Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 54

JACKSON V AEG LIVE July 26

th
2013
Eric C Briggs(Valuation/Financial advisory)
The court: you have another witness to call, right? A Live witness?
Ms. Cahan: yes, your honor.
Ms. Bina: he's walking down the hallway right now, your honor. Your honor, we're calling
Mr. Eric Briggs.

The court: Eric Briggs. Thank you. Eric Briggs, called by the defense as a witness, was
sworn and testified as follows:
The court: don't take a seat yet. Just stand there and face the clerk, raise your right hand.
The clerk: do you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending
before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?
The witness: I do.
The clerk: thank you, sir. You may have a seat. Sir, could you please state, as well, your
first and last name for the record.
The witness: my name is Eric, e-r-i-c, Briggs, b-r-i-g-g-s.
The clerk: thank you.
Ms. Strong and Mr. Panish confer sotto voce.
The court: thank you.
Ms. Strong: good morning, your honor.
The court: good morning. You may begin.
Ms. Strong: thank you, your honor.
Direct examination by Ms. Strong

Q. Good morning, Mr. Briggs.


A. Good morning.
Q. Do you want to pull that mic a little closer to you so it's more comfortable? That's good.
Thank you. You're here to testify as an expert witness in this case, correct?
A. I am.
Q. And what were you asked to do in connection with this case?
A. I was asked to assess the projected income component of Mr. Erk's analysis. Mr. Erk is the
plaintiffs damages expert in this case.
Q. And can you please tell us what you do for a living?
A. I am a senior managing director at FTI Consulting. I am also a professor at the USC
Business School, the Marshall school at USC
Q. And what do you teach at the USC Marshall School of Business?
A. I teach in the finance department. Ive taught a variety of classes over the years; corporate
finance, valuation and financial strategy.
Q. And you said you were a senior managing director at FTI Consulting. What is it that you
actually do at FTI Consulting?

A. Well, primarily I assist companies in the entertainment media business put together
forecasts and assess risks of projects they're involved in.
Q. Okay. So when you're doing forecasts, you forecast media and entertainment projects?
A. That's correct.
Q. So what is it that you're exactly doing when you're doing a forecast or evaluation for a
media and entertainment project?
A. Well, as an example, a producer may be working on putting together a film. They may
come to us and they may say, "Gee, we're interested in putting together this film, seeing if we can
get behind it. What do you guys think about the likelihood of this coming to completion, about
us successfully doing this project? "And, also, if we are able to actually successfully do this,
what type of income can we expect this project to generate?"
Q. And so in doing that, you assess risk; is that right?
A. Absolutely. That's part of determining whether something is likely to happen or not.
Q. And in doing that, do you ever look at historical data?
A. Yes, to the extent historical data is available, it's often a very good starting point for
assessing what will happen in the future.
Q. So what kinds of entertainment and media projects do you evaluate and forecast, just at a
high level, the types of projects?

A. Well, over the years, we've pretty much looked at everything. I've looked at films; Ive
looked at music, touring, video games, television, live events. Pretty much everything you think
of when you say "entertainment." q okay. So what types of companies hire you to do this work,
whether its movies, touring, live events, television? What are the companies that reach out to
you for your work?
A. Well, as an example in the film space, well get hired by film producers or production
companies that are the ones investing in the films. In the music space, we'll get hired by the
record labels or the music publishers. From -- very often we get hired by investors in this space,
as well, banks and private equity, these types of companies that invest money into the space.
Q. Are you ever hired by talent agencies?
A. Yes. We've done work over the years for some of the major talent agencies such as William
Morris or Creative Artists.
Q. What is a talent agency? You've mentioned creative artists, William Morris. What are those
entities?
A. I like to think of talent agencies as sort of a middleman between key actors, actresses,
performers, and the companies that are actually investing in projects. So a talent agency will try
to connect an actor or perhaps a performer with the best possible companies that invest in that
space. "Gee, let's attach this actor to this film or this actress to this television series," that type
of thing.
Q. Are you ever hired by estates of celebrities?
A. Yes. Over the years we've been very fortunate. We've done -- excuse me. We've done a --
a fair bit of work for some of the more prominent estates you may have heard of; the estate of

Elvis Presley, the estate of John Wayne, the estate of Frank Sinatra, of bob hope, among --
among many others.
Q. Okay. And in terms of the movie industry, who are some of your specific clients in the
movie industry? What types of films have you worked on, and who were your clients?
A. So much of our work in the film business is for film production companies, and so some of
our more prominent clients are village road show pictures. Village road show was behind the
"matrix" trilogy, the oceans 11" trilogy, and quite a few other major pictures. New regency is a
good example. New Regency was behind the "Alvin and the chipmunks series" and Mr. and
Mrs. Smith." Weve done work for Dune Capital, who was behind "avatar," legendary pictures
behind "man of steel," among many other film producers.
Q. So these are the types of films that youre doing forecasts and evaluations for, the types of
films that you just identified?
A. Yes. In general, we'll be hired by those companies to assess the likelihood of things
coming to completion, whether they'll get done or not. Well also try to develop our projections
of income for those particular films if they're actually completed, if they get made.
Q. And you mentioned "avatar" as one of them?
A. That's an example.
Q. And "lord of the rings," is that one that you worked on, as well?
A. We've done work over the years on the "lord of the rings" trilogy, on "the hobbit," as well,
many significant films over the years.

Q. Now, why is it that your clients come and ask you to do these forecasts? What is the
purpose of your doing your work?
A. Well, it really varies, but most of the time it has to do with planning.
A. Company is interested in knowing our view on whether something will actually come to
completion. There are a lot of reasons things fall apart. Also, oftentimes a company is
interested in our perspective if something comes to completion, what range of success is possible
from losing money to making money. And the planning process is very important as part of an
entertainment media companys perspective going forward. They want to know how they're
going to do next.
Q. In what stage of the process in terms of these projects do you get involved? Is it early?
Late? When do you come in?
A. Well, over the years, we've been involved at all stages from someone coming in to us and
saying, Gee, Id like to start a business and do horror films. What do you think? How likely is
this to happen?" to someone -- perhaps one of the estates I mentioned coming to us and saying,
"we're still making millions of dollars a year from this film that was released 20 years ago. We'd
like to know whether you think were going to make that same amount of money in the future."
So it's really -- it's really the full spectrum.
Q. Let's go ahead and talk about kind of the scope of this work. Approximately how many
entertainment-and-media-related engagements have you worked on in your career?
A. On -- on the order of 1100.
Q. And how many of your engagements have involved the music industry specifically?

A. About 300 of the engagements have involved what I call the music industry; so this is
anything generating income from songs, whether it be concerts or record labels or music
publishing, any of the ways you can exploit music in society.
Q. And you mentioned I think at the outset that you've worked on tours and live events; is that
right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. So what's the difference between a tour or concert and live events?
A. Well, a live event really doesn't involve that key performer or the artist actually getting up
onstage and performing.
A. Great example of this is the Cirque du Soleil show "Beatles Love," where the Beatles arent
there, they're not performing, but they play their music, they feature their careers. It's about the
Beatles, they're just not there. A concert is typically and really should have the artist there on the
stage performing, doing what they do best.
Q. Are there any other kinds of live events you can give as an example? What other type of
events are out there?
A. You mentioned the cirque example. Thats an example as it relates to music. People call
Broadway musicals or plays live events. I've heard people call, when the circus comes to town,
it a live event. A live event is a pretty loose classification for something that's not a concert with
a performer getting up and doing what they do.
Q. Okay. So with respect to tours and live events, approximately how many projects have you
been involved with that involved tours and live events?

A. There were probably 30 or so projects and some of them involved multiple tours or multiple
artists performing.
Q. And let's -- let me ask about that for a minute. What sorts of tours, concert tours, have you
had some involvement with?
A. Over the years, we've done work involving Rod Stewart, involving Bruno Mars, Usher, 50
Cent, the Beach Boys. Quite a few others.
Q. Have you had an opportunity to consider endorsements and sponsorships in your work?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And who typically hires you to do endorsement and sponsorship work?
A. Well, this subject often comes up with major estates. And what tends to happen is the estate
is approached by a -- a brand company, a company that wants to associate a product like a car or
perhaps a t-shirt with an artist. And as a result of that, there's some payment going to the estate,
and we're asked to offer our views on how appropriate the payment is or how likely payments are
to continue.
Q. Okay. Let's focus on film for a minute. How many film engagements have you had over
the course of your career?
A. Probably 600 or so engagements. Many of them have involved many films. In fact, some of
the producers we've worked for have literally thousands of films in their catalog, most of which
Ive certainly not heard of, and I suspect most people have -- have not, either.

Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that you have extensive experience evaluating and forecasting the
types of entertainment-related projects that Mr. Erk addressed in his testimony?
A. I have had extensive experience in forecasting and assessing the risk underlying the types of
projects Mr. Erk set forth.
Q. Now, I imagine when you do your forecasts and your evaluations, you're very careful with
your work, I would expect, right, Mr. Briggs?
A. Yes.
Q. And you -- when you do your forecast, you rely on a fair amount of data, you do your
research, you have a lot to work with, I assume?
A. Right. I -- I believe the nature of forecasting and risk assessment is about gathering
information and forming judgments based on that information.
Q. Okay. And despite how careful you are in doing your work, have any of your projections
ever ended up being inaccurate?
A. Yes. I don't have a crystal ball. I cant predict exactly what will happen.
Q. And so sometimes some projects are less successful, for example, than what you have
projected; is that fair?
A. That's correct.

Q. And sometimes have you ever had the situation where you believe that a project would
actually get off the ground when, in fact, it doesnt end up getting off the ground?
A. Yes, there have been many cases where projects have had a lot of the elements that I think
need to be in place for them to get off the ground. And, you know, the entertainment industry is
risky, things don't always happen the way people would hope they will.
Q. So how long have you been in this career? How long have you been doing this forecasting
and valuing entertainment and media projects, Mr. Briggs?
A. For about 15 years.
Q. So let's go back to the beginning. Where did you go to school?
A. I studied economics and graduated from Brown University.
Q. So you got your degree from Brown University in economics. Did you go to graduate
school after that?
A. I did. I studied at the Anderson School at UCLA I obtained my MBA There.
Q. The Anderson School is the School of Business at UCLA; is that right?
A. That's correct, much to the displeasure of my students now at USC
Q. All right. And what was your -- your first job out of Anderson School of Business?

A. Well, very shortly after I started at business school, within a few months, I actually started
working at an investment bank in century city called Houlihan Lokey. And so throughout --
throughout business school and thereafter, I worked at Houlihan Lokey, which is a -- I said it's an
investment bank over here in century city.
Q. And what types of skills did you have that Houlihan Lokey was looking for when you were
hired?
A. Well, primarily applied finances; so thats a lot of math, a lot of statistics and a lot of
analysis of data.
Q. Okay. So when you got brought into Houlihan Lokey, what is it that they had you do there?
A. Well, from the very beginning it was projecting income for entertainment media projects. I
was brought right into their entertainment media group, and also assessing the risk of those
projects.
Q. Okay. So that's the same type of work that youve just been describing for us that you've
done over the course of your career; is that right?
A. It's all Ive ever done.
Q. And so how long did you stay at Houlihan Lokey?
A. I was at Houlihan Lokey for approximately six years.
Q. And what happened after Houlihan? Where did you go next?

A. Two colleagues of mine in the entertainment media group and I left Houlihan and formed
our own business called the salter group. The salter group was in operation from 2003 through
the end of 2012.
Q. And what did you do at the salter group?
A. So the -- the salter group was not attached to an investment bank, so we were a stand-alone
financial advisor to different media companies, again, projecting income, assessing risks,
valuing projects, all the same types of things.
Q. And did the salter group receive any recognition for its works in this space?
A. The -- there's an organization called Thompson Reuters. They do rankings of leading
advisors in entertainment media, and we were frequently in the top one or two entertainment
media advisors in the space. We were also involved in almost every major film financing over
the last ten years, almost every major music transaction or -- or music deal that took place over
the last ten years in one way or another.
Q. And you said that the salter group lasted until 2012; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So what happened to the salter group in 2012?
A. Well, toward -- towards the end of 2012, we were approached by FTI Consulting, and the
three of us were asked if we would bring our entire team over to FTI Consulting and run a new
group called the valuation and financial advisory group at FTI Consulting as part of a much
larger consulting firm.

Q. And so I take it you went ahead and did that?


A. That's correct. I've been there for seven months now.
Q. But you're essentially functioning in the same way that you had been with the salter group,
you brought all of your folks over to FTI; is that right?
A. That's right. My focus continues to be entertainment media. I oversee a much larger team
now, and we do a lot of work on projects outside of entertainment media. But that's still, of
course, my focus.
Q. And let's talk about FTI Consulting just for a moment. What is FTI Consulting more
broadly?
A. FTI Consulting has roughly 4,000 employees worldwide. It's an -- it's a global consulting
company that does all sorts of things from help companies with their investor relations in terms
of how they want to present themselves to the world, help companies in bankruptcy and distress.
They do what's called interim management where they'll stick a financial officer into a company
thats facing dire straits. And now they have a group that focuses on evaluation and financial
advisory.
Q. So there are a lot of people at FTI Consulting who are doing things that have nothing to do
with what you do, correct?
A. Many, yes.
Q. You are charging for your time in this case, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And how much are you charging?


A. My hourly rate in this matter is $800 an hour.
Q. And how much time have you spent personally working on this matter?
A. Approximately 350 hours.
Q. Do you have anyone from the salter group or FTI Helping you in doing your work on this
matter?
A. I do. I have a team on this matter.
Q. And how much has your team put into the matter, approximately?
A. Roughly 5 or 600 hours.
Q. And what rates do they charge?
A. Their rates vary from approximately $300 per hour to $800 per hour.
Q. Okay. And can you just tell for me -- tell me briefly what kinds of things you and your team
have been doing since you've been retained on this matter?

A. Well, we've -- we've reviewed thousands of pages of deposition. We've reviewed a


significant amount of testimony here at trial. We've conducted research. I attended the
deposition of plaintiffs expert, Mr. Erk. I, of course, was deposed in this matter, as well. There's
been a great deal of work done here.
Q. Okay. And how many times have you been retained as an expert in connection with a
litigation matter of some sort or another?
A. In litigation?
Q. Yes, just in -- retained for a litigation matter.
A. Five times.
Q. Okay. And how many times have you actually testified as an expert witness?
A. I -- I testified once in an England tax court matter, sort of their equivalent of the IRS I also
-- I also testified in an arbitration once.
Q. An arbitration is kind of like a trial, but its not in the court setting? Is that your
understanding?
A. It's in a conference room.
Q. Okay. And with respect to your prior engagements as an expert witness, what was your
expertise that was relevant in those other matters?
A. Forecasts and valuation of entertainment projects, and also assessing risk.

Q. And I want to go back to something about FTI, FTI does a fair amount of litigation support
work; is that right?
A. FTI Has divisions that do practically nothing but litigation.
Q. Okay. But that's not much of your experience and your work in terms of your work history;
is that fair to say?
A. That's correct. The vast majority of the work Ive done has been for companies that
actively invest in films or music and the like. I've been out in the market.
Ms. Strong: your honor, are we going to take a break this morning?
The court: we are. Do you want to break now? It's a good
Ms. Strong: yes.
The court: 15 minutes.
Ms. Strong: thank you, your honor.
16-minute recess taken.
The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors

Mr. Panish: your honor, I just want to discuss these slides that I was given by counsel,
appropriately, before. The first one, slide number 8 -- do you have these?
Ms. Strong: we'll get copies for your honor. You know what? They're in your binder.
Mr. Putnam: we can get you one, your honor.
The court: I have the binder. What -- Ms.
Strong: slide number 8, he's saying. Im just hearing this for the first time now, your honor.
Mr. Panish: well, we haven't had any time -- you havent been here.
The court: Mr. Jackson's likability?
Mr. Panish: yes. What is the binder that you have there?
Ms. Strong: the same materials that you were given.
Mr. Panish: all I was given is this and this. That's all I got. I wasn't given any e-mails or
anything.
Ms. Strong: yes, you were given the same -- (Sidenote:-THIS IS DISREPECTING THE
COUSEL AND JUDGE IS ALLWING IT AGAIN!!!!! STRONG SHOULD NOT BE
SPEAKING TO PANISH)

Mr. Panish: no. That's all I was given. I was given Mr. Erk's number 7, Mr. Erk number 8, FTI
Slides and -- and these slides. That's all. It seems like the court has a lot more than -- this is
what you gave me.
Ms. Strong: I don't believe so, but --
Ms. Bina: they look about the same size to me, but we can
Mr. Panish: e-mails. I don't have any e-mails.
The court: to Tim Leiweke from Randy Phillips?
Ms. Strong: you were given that yesterday. Well, it's one you've used several times. It's
an e-mail.
Mr. Panish: but I thought they were supposed to give me the e-mails.
Ms. Strong: we gave it to you yesterday, Mr. Panish.
Mr. Putnam: Wednesday.
Mr. Panish: hold on. This is what you gave us. Let's see.
The court: you've had it longer. Okay.

Ms. Strong: Tuesday. While you're looking at that, can we talk about Michael Jacksons
likability?
Mr. Panish: yes. This is what -- I think they call -- I have serious issues on his
foundation about his qualifications, if he can render expert opinions. But -- but on this likability
issue, this is the Q-scores that are not really relevant, and Mr. Meglen didn't even know what
they were, nor did anyone from AEG It's not relevant nor related to anything that AEG did in
this case or has any relevance at all in this case.
Ms. Bina: your honor, just for the record, I dont believe that's what they related to. But Mr. -
Meglen testified he wasn't sure whether they had another name. He wasn't sure whether he was
familiar with Q-scores or not. And nobody else has been asked about them. So to the extent he
says no one at AEG used them, there's no foundation for that statement.
Mr. Panish: there's no evidence that anyone has ever used them. It says Q-scores right on
the exhibit, and I asked him specifically, Mr. Meglen, who was brought in to talk about
attendance and all that by them over my objection as an expert. Q-scores, he never used them.
The court: wait a minute. Meglen was never an expert.
Mr. Panish: I disagree. I objected on that ground, you overruled me. But I still believe
that he did give expert testimony, but you overruled me. Okay? So this Q-score -- this Q-score,
I asked him specifically about it. He's never heard of it, nor used it at AEG He's the one talking
about projections and what people would do at concerts and stuff. And theres no evidence that
anyone at AEG or anyone had anything to do with this, period.
Ms. Strong: your honor, this was fully explored at Mr. Briggs' deposition, we provided the
underlying data. These reflect his conclusions from the data, but we provided the underlying Q-
score data at Mr. Briggs deposition. It's something that people use in marketing to help assess
whether they're going to align someone with their brand. So that's -- he uses it in his business;
and it's something that was fully explored, like I said, at the deposition.

The court: like sponsorship, endorsement, or --


Ms. Strong: that's exactly right, your honor. It's common practice in the industry. He uses
it in his work, as well.
Ms. Bina: it doesn't relate to the tour projections, per se; it relates to the sponsorships and
endorsements which are within Mr. Briggs' expertise.
Mr. Boyle: on the designations, then, can we start putting in things about people liking
Michael Jackson, since they're putting likability
Mr. Panish: you're not allowing us to put that in in the videos, you've been excluding that, and
now they want to put in the negativity according to Mr. Briggs, who I don't believe is qualified
to talk about that, but you've refused to allow us to do that.
Ms. Strong: we'll hear, your honor, when he explains, this is actually what people in the
industry rely on when they're actually making decisions on these issues, and that's why he's here
as an expert to testify as to the data.
Ms. Cahan: for the record, to be clear, the issue with the medical depositions is not Mr.
Jacksons likability, its Mr. Jackson's relationship with the children that they've been consistently
asking about in all the medical depositions and trying to designate in their counters.
Mr. Panish: no.
Ms. Bina: your honor, this is not about whether Mr. Jackson is a good or bad person, it's
about whether sponsors want to align their brand with him; and Mr. Briggs will testify that this
is the kind of data that sponsors look at when determining to --

The court: Im overruling the plaintiffs objection.


Mr. Boyle: to Ms. Cahans point, your honor just saw the Saunders designations where
they designate at length Michael and Mr. Saunders and their children hanging out in an effort
to create an inference that that's why he got Demerol; so I don't see why we can't counter
designate on those points to show that Michael was friends with a lot of people.
The court: was there something in that Saunders designation that dealt with that?
Mr. Boyle: yeah. He talked about how Michael came over to his house, and the children
played in the sandbox, and Dr. Saunders came to NeverLand, and Michael gave him a popcorn
popper.
The court: I heard that. I'm saying was there something that you wanted that
Mr. Panish: yeah, Farshchian, there was --
The court: on the Saunders deposition. It has to be deposition by deposition.
Mr. Boyle: I can go through the designations and see which one of our counters --
The court: go through it.
Ms. Cahan: your honor, I suggest, because we're going to have these issues related on
a number of the medical depositions, that maybe we pick a time when the jury is not here,
because we have a number of half days coming up, and deal with those issues then rather than
interrupting testimony.

The court: then you can meet and confer about it.
Mr. Boyle: I would love that, your honor.
Mr. Panish: number 7. Number 7 regarding album sales, he didn't testify about this at his
deposition, he had no opinions on it and had none of the data for this at his deposition and his
basis for all his opinions.
Ms. Strong: your honor, these numbers are actually the numbers that Mr. Erk testified to
at trial in terms of his album sales, and he certainly was -- this was on the table in terms of
Michael Jacksons popularity whether or not he was going to get endorsements or not. All of
that was disclosed with respect to his deposition. So these particular numbers may not have been
discussed, they came from Mr. Erk's testimony at trial, your honor.
Mr. Panish: that wasn't his testimony, number 1; and number 2; he gave no bases for his
opinion or any opinions on album sale issues. This is a new opinion; and I went through the
entire deposition, it was never raised with him. And he gave his list of his opinions and the list
of his reasons, which is attached. Its never mentioned anywhere in the deposition, or the basis
for that.
The court: let me ask, were the album sales that Mr. Erk -- the information he presented at
trial, was that presented in deposition?
Ms. Strong: no, your honor.
The court: okay. So that's why it would be
Ms. Strong: correct, your honor.

The court: -- new in response to that. Okay.


Mr. Panish: no. Mr. Erk was deposed before him. He just told us he sat through the
deposition. Then he gave his opinions, which are all attached, and it's -- to his deposition.
There's a list of his opinions, and its never mentioned anywhere as a basis. He never testified
about it or anything. It's a new opinion and a new basis. He doesnt even have an opinion, by
the way. His whole opinion is Erks opinion, you can't believe. Thats his testimony, which I
object to his qualifications, and we'll get to that. But it's -- this is a brand-new opinion and
evidence that he's never used anywhere.
The court: okay. So these album numbers, though, Erk didn't give them in his deposition,
and the first time that anybody heard of them was at trial?
Mr. Panish: no, Erk did not say them.
Ms. Bina: Erk gave each of these numbers at trial, your honor. He said this one was double
platinum, so and so many copies, this one were single platinum. He went through that.
Ms. Strong: and I have the testimony here if you like your honor.
Mr. Panish: if Erk says this at his deposition, and he gives a deposition, why couldn't he
say any of this during his deposition? He was subsequent to Erk. He sat through it. He sat
through that, they got his testimony, and then he gives his testimony, has this complete outline
written out by counsel, his opinions, and has no basis, nothing. And then two months later now
he has new opinions that he could have disclosed at the deposition, which he didn't. Erk was
done well before him.
Ms. Bina: we're talking about Mr. Erk's trial testimony.

Ms. Strong: I have the trial testimony, Mr. Panish. (Side note:- here is Strong talking to
Panish again!! And the Judge allowing it!!)
The court: Im overruling your objection.
Ms. Strong: thank you, your honor.
The court: you may use the album sales.
Mr. Panish: it's in the report of Mr. Erk.
Ms. Strong: do you have any other issues, Mr. Panish, or is that it?
Mr. Panish: yeah. Not on these -- these slides that I have, I have no other issues.
Ms. Strong: do you have any other concerns? (Sidenote:-Strong talking to Panish again,
Panish has NOT responded to her!!)
The court: is there anything else? Because we're going to call the jury in.
Mr. Panish: that's fine. But, I mean, Im going to question -- anyway
Ms. Bina: I think we assumed you were going to question him. (Side note:- Now Stebbins
Bina is replying to Panish when HE is replying to the judge)
Mr. Panish: I didn't finish what I was going to say. That's fine. And just on that last
objection, it would be under Kennemur versus state of California.

The court: I know the case.


Mr. Panish: I know you do; but I have to say it for the record, don't I, and raise my
objection before the witness testifies?
The court: sure.
Mr. Panish: and, also, his qualifications, which he hasn't given any opinions yet, when
we get to that, Ill discuss that with the court.
The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors
The court: And happy birthday to the juror who had a birthday. I don't know which one it
was, but
Mr. Panish: what a way to spend it.
The court: it really wasn't the way you were thinking you were going to spend it, but -- okay.
Let's continue.
Ms. Strong: let's -- ready to go?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. All right. I want to go back to what you had said about your experience in the
numbers of projects that you worked on in these various spheres that you identified. You gave us
numbers. Were those projects that you had involvement with?

A. That's correct.
Q. So when you said you've done approximately 1100 media and entertainment projects, those
are projects you've had some involvement with directly, correct?
A. Yes, in most cases, significant involvement between me and my client.
Q. Okay. So that's not just something that the salter group did and somebody else was doing
the work and you're just taking credit for somebody elses work?
A. I'm not taking credit for someone elses work. There were three partners at the salter group,
and my primary responsibility was oversight of the work.
Q. All right. Let's go ahead and turn to -- I -- you put together some slides to help explain your
opinions and your thoughts for us today, correct?
A. I did.
Ms. Strong: okay. So let's go ahead and if you could pull up the slide that relates to the areas
of Mr. Erk's opinion that you evaluated. Is there any objection to number 1, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish: well, let me see it.
Ms. Strong: number 1, graphic number 13475.
Mr. Panish: okay. That's okay.

Ms. Strong: let's go ahead and put that up on the screen.


Q. Okay. So can you please identify for us what this slide is, and what this reflects?
A. Well, these bullets reflect the areas that Mr. Erk discussed in terms of potential projects that
Michael Jackson would complete had he lived.
Q. Okay. And have you formed any opinions -- well, you said projects that Mr. Jackson (sic)
said he would complete. Did you analyze anything else with respect to Mr. Erk's opinions with
respect to these topics?
A. Yes. With respect to the first four, tours, merchandise, endorsements/sponsorships, and a
Las Vegas show, Mr. Erk set forth -- he created some numbers underlying those projects, and I
analyzed those numbers.
Q. Okay. So have you formed any opinions about these topics in connection with this case?
A. Yes. My -- I have.
Q. Okay. And what is your overarching opinion as to these issues?
Mr. Panish: Im going to object and ask to briefly Voir Dire the witness on his
qualifications to give these opinions in this case.
The court: why are we doing this now? Shouldnt we have done this earlier?

Mr. Panish: well, no. Just like they did with Dr. Czeisler, it's the same thing. It's a Voir
Dire of a witness before they render an opinion. I didn't need to do this outside the presence.
The court: it would have been a lot faster.
Ms. Strong: Dr. Czeisler was a brand-new opinion that had never been disclosed in
deposition. These opinions have been explored in full in deposition, your honor. They had him
for two days at deposition.
Mr. Panish: first of all, that has nothing to do with him giving an opinion at trial whether
hes qualified, at the deposition.
Ms. Strong: and they had an opportunity to move on this ground, your honor, as you
know, in connection with the motions.
Mr. Panish: we didn't have to do that.
The court: Im going to overrule -- or deny your request to Voir Dire. You may continue.
Ms. Strong: okay.
Q. What is your opinion -- what are your opinions with respect to these topics that youve
identified on the slide?
A. I have two opinions in this regard. My first opinion is it is speculative as to whether these
projects would have occurred. My second opinion is that the numbers discussed by Mr. Erk with
respect to the first four of these projects -- he did not set numbers for movies -- are speculative.

Q. Okay. And Mr. Erk also offered an opinion about Michael Jacksons future consumption.
Are you aware of that?
A. I am aware of that, yes.
Q. Did you analyze Mr. Erk's opinion in terms of Michael Jacksons consumption?
Mr. Panish: Im going to object to that. He was asked that question at his deposition, had
no opinion on those areas.
Ms. Strong: I think this will confirm that, your honor. I just wanted to be clear.
Mr. Panish: I thought you were trying another new opinion.
Ms. Strong: did you analyze Mr. Jackson's consumption numbers, Mr. Briggs?
A. I did not; I have no opinion of those areas.
Q. Now, did you prepare an alternate projection associated with the first four elements here on
your slide? Did you go ahead and do that?
A. I did not.
Q. And why not? Why did you not create a projection for those four pieces of Mr. Erks
testimony?
A. My understanding is damages cannot be speculative, and I did not want to prepare a
speculative projection.

Mr. Panish: Im going to move to strike his legal definition. The court will instruct on
what the law is in this case.
The court: overruled.
Ms. Strong: so I want to clarify something before we move forward.
Q. Are you saying with respect to your opinions here in this case, that Michael Jackson, had he
lived, would have never earned any money for the rest of his life? Is that what you're saying?
A. No.
Q. Why not? What are you saying in that regard?
A. Michael Jackson had a prolific career which resulted in a catalog of songs. That catalog
generated millions of dollars each year. My opinion does not relate to that catalog. My opinion
relates to income Michael Jackson would have generated from working, from getting up, from
performing on tour and being involved in the projects that are on this slide you see.
Q. All right. So let's go ahead and were going to focus on the first one, touring. Why is it
that you believe that it's speculative that -- well, did you -- did you form a graphic to talk about
your opinions with respect to touring and why is it that you believe that touring is speculative?
A. I
Mr. Panish: Im just going to object on this witnesss qualifications and foundation.

The court: overruled. The witness: I did, yes.


Ms. Strong: okay. So let's go ahead and turn to that. That would be graphic number 2, Mr.
Panish -- or number 3. I'm sorry.
Mr. Panish: you weren't here yesterday, but we have a new rule here. Just show it to me.
That page right there is okay. Are you putting all this on that?
The court: Mr. Panish, sidebar.
The following proceedings were held at sidebar (SIDENOTE: PANISH MAKES ONE
STATEMENT AND HE IS TAKEN TO SIDE BAR!!!)
The court: I know you don't like my rulings, but theyre my rulings, and you need to live by
them, and your comments are not going to help.
Mr. Panish: which comment?
The court: your comments that I can hear under your breath. All of them. They're just
constant. Frankly, I don't think -- it doesn't help your relationship with the court, it doesn't help
your relationship with opposing counsel, and it doesn't help your relationship with the jury.
Okay? So you need to stop, especially if you don't want comments from me being directed at the
comments that you're making. Then it just looks like were not getting along.
Mr. Panish: all I was talking about right there was the exhibit with Ms. Strong that I
wanted to see it before she put it up. I brought out my objections, you overruled them.
The court: right. So leave it at that. What are the comments about there's now this new rule
in the court, or something of that --

Mr. Panish: do you remember yesterday --


The court: that's a comment.
Mr. Panish: -- that we had a discussion about putting the exhibit up, your honor? That's
what I was referring to. I was not referring to your rulings. Yesterday we had a problem, if you
recall.
The court: I recall the problem.
Mr. Panish: and you said from now on, we have this rule. That's what I was referring to.
I was not referring to anything you said.
The court: were they doing anything other than abiding by my ruling?
Mr. Panish: yes. She was putting it up.
Mr. Putnam: no, she didn't.
The court: every single time they turn and say, do you have an objection?" Thats what I
hear from them all the time.
Mr. Panish: and I said, "Can you just put it on my screen so I could see it?" like you said
were supposed to do. And now you think that I was commenting about your rules. I said
nothing about your ruling, your honor.

Mr. Boyle: let me -- don't defend yourself. I will defend him on this one. He was talking
to Ms. Strong, letting her knows, "I would like to actually have it on the screen before it goes
up because that's a new rule that happened yesterday. That's all he was saying there. He wasn't
talking about the objections --
Mr. Panish: Im over the rulings. You made it, and you're accusing me of --
Mr. Boyle: it was a misunderstanding.
Mr. Panish: I made my record; I was not saying anything about the court's rulings. You
continued to rule against me, that's your right.
The court: that's right.
Mr. Panish: I haven't said anything about it. I didnt question your ruling. When you
say, Mr. Panish, that's my ruling," I said nothing about it. And Ive said on the exhibit only,
and then you
Mr. Boyle: I think it's clear. Brian, its clear.
Mr. Panish: you think I was attacking your ruling.
The court: like I said, this is just not helping.
Mr. Panish: but I didn't say that.
The court: all right. Fine. You didn't say it.

Mr. Panish: you accused me of saying something about your rulings. You took it to mean
that I was saying that we have a new rule meant how you were ruling, and that's not what
happened at all. And then you called me in here to chew me out about that.
The court: you know what? If this was the first time that had happened, that would be fine.
But you are constantly doing that, and you're doing it to me, you do it to the defense lawyers,
you do it to everybody, and, you know, this is just constant, so you just need to stop with the
comments and the under the breath. That's all Im telling you.
Mr. Panish: that's fine. But all I was saying was to Ms. Strong about the exhibit. I made
my objections, you overruled them, I didn't argue with you.
The court: well, you're arguing with me now.
Mr. Panish: the point is --
The court: you're making my point as we speak. I think Im done listening to you. I
understand if it was a mistake. Fine, it was a mistake. I'm accepting your explanation. Going
forward, please, no more comments.
Mr. Panish: okay. That's fine.
The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors
The court: okay. You may continue.
Ms. Strong: thank you, your honor.

Mr. Panish: that last exhibit is okay.


Ms. Strong: thank you. Let's go ahead and put up this exhibit on the screen, exhibit
13476.
Q. Mr. Briggs, can you please talk us through this, explain what this slide is about and go
ahead and talk us through this?
A. This slide outlines the primary factors, the primary risks that I identified in forming my
opinion that Mr. Erk's projected world tour was speculative. It was speculative that the tour
would occur.
Q. Okay. So let's go ahead and focus on the first point there. What do you have there?
A. The first point reads "there was no agreement beyond 50 shows."
Q. Why is that relevant?
A. Well, as of the date of death, there was no agreement that Michael Jackson or AEG Would
actually go through with more than 50 shows. In my line of work, when there isn't a formal
agreement that exists between two parties, you can't state that something will happen with
reasonable certainty. Things may always fall apart.
Q. Okay. And the next point? Actually, is there a clicker for the graphics? It's okay. We'll
just have pam do it for us. You can let pam know when you want to move on to the next point.
A. Thank you.

Q. So go ahead to the next point. What did you consider there, why is that relevant?
A. Michael Jackson had a significant history of drug use, and this is relevant to my opinion.
Q. Well, wait just a minute. You're not a doctor, Mr. Briggs, correct?
A. I am not a doctor.
Q. So why are you taking into account drug use or something that might impact Michael
Jacksons health?
A. Well, Im taking this into account because there is significant testimony on the record. Four
medical experts have been engaged in this matter that have offered detailed after-the-fact
assessments of Michael Jacksons health, and they've offered very
Mr. Panish: Im going to object to what other witnesses have said as an improper -- this witness
to get in hearsay. It's improper fewer than 721 of the evidence code.
Ms. Strong: as you know, your honor, one expert is allowed to rely on the testimony of
another expert. If he's not an expert as a medical doctor, he certainly can review and rely on the
testimony of medical doctors who do have the expertise to evaluate that evidence.
Mr. Panish: I don't object to him relying on it, its him trying to recite what others have
said.
The court: overruled.

Ms. Strong: thank you.


Q. So you're explaining now why it is that you would consider the drug use and the health of
Michael Jackson, correct? This is something that you do in the course of your career?
A. Absolutely. As part of my job, Im asked to consider all sorts of -- all sorts of risks,
particularly when something involves a key person getting up and performing, or a key executive
getting up and running a business. It's all really the same thing. They're risks, and we're asked
every day to assess those risks in terms of how they impact whether something will happen or
not.
Q. You mentioned that there were four medical experts, and I want to be really clear here, you
said in the record. Those four medical experts haven't all given testimony here at trial yet,
correct?
A. That's my understanding. My understanding is only one of the four has appeared at trial.
Q. Okay. And you reviewed testimony from three other experts from their depositions,
correct?
A. That's correct; Ive read the testimony -- the deposition -- depositions of plaintiffs' expert
Dr. Shimelman, defendants' experts Dr. Earley and Dr. Levounis.
Q. So when you're referring to the medical testimony, you're taking into account the expert
who already testified here in court and the three other depositions that you reviewed, as well,
correct?
A. Absolutely.

Ms. Strong: okay.


The court: counsel, can you stop a minute. Shimelman, Earley -- who are the other two?
The witness: Dr. Schnoll appeared at trial.
The court: okay. The witness: and Dr. Schnoll is a plaintiffs expert. That's my
understanding. Dr. Shimelman, I reviewed his deposition. He's a plaintiffs' expert. Dr. Earley
is a defendants' expert; and Dr. Levounis, l-e-v-o-u-n-I-s, I believe.
The court: thank you.
Ms. Strong: so what is it with respect to -- your conclusions, what did you rely upon from their
testimony that is relevant to what youre considering here?
A. My conclusion, based on relying on that testimony, was that Michael Jacksons life
expectancy was very short as of June 2009. Michael Jackson was engaging in behaviors --
specifically, he was taking drugs in very dangerous ways -- Michael Jackson had a history of
taking drugs that had lasting impact on his health, and the combination of these factors led to my
opinion that it was speculative to project he would have gone on some three-year world tour.
Mr. Panish: Im going to object, move to strike his opinions on life expectancy, this
witness.
The court: I think he was relying on another expert for that.
Ms. Strong: correct.
The court: overruled.

Ms. Strong: okay.


Q. What's the next factor that you took into account in forming your opinion that it would be
speculative that Michael Jackson would have gone on to do a world tour?
A. Well, as I previously mentioned, Im very focused in my job in looking at an individual's
history of performance; and Michael Jackson had a unique history of great performance, but also
of significant cancellations, particularly in cases where things looked like they were practically
certain to happen. Some --
Q. Go ahead. If you want to give some examples in that regard, that's fine.
A. Sure. So some examples of that include Michael Jackson cancelled a number of dates at
the end of the "dangerous" tour to check into rehab. Those were dates that were planned to take
place. Michael Jackson canceled an HBO Special in 1995 that was expected to take place, and
HBO Had to scramble to get other programming on there. Michael Jackson was associated with
the Millennium Concerts, which I understand you've heard about; and those did not take place as
expected. And there were -- oh, excuse me. And the -- and the 2 Seas arrangement was also a
business arrangement later in Michaels life that was expected to come to completion, and
nothing came of that.
Q. All right. And in addition to Michael Jacksons history of cancellations, what else did you
come to consider in forming your opinion that it would be speculative that Michael Jackson
would have done Mr. Erk's projected tour?
A. Could you pull up -- thank you? The world tour depends on the completion of 50 shows.
So what this bullet really has to do with is broader entertainment industry risk. And this is one of
the most important points. Just because someone tries something does not mean they're going to
succeed at that. That's a very important concept. There's what I call performance risk. A lot of
things are created and they don't find their audience. We worked on films where there were
tremendous expectations and no one shows up at the box office. There is no certainty of
tremendous success, particularly the level of success that was projected. Beyond that, there's
what I call execution risk. Execution risk has to do with whether things will come together as

everyone expects. And because were talking about people and their ability to get up and
perform day after day, night after night, things dont come together. People get hurt. These
things happen all the time.
Q. Okay. So the last three bullets that are grouped together, the last bullet and the two sub
bullets, those are basically industry risks that you encounter often when you're doing your work;
is that right?
A. That's correct. I
Mr. Panish: excuse me. I'm going to object, vague and ambiguous as to "industry risks."
Which industry?
The court: sustained.
Ms. Strong: are these risks that you observe in your work over the course of your career, Mr.
Briggs?
A. Yes.
Q. And what are they? What are -- what industry are we talking about when we use the term
industry risks"?
A. This relates to the entertainment media industry. The entertainment media industry is driven
at its core by public taste, whether the audience will show up and whether the performer will
show up.
Q. In terms of execution risk, can you point to as an example unrelated to this case where an
execution risk has been something that's relevant and is relevant to your opinions here?

A. Oh, unrelated to the case?


Q. Unrelated to Michael Jacksons personal experience, have you seen execution risk come up
in other scenarios, and how so?
A. Sure. As part of my research in this case, I identified a number of major touring acts where
concerts were expected to take place, and they just didnt. Guns & roses cancelled a tour the day
-- or cancelled a concert the day the concert was supposed to take place, and riots ensued. U2
cancelled or postponed a large number of dates because one of the band members injured his
back. Lady Gaga cancelled and postponed a number of dates on a world tour; Van Halen did, as
well. And as I previously mentioned, Michael Jackson cancelled a number of dates at the end of
the "dangerous" tour to check into rehab. The -- these are just a few examples of this type of
risk. People have to get up and perform or things can't come together
Q. Okay. So you've got up here risks that youve identified that are specific to the record of this
case, Michael Jackson, Michael Jacksons own history, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then you've also included in your opinion and considered the risk that you always
consider generically in all entertainment media cases; is that fair to say?
A. That's correct. Each of these, I believe, are relevant in forming my opinion that Mr. Erk's
projected world tour is speculative as to whether it would have occurred.
Q. Okay. And in terms of the -- you heard or at least reviewed the testimony of Mr. Erk that
he believed Michael Jackson would have gone on to not only do the one world tour that he
projected but for additional world tours thereafter, right? You're familiar with that testimony?

A. I am, yes.
Q. And what's your opinion as to those four additional tours?
A. Well, for the reasons Ive identified up above, and others, I believe that those four additional
world tours are entirely speculative.
Q. And is there evidence -- any evidence that those four additional tours would ever be
contemplated or have happened?
A. I was not able to review any plans or budgets or anything, in my view, of significance that
those four world tours that were part of Mr. Erks numbers would ever occur.
Q. Do you know whether -- you could tell whether Mr. Erk had relied on any evidence with
respect to his opinions as to those four other tours?
A. I believe he stated it was just his personal opinion; he didn't actually set forth anything
significant.
Q. And now as to the 50 shows at the 02, do you have an opinion as to whether or not Michael
Jackson would have actually completed all of the 50 shows in London at the 02?
Mr. Panish: Im going to object to foundation for this witness.
The court: what was your question? Do you have any evidence that he would not have ?
Mr. Panish: no.

The court: could you rephrase your question?


Ms. Strong: did you have an opinion as to whether Michael Jackson would have completed the
shows, the 50 shows in London at the 02?
Mr. Panish: no foundation for this witness.
The court: sustained.
Ms. Strong: Mr. Briggs, you evaluate projects and do forecasts for projects that have been
contemplated where there's agreements in place, things have been done to actually make those
projects look like they're going to occur, correct?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And are you sometimes brought in to evaluate those projects and determine whether, in fact,
theyre going to reach completion, all of it is going to be performed, all of the dollars that are
projected are going to happen?
A. Absolutely. We're hired by investors and by companies all the time that come to us and say,
"You guys do this for a living. What do you think the odds are that all the pieces are going to fall
into place that this will even happen? And, by the way, even if it happens, will there be any
money to be made for it?"
Q. So with respect to the 50 shows that had -- there certainly was an agreement -- Michael
Jackson had agreed to do 50 shows before he passed away, correct?
A. Michael Jackson had not agreed to do more than 50 shows.

Q. Right. But Michael Jackson had agreed to do 50 before he died, correct?


A. Yes, Michael Jackson had agreed to do 50 shows.
Q. And he was actively engaged in rehearsals to go to London and do those 50 shows, correct?
Mr. Panish: objection; leading and suggestive of the answer.
The court: overruled.
The witness: I agree, Michael Jackson was actively engaged in rehearsals.
Ms. Strong: and are you aware of the ticket sales?
A. The ticket sales exceeded expectations and demonstrated significant demand for Michael
Jackson to perform in London at the 02.
Q. All right. So they sold out the tickets in March of 2009, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And even though all of those things were in place, do you have an opinion as to whether the
50 shows would have actually been completed?
Mr. Panish: same objection. There's no foundation for this witness.

The court: okay. Let's go to sidebar for a minute.


The following proceedings were held at sidebar
The court: I thought what he was offering was something -- everything beyond 50 shows? I
believe thats what Erk had testified to, so
Ms. Strong: I just -- I don't think I brought it in here with me; but at his deposition, part of his
opinions disclosed and discussed is that even the 50 shows were speculative. Your honor, he
comes into projects, sometimes they're not started at all, sometimes they're partially started,
sometimes theyre well along, and he's asked to evaluate the risks associated with the project
finishing, making the money thats expected, and it's literally on -- he wrote notes with respect to
his opinions going to his deposition, and the 50 shows are speculative is actually identified on
that and explored at deposition.
Mr. Putnam:: the reason is because if you look at each of Mr. Jackson's endeavors, the
"dangerous" tour, "history" tour, you go on through, it was rare if ever that he actually did all
the things projected. So I think what he's trying to show is that even the 50 is speculative. To
say that it would go beyond that is very difficult, and particularly since one of the ways you
gauge whether you're going to go beyond -- remember there's been testimony throughout about
whether they'd go beyond the 50; and part of that was determinative on how the 50 went. It's
important to know whether or not he believed that would be the case because then there would
be a basis for his opinion of whether there would be anything after the 50.
Mr. Panish: first of all, his whole testimony is totally speculative without foundation.
There have been no qualifications laid for him to make such assessment. "Ive done it hundreds
of times." I was disallowed my opportunity to show that he's never done anything like this
before. He's never assessed anyone's projected loss of income ever. He's never done a lot of
these things; and a lot of things he said, he never did them. And thats why Im -- there's no
foundation. He just told us he doesn't have a crystal ball. Now he's going to reverse it and say,
"oh, and this is not going to be done"? And half this stuff hes saying is inappropriate. Its
character evidence that they're trying to, again, 1101(a), link him. So he left the "dangerous"
tour; therefore, he wouldn't do 50 shows, which would be 16 years later. Remote, tangential.
But now he's going to loop it together and do the reverse and say this is speculative of the 50

shows. There's no foundation for his opinion, there's no qualifications for him to give such
opinion, and there's no reliable evidence that he can rely on other than some 16-year-old thing
and one HBO Show that was cancelled because he was injured. And these drug addiction
opinions he's giving, all of this is way beyond anything this guy is qualified -- that's why I
requested to voir dire the witness. I don't have to make a motion in limine, I dont have to -- just
because he said in his deposition -- they keep saying he said in his deposition. Well, he didn't
fully say this. And the other things, he didn't say; but that doesn't mean he can testify to it at trial
without an appropriate qualification, without an appropriate foundation on things that are
reasonably reliable. He can't -- I mean, come on. No -- the other witnesses would reasonably
rely on. No one in the history of the world in a litigation setting has come up with these bases or
these opinions. Remember, he has no opinion other than all these other things are speculative
with no foundation or basis whatsoever for him to give these opinions. And -- and I objected --
The court: you did.
Mr. Panish: -- multiple times, asked to Voir Dire, the court denied that.
The court: I did. Okay. So did he give this opinion in his depo?
Ms. Strong: yes, he did.
Mr. Boyle: so AEG Sold fraudulent tickets, thats fine. I want to add on the life
expectancy opinion, their life expectancy person is Mr. Dickie, and we moved to exclude, you
overruled. He's the actuarial guy. He didn't rely on Mr. Dickie. He made his own opinion,
relied on the drug addiction --
The court: this is all cross-examination. You can explore all of this on cross-examination. I
dont think this is a basis to preclude the opinion.
Mr. Boyle: but my point is he can rely on experts to form --

The court: right.


Mr. Boyle: -- and they listed the experts he relied on, none of which was the life
expectancy expert, and he just gave a life expectancy opinion.
Ms. Cahan: your honor, that's not true. Shimelman, who is one of plaintiffs' experts,
was designated as their life expectancy expert. Hes relying on what Dr. Shimelman said at his
deposition, well be playing it in the trial. And Dr. Earley we designated on addiction with
respect to propofol and specifically the effect of addiction generally on life expectancy.
Mr. Panish: and he had no opinion.
Ms. Cahan: that is not true. You've already played part of his deposition at trial.
Mr. Panish: which is he couldn't say what it was going to be. That is what he said.
Ms. Cahan: his prognosis was grave, was his opinion.
Mr. Panish: prognosis is not life --
The court: Im overruling your objection.
The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors
The question was read.
Ms. Strong: you can go ahead and answer.

The witness: my opinion is that it is speculative as to whether the 50 shows would have been
completed.
Ms. Strong: and that's based on all of the things that you've identified for us; is that fair to say?
A. To be clear, there was a significant health risk in place, and the length of the 50-show tour
was approximately nine months. Reconciling nine months against the testimony from the
medical experts in this case led me to my conclusion, notwithstanding the other factors,
including Michael Jacksons own significant history.
Ms. Strong: I understand. At this point, your honor, no further questions right now, since
it's -- if you'd like to stop for lunch.
The court: you're going to go into a new category?
Ms. Strong: yes.
The court: okay. I need to give you a time. Hold on. Okay. 10:00 o'clock on Monday. I
have a big calendar on Monday, so 10:00 o'clock. I'm sorry I had to have so many sidebars this
morning, but sometimes that happens. And remember not to discuss the case over the weekend
with anybody. You remember the admonitions, right? Okay. Have a good weekend. Monday.
10:00 o'clock. It's a half day.
The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors
The court: okay. And you can step down, and well see you on Monday at 10:00.

Ms. Cahan: your honor, just one very quick housekeeping item I wanted to bring up,
should take 30 seconds. Several days ago we provided plaintiffs designations for Randy Jackson
and joseph Marcus. They've provided counters for joseph Marcus, which were due last night --
Im sorry -- for Randy Jackson, which was due last night. With respect to Mr. Marcus, they've
said that they want to move to preclude our ability to play his deposition. We haven't gotten that
motion yet. I spoke to Mr. Boyle about it this morning, he said maybe today, maybe Monday.
That's a deposition we hoped to play next week, and they haven't provided us counters in the
event that the court overrules the motion, so we have neither the motion nor the counters. And
the clock is sort of ticking, so we're hoping for some sort of commitment.
Mr. Boyle: we're going to file the motion as soon as it's done, hopefully today. If not
today, Monday. We're just abiding by the practice that the defense did when we submitted
designations to them and we objected to the entirety. We asked, "Can you provide us counter
designations in case the court rules in our favor?" They said no. There are about five examples
of that. So I told Ms. Cahan we're going to do the same thing. I wont pre-argue the Joseph
Marcus motion, and were going to file it as soon as possible.
The court: so you're filing a motion to exclude altogether?
Mr. Boyle: completely.
Ms. Bina: your honor, when we did that, we filed the motion within the time we would have
designated. It's literally just a timing question. We don't object to their right to try to move to
exclude, but it's just trying to figure out what the time
Mr. Boyle: they're clearly putting on a very heavily video case, and they're dumping a lot of
designations on us, and we're working our hardest to get them to them.
Mr. Panish: your honor, next week for trial, we have a half day Monday. She'll still be
questioning this witness. A half day Tuesday, a full day Wednesday and Thursday. This witness
may be done, and they have how many other videos that are ready?

Ms. Cahan: one.


Mr. Panish: and they asked for Rebbie Jackson, and they -- wanted Rebbie Jackson to be
available on Tuesday. Now, obviously --
Ms. Bina: Thursday is the current request. I understand she's not able to do Thursday.
Mr. Boyle: because they told TMZ that Debbie Rowe was going on Wednesday.
Mr. Putnam: we did not say that, your honor.
Ms. Cahan: the problem is, as you may remember, I think it was this time last week
that we were here asking for commitments on the schedule so that we could plan accordingly.
So we sent over these on the three-day schedule; and at the end of three days, we didn't have
counters and we didn't have a motion. And now theyre not even sure whether they are filing the
motion, and this is a video we hoped to play next week.
Mr. Panish: we gave them counters on every one but that deposition.
Mr. Boyle: we've given them eight counters in their case. This is one that we're objecting
to because the witness -- the witness asked for a lawyer at the beginning of the deposition, said
he couldnt testify, and they still pushed it through. So thats the --
Mr. Putnam: not true.
Mr. Panish: that's absolutely true.

Ms. Strong: your honor, it was my deposition, and he asked -- he said he would like to
have a lawyer, we talked about it, and he said he was willing to go forward with the deposition
and answer questions where he felt comfortable; and any other questions, we would set aside.
That's documented on the record, and thats exactly what we did, your honor.
Mr. Panish: they talked him out of it. Youll see it. I didn't know we were going to start
arguing it. I thought this was a 30-second issue.
Ms. Bina: we just want to know when it's going to be filed.
Mr. Panish: there are four of them talking.
The court: no later than Monday.
Ms. Strong: and the counters in the interim, your honor, if --
The court: let me ask you this. If it's denied, then when will you have counters?
Mr. Boyle: if it's denied, we'll have the counters the next day.
Mr. Putnam: perfect, your honor.
Ms. Bina: your honor, we did submit the Randy Jackson combined chart today. Your honor
has been wonderful about reviewing them. If you could turn your attention to that one next, we
would appreciate it.
The court: and that's all I have?

Mr. Putnam: absolutely.


Ms. Cahan: right now.
Mr. Boyle: and they laid three more on us, and they want them on Sunday from us, and I
asked if they wanted them sooner, and they said no.
Mr. Panish: we asked them priority in which they wanted them.
Ms. Bina: those three are the five-day schedule. That's fine.
Ms. Cahan: as we said repeatedly before, they gave us 18 to turn around on 48 hours'
notice in a one-week period and we did it without complaint. We have about 15 totals in the
case. We're sending them and getting them back on the rolling basis, we want to make sure the
schedule keeps moving.
Mr. Boyle: so they're complaining about nothing. Thank you.
Ms. Cahan: that's a gratuitous comment.
The court: Mr. Boyle --
Mr. Boyle: Im giving them this stuff on an expedited schedule and they still want to complain
for no reason. It's every day.
Mr. Panish: and there's nothing that can ever get worked out. Come on. You know

Ms. Cahan: thank you, your honor.


The court: thank you.
Mr. Boyle: thank you, your honor.
Proceedings adjourned to Monday, July 29, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.