (Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Policy) or Section 8.1 (Complaint and Investigation Procedures). She was not informed of the formal investigation process that would ordinarily be triggered by a complaint of this nature. She was not provided with information about the process for filing a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (now the California Civil Rights Department) under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Sections 12940 et seq.

It is noted that Whitcomb's account of the July 2021 informal complaint and Gallegos's response is consistent in material respects with the account that Victor Gallegos himself provided during his interview on June 1, 2023. In that interview, Gallegos confirmed that Whitcomb approached him with an informal complaint about Hale's conduct, that Gallegos conducted a verbal counseling session with Hale on August 2, 2021, and that no written documentation of the counseling was retained in Hale's personnel file. The consistency between these two independently provided accounts lends corroborative weight to the underlying factual narrative.

D. Whitcomb's Understanding of the Outcome

Whitcomb stated that after approximately two to three weeks following her report to Gallegos — which, based on a July 2021 complaint date, would place the Gallegos-Hale conversation around late July or early August 2021, consistent with the August 2, 2021 verbal counseling date confirmed by Gallegos in his June 1, 2023 interview — Hale's behavior appeared to change briefly.

Whitcomb stated that the comments about her physical appearance decreased in frequency for a short period, which she estimated at approximately two to three weeks following the apparent counseling session. She described this as a noticeable, if temporary, improvement.

However, Whitcomb stated that the overall atmosphere in her working relationship with Hale became what she described as "cold" and "tense" after the complaint. She stated that Hale became notably less communicative with her, that he began excluding her from certain meetings and conversations to which she would ordinarily have been a party in her capacity as his Executive Assistant, and that the general tenor of their interactions shifted from professional warmth to a detached and sometimes curt dynamic.

Whitcomb perceived that Hale was aware that she had spoken to HR about his conduct, although she stated that she could not confirm this definitively. She stated that no one — neither Gallegos nor Hale — explicitly told her that Hale had been informed of the complaint. Rather, her perception was based on the timing of the behavioral change and the shift in Hale's demeanor toward her, which she stated was marked and coincided with the approximate date of Gallegos's counseling session.

V. Circumstances of Whitcomb's Departure from APS

A. Decision to Leave

Whitcomb stated that she made the decision to resign from Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. in approximately August 2021, approximately one month after her complaint to Gallegos, with her departure becoming effective in September 2021. She described multiple factors contributing to her decision to leave:

• Ongoing discomfort in her working relationship with Hale. Whitcomb stated that the post-complaint dynamic with Hale was untenable. She described feeling that the atmosphere in the President's office had become uncomfortable to a degree that made it difficult for her to perform her duties effectively and to maintain her professional well-being.

• Perception that the informal complaint had not resulted in meaningful, lasting change. While acknowledging the brief reduction in appearance-related comments, Whitcomb stated that she did not believe the complaint had fundamentally addressed the underlying issue. She stated that she felt the "coaching conversation" approach was insufficient and that she had no confidence the behavioral improvement would be sustained.

• Concern about retaliatory conduct. Whitcomb stated that the coldness and tension emanating from Hale following the complaint reflected, in her assessment, a retaliatory attitude. She stated that while Hale did not take any overt retaliatory action (such as a negative performance review, demotion, or termination), the change in his demeanor and the shift in their working dynamic felt punitive in nature and created an environment in which she felt unwelcome and professionally marginalized.

• Desire to pursue other career opportunities. Whitcomb stated that the cumulative effect of the foregoing factors led her to conclude that her best course of action was to leave APS and pursue career opportunities outside of the direct reporting relationship with Hale. She stated that she had begun exploring other positions and had received an offer from another employer in the entertainment industry.

B. Exit Process

Whitcomb stated that she submitted a standard resignation letter to the APS human resources department, directed to Victor Gallegos, and that she served out a notice period of approximately two weeks before her final day in September 2021. She could not recall the exact date of her final day of employment but estimated it was in the second or third week of September 2021.

Whitcomb stated that she was not asked to participate in a formal exit interview in connection with her departure. Specifically, she stated that no representative of HR or management conducted an exit interview in which she was asked about the reasons for her resignation, her experience working at APS, or the status of her prior complaint against Hale. She stated that this struck her as notable given that HR was aware of her complaint and its potential relationship to her decision to resign.

Whitcomb confirmed that she did not sign a separation agreement, general release of claims, non-disclosure agreement, or any other restrictive covenant in connection with her departure from APS. She stated that no such agreements were offered or presented to her. She received standard final pay and benefits documentation, including her final paycheck and information about COBRA continuation coverage. No severance payment was offered or paid.

C. Post-Departure Contact

Whitcomb stated that after her departure from APS in September 2021, she had no further contact with Marcus Hale, Victor Gallegos, or any other representative of APS or AGMG regarding her complaint or Hale's conduct. She stated that the matter was, from her perspective, left entirely unresolved when she departed the company.

Whitcomb stated that the first contact she received regarding these matters following her departure occurred in approximately early June 2023, when she was contacted by a representative of Calderwood & Harkness LLP in connection with this investigation. She stated that she agreed to participate in a voluntary interview because she believed it was important to provide her account of what occurred.

VI. Whitcomb's Knowledge of Other Complaints or Conduct

Whitcomb was asked whether she was aware of conduct by Hale similar to that she described, directed at other employees during her tenure at APS from April 2019 through September 2021.

Whitcomb stated that she had observed Hale making what she described as "flirtatious" comments to other female employees on occasion during her time at APS. She stated that these comments were, in her recollection, similar in nature to the appearance-related comments Hale directed at her — remarks about how employees looked, comments about clothing, and statements that, in Whitcomb's view, carried a personal rather than professional tone. However, Whitcomb stated that she could not recall the specific individuals to whom these comments were directed or the specific dates on which they occurred with sufficient certainty to identify particular incidents.

Whitcomb stated that she had no direct knowledge of any other formal or informal complaints filed against Hale during her employment at APS, whether through the HR department, through the Meridian Compliance Solutions hotline, or through any other channel.

Whitcomb stated that she had no prior personal acquaintance with Jenna Morales, who commenced employment at APS in approximately March 2020, or Claire Ngo, who commenced employment at APS in approximately June 2021, beyond a general awareness of them as colleagues working in the APS Burbank office during overlapping periods of her tenure. She stated that she did not have a working relationship with either Morales or Ngo and that they were not part of her regular professional interactions, which were concentrated in the President's office suite.

Whitcomb confirmed that she had no communication with either Morales or Ngo regarding Hale's conduct at any point — either during her employment or after her departure — prior to being contacted by Calderwood & Harkness LLP for this investigation. She stated that she was not aware of the allegations made by Morales or Ngo and had no knowledge of the current investigation until she was contacted by the firm.

VII. Documentation and Records

Whitcomb was asked about any documentary evidence she may possess relating to the conduct described in this memorandum or to her complaint to Gallegos.

Whitcomb stated that she did not retain any written documentation of the inappropriate comments made by Hale. She stated that she did not keep contemporaneous notes, a journal, or any other written record memorializing the specific comments, dates, or circumstances of Hale's conduct. She stated that the comments were made verbally and in person and that she did not memorialize them in writing at or near the time they occurred.

Whitcomb further stated that she did not retain copies of any communications — whether email, text message, instant message, or otherwise — with Gallegos regarding her July 2021 complaint. She stated that the complaint was made in person and that she did not follow up on the complaint in writing. She was not aware of any written communications from Gallegos to her confirming the complaint or its resolution.

Whitcomb confirmed that she no longer has access to her APS email account, APS internal systems, or any company-issued devices. She stated that she returned all company property, including her laptop and company-issued mobile phone, at the time of her departure in September 2021. She stated that she does not have copies of any company files, communications, or records in her possession.

VIII. Credibility and Demeanor Observations

Whitcomb presented as composed, measured, and forthcoming throughout the duration of the interview. She answered questions directly and did not appear evasive or reluctant to discuss the matters at issue. Her demeanor was calm and professional, and she maintained consistent eye contact and engagement throughout the videoconference session.

Her account was internally consistent. She did not contradict herself on any material point during the interview, and the narrative she provided followed a logical chronological sequence. She was careful to distinguish between her direct recollections of specific events and statements on the one hand, and her inferences, impressions, or generalizations on the other. For example, when discussing her perception that Hale was aware of her complaint, she affirmatively noted that she could not confirm this with certainty and was transparent that her belief was based on circumstantial observation rather than direct knowledge.

Whitcomb was candid about the limitations of her memory given the passage of approximately two years since the events in question. She stated on several occasions that she could not recall specific dates or details with precision and did not attempt to fabricate or embellish details that she genuinely did not remember. This transparency regarding the limitations of her recollection enhances, rather than diminishes, the overall credibility of her account.

Whitcomb's account of the July 2021 informal complaint and Gallegos's response is consistent in material respects with the account provided by Victor Gallegos during his own interview on June 1, 2023. Both accounts describe an informal, in-person complaint to Gallegos; both describe a verbal counseling session with Hale; both confirm the absence of written documentation of either the complaint or the counseling; and the timelines provided by Whitcomb and Gallegos are congruent, with Whitcomb placing the complaint in approximately July 2021 and Gallegos confirming the counseling session on August 2, 2021. The independent consistency of these two accounts is significant.

Whitcomb's description of Hale's pattern of appearance-related comments and personal questioning is also thematically consistent with the allegations made by other complainants in this investigation. Jenna Morales's allegations include reports of comments about her physical appearance and personal and sexually suggestive remarks. Claire Ngo's allegations include reports of comments about her attire and personal questions made during the Monarch Valley Resort off-site event. While the specific details of each complainant's account differ, the overarching behavioral pattern described — a focus on female employees' physical appearance, intrusive personal questioning, and a blurring of professional boundaries — is a common thread across the accounts of Whitcomb, Morales, and Ngo.

IX. Documents Referenced or Identified

No documents were produced by Whitcomb in connection with this interview. As noted in Section VII above, Whitcomb does not possess any documentary evidence related to the matters discussed.

The following APS and AGMG policies and documents are referenced in this memorandum for cross-referencing purposes:

• APS Employee Handbook (CA Supplement), revised March 15, 2022 — Section 5.3 (Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Policy); Section 5.7 (Anti-Retaliation Policy); Section 8.1 (Complaint and Investigation Procedures). It is noted that the March 15, 2022 revised version post-dates Whitcomb's employment, which terminated in September 2021. The version of the APS Employee Handbook (CA Supplement) in effect during Whitcomb's tenure would have been the prior version, and any analysis of whether APS HR complied with applicable internal policies in responding to Whitcomb's July 2021 complaint should reference the pre-March 15, 2022 edition of the Handbook.

• AGMG Global Code of Conduct, v4.2, effective January 1, 2022 — Similarly, this version post-dates Whitcomb's employment. The version of the Global Code of Conduct in effect during Whitcomb's tenure would have been the prior version (v4.1 or earlier), and any compliance analysis should reference the applicable earlier version.

• Interview Memorandum — Victor Gallegos (June 1, 2023) — This memorandum, prepared by Devon Archer, documents the interview of Victor Gallegos, VP of Human Resources at APS, and addresses, among other topics, the same July 2021 informal complaint by Whitcomb and the August 2, 2021 verbal counseling of Hale. Cross-reference to this memorandum is relevant for corroboration and consistency analysis.

X. Follow-Up Items

No further follow-up with Whitcomb is anticipated at this time. The interview is considered complete, and Whitcomb's account has been fully documented in this memorandum.

Whitcomb's account will be cross-referenced with documentary evidence obtained during the forensic collection phase of the investigation. In particular, to the extent any electronic communications between Whitcomb and Gallegos regarding the July 2021 complaint — or any internal HR communications memorializing the complaint or its resolution — are captured in the data collected from Gallegos's custodial collection, those communications should be reviewed and compared against the accounts provided by both Whitcomb and Gallegos.

At the conclusion of the interview, Whitcomb was thanked for her voluntary participation and her willingness to provide a candid and detailed account of her experience. She was reminded of the confidentiality admonition issued at the beginning of the interview and was again instructed not to discuss the substance of the interview with any person.

Whitcomb's contact information, including her current phone number and email address, has been retained on file in the event that further follow-up is needed at a later stage of the investigation.

•

Prepared by:

Devon Archer Lead Associate, Labor & Employment Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067

Date: June 22, 2023

Matter No.: 1017-00005

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL — DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL — DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Labor & Employment Practice Group 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067
INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
This memorandum was prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP at the direction of counsel in connection with the firm's engagement as outside counsel to Aurelius Global Media Group PLC. This memorandum constitutes attorney work product and is protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is intended solely for the use of counsel and authorized representatives of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC in connection with the internal investigation referenced herein. This memorandum should not be disclosed, disseminated, distributed, or copied, in whole or in part, to any person or entity without the prior written authorization of Calderwood & Harkness LLP and authorized in-house counsel for Aurelius Global Media Group PLC.
Matter No.: 1017-00005
TO: Investigation File — Aurelius Global Media Group PLC Workplace Investigation
FROM: Devon Archer, Lead Associate, Labor & Employment, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
DATE: June 22, 2023
RE: Privileged Interview Memorandum — Serena Whitcomb (Former Employee, Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc.)
INTERVIEW DATE: June 22, 2023
INTERVIEW LOCATION: Conducted via secure videoconference (Calderon Software for Government, encrypted session). Whitcomb is a former employee no longer located at Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. ("APS") offices. Whitcomb participated from her personal residence in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.
INTERVIEWERS: Devon Archer, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
ALSO PRESENT: No counsel was present on behalf of Whitcomb. At the outset of the interview, Whitcomb was informed of her right to consult with and retain personal counsel prior to or during the interview. She elected to proceed without personal counsel.
DURATION: Approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes (10:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. PDT)
I. Upjohn Admonition and Preliminary Instructions
At the outset of the interview, Devon Archer administered the standard Upjohn / corporate representation admonition consistent with the firm's template script that has been used throughout the course of this investigation, which commenced on May 22, 2023. The admonition was read from the firm's standard form and the following principal points were communicated to Whitcomb:
1.  Calderwood & Harkness LLP represents Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("AGMG") and its subsidiaries, including Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. ("APS"), in connection with this internal investigation. Calderwood & Harkness LLP does not represent Whitcomb individually in any capacity.
2.  The purpose of this interview is to gather facts relevant to the internal investigation being conducted at the direction of counsel for AGMG.
3.  The interview is protected by the attorney-client privilege. That privilege belongs solely to the company — AGMG — and not to Whitcomb. The company, in its sole discretion, may choose to waive or assert the privilege, and may elect to disclose the contents of this interview to third parties, including regulators, government agencies, or other parties, without Whitcomb's consent.
4.  Whitcomb was instructed not to discuss the substance of the interview, the questions asked, or the answers provided, with any other person, including current or former employees of AGMG, APS, or any affiliated entity.
5.  Because Whitcomb is a former employee of APS, the admonition further clarified that Calderwood & Harkness LLP does not represent APS or AGMG in any capacity vis-à-vis Whitcomb, and that no attorney-client relationship exists or is being created between Calderwood & Harkness LLP and Whitcomb by virtue of this interview. Whitcomb was advised that she should not construe any statements made during the interview as legal advice to her personally.
6.  Whitcomb was advised that her participation in this interview is entirely voluntary. As a former employee, she is under no obligation to participate and may decline to answer any question or terminate the interview at any time.
Whitcomb verbally acknowledged her understanding of each of the foregoing admonitions. She confirmed that she understood that Calderwood & Harkness LLP does not represent her, that the privilege belongs to the company, and that her participation was voluntary. She stated that she was willing to proceed with the interview and to answer questions to the best of her recollection.
II. Background and Employment History
Whitcomb provided the following background information regarding her employment with APS:
Full Name: Serena Whitcomb
Former Title: Executive Assistant to the President, Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc.
Employment Dates: Approximately April 2019 through September 2021
Reporting Relationship: Whitcomb reported directly to Marcus Hale, President of Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc.
Primary Work Location: APS headquarters, located at 3200 West Alameda Avenue, Suite 400, Burbank, California 91505
Whitcomb described her role and responsibilities in detail. She stated that as Executive Assistant to the President, she was responsible for managing Hale's professional calendar, coordinating domestic and international travel arrangements, handling incoming and outgoing correspondence on Hale's behalf, managing office logistics and day-to-day administrative operations for the President's office, and serving as the primary gatekeeper for Hale's schedule and communications. She stated that she was frequently the first point of contact for individuals — both internal and external — seeking access to or time with Hale. She described the role as requiring close physical proximity to Hale throughout the workday, as her workstation was located directly outside Hale's office.
Whitcomb stated that she was hired shortly after Hale commenced his role as President of APS in January 2019. She stated that her start date was in April 2019, approximately three months after Hale's appointment. She recalled that she was hired through a staffing agency and converted to a full-time, direct APS employee within the first ninety days of her assignment.
Whitcomb described her initial working relationship with Hale as professional and positive during the first approximately one to two years of her tenure. She stated that Hale was initially a "demanding but fair" manager and that the professional dynamic was, in her view, appropriate and respectful during this period. She stated that she enjoyed the work and felt valued in the role during the earlier portion of her employment.
III. Account of Inappropriate Conduct by Marcus Hale
A. Nature and Timing of Alleged Inappropriate Comments
Whitcomb stated that over the course of her employment, and particularly during the period of approximately early 2021 through her departure in September 2021, Hale made comments to her that she considered inappropriate, unwelcome, and inconsistent with a professional working relationship.
She described these comments as falling into two general categories. First, Hale made repeated comments about her physical appearance, including her clothing, her physical attributes, and how she "looked" in certain outfits. Second, Hale made remarks that Whitcomb characterized as "overly personal" and "crossing the line," including questions and comments about her personal life, romantic relationships, and social activities outside of work. Whitcomb stated that these comments were unwelcome and that she did not invite or encourage them.
Whitcomb provided several specific examples of the types of comments Hale made:
•  Comments on attire in the office setting. Whitcomb stated that on multiple occasions, Hale commented on her clothing in a manner that went beyond a casual, professional compliment. She recalled Hale making statements to the effect of describing how certain outfits "looked on her," with particular attention to how clothing fit her body. She stated that the nature and tone of these comments conveyed a focus on her physical form rather than her professional presentation. While she could not pinpoint exact dates for each incident, she stated that these comments occurred with regularity during the spring and summer of 2021.
•  Personal questions about her dating life and social activities. Whitcomb stated that Hale frequently asked her about her personal life, including whether she was dating anyone, what she did on weekends, and who she spent time with socially. She stated that she found these questions intrusive and unwelcome given the professional context and the nature of their reporting relationship. She stated that Hale would sometimes ask these questions first thing in the morning or at the end of the workday, in a manner that felt overly familiar and probing.
•  Comments made in the presence of other staff. Whitcomb stated that on occasion, Hale made comments about her appearance in the presence of other employees. She could not identify with certainty which employees were present during specific incidents but recalled feeling embarrassed by the comments and by the fact that they were made in a setting where others could hear. She stated that this added an element of public humiliation to the experience.
Whitcomb noted that the frequency and explicitness of Hale's comments escalated during the period of approximately spring and summer 2021 — roughly March through August 2021. She stated that earlier in her employment, Hale's remarks were less frequent and more ambiguous in nature, making it easier for her to dismiss or rationalize them. By early-to-mid 2021, however, Whitcomb stated that the comments had become more frequent, more pointed, and more explicitly focused on her physical appearance and personal life in a way that she felt was unmistakably inappropriate.
Whitcomb stated that the comments made her uncomfortable and affected her ability to perform her duties. She described a growing sense of anxiety about her interactions with Hale and stated that she began to dread certain work situations — such as closed-door meetings or one-on-one conversations — because of the likelihood that Hale would make an inappropriate remark. She stated that the cumulative effect of the comments created a working environment that felt hostile and uncomfortable.
B. Whitcomb's Responses to Hale
Whitcomb stated that she initially tried to deflect or ignore Hale's comments, hoping that the behavior would cease on its own without the need for a direct confrontation. She described strategies such as redirecting the conversation to work-related topics, responding with brief or neutral remarks to avoid engaging with the personal nature of the comments, and physically removing herself from situations where the comments were being made (e.g., stepping out to attend to another task).
She described attempting to keep her interactions with Hale as strictly professional as possible and stated that she consciously tried to limit one-on-one time with Hale where circumstances allowed. She acknowledged, however, that the nature of her role as his Executive Assistant made it impossible to entirely avoid close, one-on-one interactions.
Whitcomb stated that she did not directly confront Hale about his comments at any point during her employment. She cited several reasons for this decision. Primarily, she referenced the significant power differential between them: Hale was the President of the studio, the most senior executive at the APS subsidiary, and she was his direct-report executive assistant. She expressed concern that a direct confrontation could result in retaliation — including negative performance reviews, marginalization in her role, or termination — and that such retaliation would be difficult to prove and harmful to her career. She stated that she felt she was in a "no-win situation" in which raising the issue directly with Hale could have been more professionally dangerous than attempting to manage the situation through avoidance.
IV. The July 2021 Informal Complaint
A. Decision to Report
Whitcomb stated that in approximately July 2021 — she could not recall the precise date but believed it was during the first or second week of July — she decided to raise her concerns about Hale's conduct with Victor Gallegos, Vice President of Human Resources at Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. She stated that by that point, Hale's comments had become frequent enough, and troubling enough, that she felt she needed to bring them to the attention of someone in a position of authority within the organization.
Whitcomb described approaching Gallegos informally. She stated that she went to Gallegos's office in the APS Burbank headquarters during a workday and asked if she could speak with him privately. She stated that the conversation was not pre-scheduled; rather, she approached Gallegos when she saw an opportunity to speak with him without being observed by Hale or other colleagues. She characterized the report as an informal, in-person conversation rather than a formal written complaint. She did not submit anything in writing to Gallegos or to any other member of the APS or AGMG human resources team, either before or after the conversation.
Whitcomb confirmed that she did not use the Meridian Compliance Solutions ethics hotline — which is operated by Meridian Compliance Solutions LLC and uses a case reference numbering system prefixed "MCS-" — to file the report. She stated that she was generally aware of the hotline's existence but chose to go directly to Gallegos in person because she wanted to speak with someone she knew and because she was uncertain about the confidentiality protections of the third-party hotline system. She also stated that she felt an in-person conversation would allow her to better convey the nuance and context of her concerns.
B. Content of the Report to Gallegos
Whitcomb stated that during her conversation with Gallegos, she told him that Hale had been making comments about her physical appearance and asking personal questions that made her uncomfortable. She stated that she provided Gallegos with specific examples of the types of comments Hale had made, including comments about how clothing looked on her and intrusive questions about her dating life, similar in substance to the examples described in Section III above. She stated that she conveyed to Gallegos the frequency and escalating nature of the comments and her discomfort with the situation.
Whitcomb stated that she told Gallegos she wanted the behavior to stop. She also expressed uncertainty to Gallegos about whether she wanted a formal investigation to be initiated. She stated that she was concerned about the potential consequences — both professional and personal — of a formal complaint process, including the likelihood that Hale would learn of the complaint and the possibility of retaliation or damage to her professional reputation. She recalled telling Gallegos something to the effect of, "I just need this to stop, but I don't want to make it into a whole thing."
Whitcomb recalled that Gallegos listened attentively during the conversation and appeared to take the matter seriously. She stated that Gallegos took some handwritten notes during their discussion, writing on what she recalled was a yellow legal pad. She could not confirm the exact duration of the conversation but estimated it lasted approximately twenty to thirty minutes.
C. Gallegos's Response (as Recounted by Whitcomb)
Whitcomb stated that at the conclusion of their conversation, Gallegos told her that he would "handle it" and would speak with Hale. She recalled Gallegos using language indicating that he intended to address the situation through what he described as a "coaching conversation" with Hale, rather than through a formal disciplinary process. Whitcomb stated that she understood this to mean that Gallegos would speak to Hale privately and counsel him to modify his behavior.
Whitcomb stated that she did not receive any written follow-up from Gallegos or from any member of the APS or AGMG human resources department confirming the substance of her complaint, the steps being taken to address it, or the outcome of Gallegos's conversation with Hale. She was not asked to provide a written statement memorializing her account. She was not provided with a copy of any internal report or memorandum regarding her complaint.
Whitcomb stated that she was not informed by Gallegos — either at the time of the complaint or at any point thereafter — of her rights under the APS Employee Handbook (CA Supplement), including Section 5.3 (Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Policy) or Section 8.1 (Complaint and Investigation Procedures). She was not informed of the formal investigation process that would ordinarily be triggered by a complaint of this nature. She was not provided with information about the process for filing a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (now the California Civil Rights Department) under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Sections 12940 et seq.
It is noted that Whitcomb's account of the July 2021 informal complaint and Gallegos's response is consistent in material respects with the account that Victor Gallegos himself provided during his interview on June 1, 2023. In that interview, Gallegos confirmed that Whitcomb approached him with an informal complaint about Hale's conduct, that Gallegos conducted a verbal counseling session with Hale on August 2, 2021, and that no written documentation of the counseling was retained in Hale's personnel file. The consistency between these two independently provided accounts lends corroborative weight to the underlying factual narrative.
D. Whitcomb's Understanding of the Outcome
Whitcomb stated that after approximately two to three weeks following her report to Gallegos — which, based on a July 2021 complaint date, would place the Gallegos-Hale conversation around late July or early August 2021, consistent with the August 2, 2021 verbal counseling date confirmed by Gallegos in his June 1, 2023 interview — Hale's behavior appeared to change briefly.
Whitcomb stated that the comments about her physical appearance decreased in frequency for a short period, which she estimated at approximately two to three weeks following the apparent counseling session. She described this as a noticeable, if temporary, improvement.
However, Whitcomb stated that the overall atmosphere in her working relationship with Hale became what she described as "cold" and "tense" after the complaint. She stated that Hale became notably less communicative with her, that he began excluding her from certain meetings and conversations to which she would ordinarily have been a party in her capacity as his Executive Assistant, and that the general tenor of their interactions shifted from professional warmth to a detached and sometimes curt dynamic.
Whitcomb perceived that Hale was aware that she had spoken to HR about his conduct, although she stated that she could not confirm this definitively. She stated that no one — neither Gallegos nor Hale — explicitly told her that Hale had been informed of the complaint. Rather, her perception was based on the timing of the behavioral change and the shift in Hale's demeanor toward her, which she stated was marked and coincided with the approximate date of Gallegos's counseling session.
V. Circumstances of Whitcomb's Departure from APS
A. Decision to Leave
Whitcomb stated that she made the decision to resign from Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. in approximately August 2021, approximately one month after her complaint to Gallegos, with her departure becoming effective in September 2021. She described multiple factors contributing to her decision to leave:
•  Ongoing discomfort in her working relationship with Hale. Whitcomb stated that the post-complaint dynamic with Hale was untenable. She described feeling that the atmosphere in the President's office had become uncomfortable to a degree that made it difficult for her to perform her duties effectively and to maintain her professional well-being.
•  Perception that the informal complaint had not resulted in meaningful, lasting change. While acknowledging the brief reduction in appearance-related comments, Whitcomb stated that she did not believe the complaint had fundamentally addressed the underlying issue. She stated that she felt the "coaching conversation" approach was insufficient and that she had no confidence the behavioral improvement would be sustained.
•  Concern about retaliatory conduct. Whitcomb stated that the coldness and tension emanating from Hale following the complaint reflected, in her assessment, a retaliatory attitude. She stated that while Hale did not take any overt retaliatory action (such as a negative performance review, demotion, or termination), the change in his demeanor and the shift in their working dynamic felt punitive in nature and created an environment in which she felt unwelcome and professionally marginalized.
•  Desire to pursue other career opportunities. Whitcomb stated that the cumulative effect of the foregoing factors led her to conclude that her best course of action was to leave APS and pursue career opportunities outside of the direct reporting relationship with Hale. She stated that she had begun exploring other positions and had received an offer from another employer in the entertainment industry.
B. Exit Process
Whitcomb stated that she submitted a standard resignation letter to the APS human resources department, directed to Victor Gallegos, and that she served out a notice period of approximately two weeks before her final day in September 2021. She could not recall the exact date of her final day of employment but estimated it was in the second or third week of September 2021.
Whitcomb stated that she was not asked to participate in a formal exit interview in connection with her departure. Specifically, she stated that no representative of HR or management conducted an exit interview in which she was asked about the reasons for her resignation, her experience working at APS, or the status of her prior complaint against Hale. She stated that this struck her as notable given that HR was aware of her complaint and its potential relationship to her decision to resign.
Whitcomb confirmed that she did not sign a separation agreement, general release of claims, non-disclosure agreement, or any other restrictive covenant in connection with her departure from APS. She stated that no such agreements were offered or presented to her. She received standard final pay and benefits documentation, including her final paycheck and information about COBRA continuation coverage. No severance payment was offered or paid.
C. Post-Departure Contact
Whitcomb stated that after her departure from APS in September 2021, she had no further contact with Marcus Hale, Victor Gallegos, or any other representative of APS or AGMG regarding her complaint or Hale's conduct. She stated that the matter was, from her perspective, left entirely unresolved when she departed the company.
Whitcomb stated that the first contact she received regarding these matters following her departure occurred in approximately early June 2023, when she was contacted by a representative of Calderwood & Harkness LLP in connection with this investigation. She stated that she agreed to participate in a voluntary interview because she believed it was important to provide her account of what occurred.
VI. Whitcomb's Knowledge of Other Complaints or Conduct
Whitcomb was asked whether she was aware of conduct by Hale similar to that she described, directed at other employees during her tenure at APS from April 2019 through September 2021.
Whitcomb stated that she had observed Hale making what she described as "flirtatious" comments to other female employees on occasion during her time at APS. She stated that these comments were, in her recollection, similar in nature to the appearance-related comments Hale directed at her — remarks about how employees looked, comments about clothing, and statements that, in Whitcomb's view, carried a personal rather than professional tone. However, Whitcomb stated that she could not recall the specific individuals to whom these comments were directed or the specific dates on which they occurred with sufficient certainty to identify particular incidents.
Whitcomb stated that she had no direct knowledge of any other formal or informal complaints filed against Hale during her employment at APS, whether through the HR department, through the Meridian Compliance Solutions hotline, or through any other channel.
Whitcomb stated that she had no prior personal acquaintance with Jenna Morales, who commenced employment at APS in approximately March 2020, or Claire Ngo, who commenced employment at APS in approximately June 2021, beyond a general awareness of them as colleagues working in the APS Burbank office during overlapping periods of her tenure. She stated that she did not have a working relationship with either Morales or Ngo and that they were not part of her regular professional interactions, which were concentrated in the President's office suite.
Whitcomb confirmed that she had no communication with either Morales or Ngo regarding Hale's conduct at any point — either during her employment or after her departure — prior to being contacted by Calderwood & Harkness LLP for this investigation. She stated that she was not aware of the allegations made by Morales or Ngo and had no knowledge of the current investigation until she was contacted by the firm.
VII. Documentation and Records
Whitcomb was asked about any documentary evidence she may possess relating to the conduct described in this memorandum or to her complaint to Gallegos.
Whitcomb stated that she did not retain any written documentation of the inappropriate comments made by Hale. She stated that she did not keep contemporaneous notes, a journal, or any other written record memorializing the specific comments, dates, or circumstances of Hale's conduct. She stated that the comments were made verbally and in person and that she did not memorialize them in writing at or near the time they occurred.
Whitcomb further stated that she did not retain copies of any communications — whether email, text message, instant message, or otherwise — with Gallegos regarding her July 2021 complaint. She stated that the complaint was made in person and that she did not follow up on the complaint in writing. She was not aware of any written communications from Gallegos to her confirming the complaint or its resolution.
Whitcomb confirmed that she no longer has access to her APS email account, APS internal systems, or any company-issued devices. She stated that she returned all company property, including her laptop and company-issued mobile phone, at the time of her departure in September 2021. She stated that she does not have copies of any company files, communications, or records in her possession.
VIII. Credibility and Demeanor Observations
Whitcomb presented as composed, measured, and forthcoming throughout the duration of the interview. She answered questions directly and did not appear evasive or reluctant to discuss the matters at issue. Her demeanor was calm and professional, and she maintained consistent eye contact and engagement throughout the videoconference session.
Her account was internally consistent. She did not contradict herself on any material point during the interview, and the narrative she provided followed a logical chronological sequence. She was careful to distinguish between her direct recollections of specific events and statements on the one hand, and her inferences, impressions, or generalizations on the other. For example, when discussing her perception that Hale was aware of her complaint, she affirmatively noted that she could not confirm this with certainty and was transparent that her belief was based on circumstantial observation rather than direct knowledge.
Whitcomb was candid about the limitations of her memory given the passage of approximately two years since the events in question. She stated on several occasions that she could not recall specific dates or details with precision and did not attempt to fabricate or embellish details that she genuinely did not remember. This transparency regarding the limitations of her recollection enhances, rather than diminishes, the overall credibility of her account.
Whitcomb's account of the July 2021 informal complaint and Gallegos's response is consistent in material respects with the account provided by Victor Gallegos during his own interview on June 1, 2023. Both accounts describe an informal, in-person complaint to Gallegos; both describe a verbal counseling session with Hale; both confirm the absence of written documentation of either the complaint or the counseling; and the timelines provided by Whitcomb and Gallegos are congruent, with Whitcomb placing the complaint in approximately July 2021 and Gallegos confirming the counseling session on August 2, 2021. The independent consistency of these two accounts is significant.
Whitcomb's description of Hale's pattern of appearance-related comments and personal questioning is also thematically consistent with the allegations made by other complainants in this investigation. Jenna Morales's allegations include reports of comments about her physical appearance and personal and sexually suggestive remarks. Claire Ngo's allegations include reports of comments about her attire and personal questions made during the Monarch Valley Resort off-site event. While the specific details of each complainant's account differ, the overarching behavioral pattern described — a focus on female employees' physical appearance, intrusive personal questioning, and a blurring of professional boundaries — is a common thread across the accounts of Whitcomb, Morales, and Ngo.
IX. Documents Referenced or Identified
No documents were produced by Whitcomb in connection with this interview. As noted in Section VII above, Whitcomb does not possess any documentary evidence related to the matters discussed.
The following APS and AGMG policies and documents are referenced in this memorandum for cross-referencing purposes:
•  APS Employee Handbook (CA Supplement), revised March 15, 2022 — Section 5.3 (Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Policy); Section 5.7 (Anti-Retaliation Policy); Section 8.1 (Complaint and Investigation Procedures). It is noted that the March 15, 2022 revised version post-dates Whitcomb's employment, which terminated in September 2021. The version of the APS Employee Handbook (CA Supplement) in effect during Whitcomb's tenure would have been the prior version, and any analysis of whether APS HR complied with applicable internal policies in responding to Whitcomb's July 2021 complaint should reference the pre-March 15, 2022 edition of the Handbook.
•  AGMG Global Code of Conduct, v4.2, effective January 1, 2022 — Similarly, this version post-dates Whitcomb's employment. The version of the Global Code of Conduct in effect during Whitcomb's tenure would have been the prior version (v4.1 or earlier), and any compliance analysis should reference the applicable earlier version.
•  Interview Memorandum — Victor Gallegos (June 1, 2023) — This memorandum, prepared by Devon Archer, documents the interview of Victor Gallegos, VP of Human Resources at APS, and addresses, among other topics, the same July 2021 informal complaint by Whitcomb and the August 2, 2021 verbal counseling of Hale. Cross-reference to this memorandum is relevant for corroboration and consistency analysis.
X. Follow-Up Items
No further follow-up with Whitcomb is anticipated at this time. The interview is considered complete, and Whitcomb's account has been fully documented in this memorandum.
Whitcomb's account will be cross-referenced with documentary evidence obtained during the forensic collection phase of the investigation. In particular, to the extent any electronic communications between Whitcomb and Gallegos regarding the July 2021 complaint — or any internal HR communications memorializing the complaint or its resolution — are captured in the data collected from Gallegos's custodial collection, those communications should be reviewed and compared against the accounts provided by both Whitcomb and Gallegos.
At the conclusion of the interview, Whitcomb was thanked for her voluntary participation and her willingness to provide a candid and detailed account of her experience. She was reminded of the confidentiality admonition issued at the beginning of the interview and was again instructed not to discuss the substance of the interview with any person.
Whitcomb's contact information, including her current phone number and email address, has been retained on file in the event that further follow-up is needed at a later stage of the investigation.
•       
Prepared by:
Devon Archer Lead Associate, Labor & Employment Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067
Date: June 22, 2023
Matter No.: 1017-00005
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL — DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

INTERNAL MEMORANDUM

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts