One month before Ellen Pao filed her gender discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins, I reported that she was leaving the firm. It would eventually become the single most perplexing retraction of my reporting career.
My story was based on a tip that Kleiner Perkins was making several partnership changes ahead of a new fundraise. Not terribly surprising, since that’s exactly when such moves are usually made. So I called around to various limited partners in KP funds, and learned that Brook Byers, Bill Joy and Ray Lane would not be listed as partners on the new fund. I also was told that Pao was leaving, among several other changes (including promotions for Ted Schlein and Matt Murphy).
So I reported it. Just hours later, both a Kleiner Perkins spokesperson got in touch to say that Pao was not leaving. That was followed by a call from Pao herself, saying the same. All of the other stuff was fine, but not that.
I updated the story, noting my original error at the end.
About one month later, Pao filed her gender discrimination suit against Kleiner Perkins. She would remain with the firm until that October, when she was asked to leave.
As we await the jury verdict (5pm ET today), I just keep wondering why LPs were so certain in March 2012 that Ellen Pao was leaving Kleiner Perkins. All of the other names were accurate, so why not hers? These were many of the same people who were also on target about the firm’s fundraising goals. If KP hadn’t told them Pao was leaving, who did? Did KP think it was nearing a settlement that would result in Pao leaving without anyone knowing the real reason? Doesn’t sound like it from the testimony.
One of those things that I’ve always wondered about, and had hoped the trial would help answer. But no such luck…
Get Term Sheet, our daily newsletter on deals and dealmakers.
