1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON DIVISIONCIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-00244-KSF
______________________________________________________
DEPOSITION OF JAMES KRUPA, Ph.D.VOLUME 2
______________________________________________________
C. MARTIN GASKELL PLAINTIFF
v.
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY DEFENDANT______________________________________________________
The deposition of JAMES KRUPA, Ph.D., was
taken on behalf of the plaintiff before Ann Hutchison,
Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in
and for the Commonwealth of Kentucky at Large, at the
law office of Baker, Kriz, Jenkins, Prewitt & Jones,
PSC, 200 West Vine Street, Suite 710, Lexington,
Kentucky, on Wednesday, May 12, 2010, beginning at the
hour of 10:56 a.m. The deposition was taken by notice
and shall be used for any and all purposes allowed by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including use at
trial.
______________________________________________________
ACTION COURT REPORTERS184 North Mill Street
Lexington, Kentucky 40507(859) 252-4004
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 1 of 18 - Page ID#: 535
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 2
APPEARANCES
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Geoffrey SurteesAmerican Center for Law & Justice-Kentucky6375 New Hope RoadP.O. Box 60New Hope, Kentucky 40052
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Barbara A. KrizBaker Kriz Jenkins Prewitt & Jones, PSC200 West Vine Street, Suite 710Lexington, Kentucky 40507
Barbara W. JonesGeneral CounselUniversity of Kentucky301 Main BuildingLexington, Kentucky 40506-0032
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 2 of 18 - Page ID#: 536
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 3
INDEX
DEPONENT: JAMES KRUPA, Ph.D. PAGE
EXAMINATION BY:Mr. Surtees ................................. 4
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE ........................... 18
EXHIBITS
NO. DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED
1 Series of e-mails 5
2 E-mail to Dr. Cavagnero from Dr. Krupa 8Re: Two items
3 E-mail to Osborn from Krupa re: Martin 9Geskell
4 Martin Gaskell - homepage 10
5 E-mail to Dr. Cavagnero from Dr. Krupa 13Re: FW Report to the Chair
(Above-referenced exhibits accompany original and copytranscript of plaintiff only.)
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 3 of 18 - Page ID#: 537
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 4
JAMES KRUPA, Ph.D.
having been first duly placed under oath, was examined
and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION
BY MR. SURTEES:
Q. Dr. Krupa, we meet again.
A. Yes.
Q. We've asked to have your -- to take you
deposition a second time, which is a very unusual thing,
only because subsequent to your deposition on
March 24th, we were provided with additional documents,
and so the purpose of today's deposition is just to go
over those documents with you.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Did you speak with anyone other than
Ms. Kriz regarding today's deposition?
A. I did.
Q. And who did you speak with?
A. After I -- Jeff Osborn. After I forwarded
that e-mail to Barbara -- and I didn't remember sending
it, but obviously I did, I went and asked Jeff, I didn't
think you went to the provost. Did you go to the
provost? I didn't go to the provost. So that was the
extent of the discussion.
Q. Well, we'll discuss that. Okay. And did
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 4 of 18 - Page ID#: 538
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 5
you review any documents in preparation for the
deposition today?
A. No.
Q. Let's go over those ground rules again.
Let's not talk over one another. Wait for me to finish
my question before responding. Refrain from saying
uh-huh and huh-uh. The court reporter can't take down
nods and shakes of the head so be sure to verbalize your
responses. If you don't understand one of my questions,
please ask me to restate or rephrase the question; I'll
be happy to do so. And try to think of any others. No.
You're a pro at this now. Right? Now whenever you're
asked if you've had your deposition taken before, you
can say twice.
Let's begin, Dr. Krupa, with the e-mail
that you...
(Exhibit No. 1 marked.)
Q. Dr. Krupa, I am showing you a document we
have marked as Exhibit No. 1. It is a one, two, three
four-page document, and it appears to contain a few
e-mails. At the top of the first page is an e-mail from
you to Dr. Osborn, subject line reading: Re: Two
items, and you write, "I'm thrilled you went to the
Provost with this. May piss off those in physics, but
it had to be done! Congrats, Jim."
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 5 of 18 - Page ID#: 539
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 6
What did you mean by I'm thrilled that you
went to the provost with this?
A. Apparently at the time I thought that
somebody went to the provost. I thought Jeff must have
gone to the provost, so I sent that, and at this point
I'm not sure who I meant to send that to, but anyway, at
that point I must have thought that Jeff had gone to the
provost.
Q. And do you recall what that was based on?
A. I do not. That's what's bothering me. I
have no recollection.
Q. Is it possible that you thought Mike
Cavagnero was the provost?
A. I'm slow, but not that slow. No.
Q. Just curious. So you just cannot recall
why you thought Dr. Osborn had gone to the provost with
this situation?
A. No. I must have thought somebody went to
the provost, and being confused, I'm very curious about
this, so I don't recall.
Q. At the bottom of the first page you write
to Dr. Osborn, "You know, Jeff, as I read your e-mail
again, it seems a total outrage if U.K. continues to
consider Gaskell for this position. It will be a
disaster for science outreach in this state. We might
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 6 of 18 - Page ID#: 540
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 7
as well have the Creation Museum set an outreach office
in biology." Where is the creation museum?
A. Where is it or what is it?
Q. I'm sorry, what is it?
A. It's a building in northern Kentucky, I
forget the town, Petersburg, that has basically new
earth creationism, so earth 6,000 years old, no
evolution, that sort of thing. We're all very familiar
with the creation museum.
Q. And why are you very familiar with the
creation museum?
A. Well, I've been there twice and it comes
up all the time.
Q. Was it your opinion at the time that you
wrote this to Dr. Osborn that Dr. Gaskell was a young
earth creationist?
A. No. I have no idea if he's young or not.
I suspect he's not, but I think I was just trying to
make a point here.
Q. At the time that you wrote that e-mail,
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, was it your opinion that
Dr. Gaskell was a creationist?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was based on what?
A. Our interaction in Memorial Hall several
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 7 of 18 - Page ID#: 541
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 8
years before, his website with the intelligent design
comments.
Q. So is it your recollection that what
Dr. Gaskell wrote about intelligent design is evidence
which demonstrates that he is a creationist?
A. Well, intelligent design is just another
form of it, a different name but the same form; so one
who supports intelligent design is as far as I've been
aware of someone who is antievolution and creationist.
And the Dover trial basically supported that.
Q. Do you believe that Dr. Gaskell at the
time that you wrote this e-mail supported the theory of
intelligent design?
A. Well, it was in the website that
intelligent design is science which we do not accept in
biology, and it all goes back to that Memorial Hall
comment of his.
Q. In the Memorial Hall comment did he raise
the subject of intelligent design?
A. No, he just said there is little or no
evidence -- I don't remember if it was little or no
evidence -- for evolution.
Q. Okay.
(Exhibit No. 2 marked.)
Q. Dr. Krupa, I'm showing you something we
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 8 of 18 - Page ID#: 542
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 9
have marked Exhibit No. 2, just one page, and I'm just
curious about the e-mail at the top here. You write to
Dr. Cavagnero: "By the way, Mike, I do know the
individual's name is Martin Geskell, G-e-s-k-e-l-l. I
referred to him as Gaskin. My slip. I have a friend
named Mark Gaskin I was just chatting with earlier.
Jim."
Just for purposes of identification, who
is Mark Gaskin?
A. Mark Gaskin. You know, even here I'm
forgetting it. A colleague, I'm not sure where. This
name is in biology. So -- I get names confused all the
time. So I can't tell you exactly who that person is at
this point. Somebody in biology.
Q. And then you say, "I do know the
individual's name is Martin Geskell." I guess in
correcting your mistake, you made another mistake.
A. Made another mistake, uh-huh. I'm a
tremendous speller.
Q. Okay.
(Exhibit No. 3 marked.)
Q. All right, Dr. Krupa, showing you a two-
page document we have marked as Exhibit No. 3.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. It appears to be a chain of e-mails, so
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 9 of 18 - Page ID#: 543
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 10
the first one begins on the last page, and it's
Dr. Osborn asking to run by some of his alleged
scientific arguments in regard to Martin Geskell's
website and asks whether or not he could submit them to
you ahead of time. Do you see that e-mail?
A. Yes.
Q. And then at the bottom of page one it's
your response saying: "Please do." Do you see that?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
Q. Okay. And then above that Dr. Osborn
sends you an e-mail with a link saying: "His home page
is pretty different to say the least." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you click on that link?
A. If I recall, I clicked on it and scanned
it very quickly.
(Exhibit No. 4 marked.)
Q. And I'm showing you what we have marked as
Exhibit No. 4. Is that what you saw?
A. Oh, it's been too long ago to remember.
Q. Okay. And then in your response to
Dr. Osborn you write: This is interesting! Maybe he
has changed his views! What did you mean by that?
A. I recall scanning that document fairly
quickly, and I didn't pick up on much of anything and so
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 10 of 18 - Page ID#: 544
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 11
by the first scan nothing jumped out at me. It was when
I went back after a couple of the other e-mails and read
it more thoroughly that I saw the intelligent design
comments, things that I had highlighted that I brought
in -- a document that I brought in last deposition.
Q. So you thought at the time you wrote this
e-mail, October 15, 2007, you thought maybe he had
changed his views from being -- correct me if I'm wrong,
I don't want to put words in your mouth -- from being
antievolution to perhaps in favor of evolution?
A. Possibly at that time. But again, I
scanned it very quickly and came back to it sometime
later.
Q. And then you go on to say: "As I scan the
evolution stuff, I'm not seeing him actually support
evolution as much as lay out arguments." What did you
mean by that?
A. I have no recollection at this point.
Q. Is it possible that you meant to say: As
I scanned the evolution stuff, I'm not seeing him
actually support creationism as much as lay out
arguments?
A. I have no idea what I meant at the time,
but it was clear when I went back and read the document,
I don't know, days later, then the intelligent design
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 11 of 18 - Page ID#: 545
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 12
comments were clear.
Q. But this is referencing evolution, not
intelligent design, though. Right?
A. Well, yeah, it's just -- intelligent
design, antievolution, evolution, creation, whatever it
might be. And again, I can't remember specifically.
The only thing I can remember specifically is I scanned
it very quickly and put little time in to it and then
later came back and looked at it more carefully. And I
don't know how many days after that, but at this time it
was a quick scan.
Q. In your opinion can one be -- believe in
the theory and fact of evolution and accept the theory
of intelligent design?
A. Well, intelligent design is not a theory;
one, it generates no testable or falsifiable
predictions. Those who are proposing or supporting
intelligent design are, as a group, resisting
evolutionary theory as we study it.
Q. Are you --
A. So in a way it's just -- I'm sorry, I
didn't mean to -- essentially it's another form of
antievolution.
Q. You're familiar with the name Michael
Behe. Correct?
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 12 of 18 - Page ID#: 546
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 13
A. Yes.
Q. Would you characterize him as
antievolution?
A. I do. He's one of the people that very
much is pushing the intelligent design activity, and so
he definitely is somebody who the evolution folks have a
problem with. He's a very complicated person in his
views.
Q. Are you familiar with his latest book?
A. I have not read it.
MS. KRIZ: Is it B --
THE WITNESS: Behe or ee. I can't
remember if it's --
MR. SURTEES: It's B-e-h-e, yeah.
(Off-the-record comments.)
(Exhibit No. 5 marked.)
Q. I'm showing you what we have marked as
Exhibit No. 5. It's a two-page document. Just take a
look at this for a moment and let me know when you've
had a chance to read it.
A. Well, let's see. This was -- I've read
this, it's been some time. This is the review and the
summary from the selection committee, the search
committee, if I recall.
Q. Why did you have a copy of this?
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 13 of 18 - Page ID#: 547
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 14
A. If I recall, Mike Cavagnero forwarded it
to Jeff, Shelly and me.
Q. Okay. Let's just back up here. First of
all, at the top of this e-mail it says Barbara A. Kriz,
we all know who that his, that's the attorney, and her
name is there only because it was printed off of her
computer. Obviously it has nothing to do with this
original e-mail. The e-mail immediately below the line
says from James Krupa to Mike Cavagnero, and it says
forward -- would you agree with me that FW there means
forward?
A. Yes.
Q. And then in brackets another forward:
Report to the Chair r.e. Observatory Director Position.
And then there's a little right angle there under
which -- underneath it says report to the chair r.e. OB
se. Do you know what that is?
A. I have no clue what that is.
Q. Do you know whether that's an icon of some
sort?
A. I have no idea what that is.
THE WITNESS: This (indicating).
MS. KRIZ: Oh, this.
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
Q. Do you recall why you sent an e-mail to
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 14 of 18 - Page ID#: 548
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 15
Mike Cavagnero on Friday, October 26th, forwarding to
Mike Cavagnero, the chair of the physics and astronomy
department, the observatory director position?
A. I have no idea. I remember getting this
from Cavagnero or the chair of the selection committee.
I don't remember. And I don't even understand this
e-mail. I sent it without any kind of reply apparently.
Q. Apparently.
A. Yeah. Well, I push buttons incorrectly so
I'm not sure what this is. I don't know that I actually
ever responded to him. If I did, you would have the
e-mail, but I'm not sure I even responded to this.
Q. But so you did receive from Mike Cavagnero
a copy of the report that we're looking at marked
Exhibit No. 5?
A. Correct. Well, let me say either from
Cavagnero -- I assume from Cavagnero or from the chair
of the selection committee. I received it from somebody
in physics so I assume that this would be Cavagnero that
sent it originally.
Q. And do you know why they sent it to you?
A. I think because we had concerns, and so
they're letting us know what the committee was
deliberating.
Q. Did you speak with Dr. Cavagnero regarding
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 15 of 18 - Page ID#: 549
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 16
this report?
A. No.
Q. Did you speak with Dr. Troland regarding
this report?
A. No.
Q. Did you speak with Dr. Osborn regarding
this report?
A. Possibly. I don't recall. And if we
spoke, it was probably just briefly in the coffee room.
Q. You're on a tenure track position; is that
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Say it again just for the --
A. Correct. I'm sorry.
Q. That's all right. We all do it. And when
will the time come for the department to decide whether
or not you are awarded tenure?
A. Oh, I have tenure. I've had tenure for
nine years.
Q. Oh. Okay. I see. I thought if you were
on tenure track, that means you're on the way to getting
tenure.
A. Well, maybe so. I'm tenured so I'm on my
way to full professor.
Q. I see.
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 16 of 18 - Page ID#: 550
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 17
A. Yeah, I'm sorry.
Q. No, that's fine. Just give me a minute
here.
MR. SURTEES: I have no further
questions.
(DEPOSITION CONCLUDED 11:15.)
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 17 of 18 - Page ID#: 551
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 18
STATE OF KENTUCKY )
COUNTY OF FAYETTE )
I, ANN HUTCHISON, Registered Professional
Reporter and Notary Public, State of Kentucky at Large,
whose commission as such will expire May 3, 2012, do
hereby certify that the foregoing deposition was taken
by me at the time, place, for the purpose and with the
appearances set forth herein; that the same was taken
down by me in stenotype in the presence of the witness
and thereafter correctly transcribed by me upon
computer; and that the witness was duly placed under
oath by me prior to giving testimony.
I further certify that I am not related to nor
employed by any of the parties to this action or their
respective counsel and have no interest in this
litigation.
Given under my hand, this 14th day of May,
2010.
_______________________________ANN HUTCHISON, RPRRegistered Professional ReporterNotary Public, State-at-Large
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 18 of 18 - Page ID#: 552
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25-1 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 553
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25-1 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 2 of 4 - Page ID#: 554
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25-1 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 3 of 4 - Page ID#: 555
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25-1 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 4 of 4 - Page ID#: 556