whistleblowers-in-courtFor the past couple of weeks, attorneys for Gawker and the group of former interns suing Gawker over their unpaid labors have been engaged in a legal tussle-within-a-tussle. The argument: Whether Gawker should be allowed to  submit extracts from the interns’ depositions as evidence that the plaintiffs should be denied class certification.

Earlier this week, the judge decided that the depositions can be submitted, and today we got a hold of the documents in question. We’ve embedded the full docs below but, in short, they show that one intern — Aulistar Mark — says he gained a lot of valuable experience from his unpaid internship, while a second — Andrew Hudson — argues that his was mostly a waste of time. Mark was based out of a Gawker office, while Hudson worked remotely.

Gawker’s attorneys argue that these different experiences — one intern hating his time at Gawker less than another — mean that they can’t possibly comprise a similar class of plaintiff for the purpose of a class action suit.

[T]he contrast between Aulistar Mark’s and Andrew Hudson’s accounts of their internships illustrates the deeply individual nature of the claims asserted in this case, and the utter inability of a judgment about one individual’s internship to provide any meaningful basis for a judgment about any other. Second, Mark and Hudson confirm that they know nothing about the experiences of any other Gawker intern, and so are in no position to assist in meeting Plaintiffs’ burden to establish that they are similarly situated to the proposed collective.

The plaintiffs have until Monday to respond.

12995439-0–30549

13008804-0–30727

13013122-0–30853

merged_92288_-1-1400794308