Jackson v AEGLive June 5

th
2013 continued testimony of Brandon "Randy" Phillips
Judge: ok. Before we get started, I just want to read you jury instruction. "During the trial
you have received and will receive deposition testimony that was and will be read from a
deposition transcript. "a deposition is the testimony of a person taken before trial. At a
deposition, the person is sworn to tell the truth and is questioned by the attorneys. You
must consider the deposition testimony that was presented to you in the same way as you
consider testimony given in court." ok. You're ready to begin?
PLEASE HELP US TO CONTINUE THIS EFFORT FOR MICHAE L! <<CLICK
Mr. Panish: thank you, your honor.
Randy Phillips, recalled as a witness by the plaintiffs pursuant to evidence code section 776,
was previously sworn and testified as follows:
Direct examination (resumed)
By Mr. Panish:
Q. Before Michael Jackson died, you never reviewed his contract with AEG correct?
A. Before Michael Jackson died? I did review the contract when I signed it before I signed it.

Q. Ok. I'd like to play the deposition, page 122, lines 3 to 8. And before I do
That you remember that you were under oath when you gave your deposition; right, sir?
A. Absolutely.
Q. You swore to tell the truth?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Your deposition was a month after Mr. Gongaware; correct?
A. I'm not sure when.
Q. Ok. Mr. Gongaware had been questioned about e-mails in his deposition; correct?
A. I'm sure.
Q. But you were not shown any of those e-mails; right?
A. When Mr. Gongaware was questioned?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. And then after your deposition, you read it?
A. I read what?
Q. Your deposition.
A. My deposition? Yes.
Q. And you had you were told that if you made any changes or testified differently, that your
deposition could be played or read to the jury?
A. Correct.
Q. And you knew that that could affect your credibility as a witness?
A. Correct.
Q. And you also read it and made another declaration under oath under penalty of perjury that
everything was true and correct, and you had an opportunity to change anything you wanted;
correct?

A. Correct.
Q. And so that's the second time you affirmed your testimony being true and correct. And that
was when, sir, that you did that?
A. The date?
Q. Well, let's say the month.
A. Ok. It was probably within two weeks after you took my deposition.
Q. Ok. Well
A. Or three weeks.
Q. let's see if I can refresh your recollection. Just going to show him the correction sheet. Ok.
First I'm going to go to the last page is that your signature?
A. Yes.
Q. Ok. And this is the date of the letter that sent your changes, and I assumed you reviewed all
these
A. Correct.
Q. to make sure they were correctly signed by Mr.
Judge: are we examining him? If we are on that, as opposed to refreshing recollection, we
should identify the document.
Mr. Panish: fair enough. Exhibit 713.
Mr. Phillips: the cover letter is March 4th. I signed it on February 28th.
Q. Right. But you reviewed it before it was sent, didn't you?
A. Of course.
Q. And you affirmed under oath that you made a few changes. Not too many; right?
A. Right. Very few. Mostly typos.
Q. Right. Nothing substantive, did you?
A. Just one line.

Q. Ok. So let's play your deposition, sir.

Mr. Panish: and by the way, the deposition was taken on January 17th, 20
Ms. Stebbins: I'm just going to briefly object, your honor. This exhibit 713 is one of those
exhibits that has not been previously identified, and plaintiffs did not identify it. Again, I
don't have an issue
Mr. Panish: it's attached to the deposition of the changes. I wasn't planning on using it until
he didn't remember what he did.
Judge: ok. Overruled.
Q. Ok. Now, your deposition was taken on January 17th, 2013; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then you signed under penalty of perjury on February 28th; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So about six weeks later; right?
A. Correct.
Mr. Panish: ok. Let's play the deposition.
(a video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
Q. "did you read the Jackson / AEG live contract in January of 2009?
A. "no.
Q. "never read that one?
A. "no. I read a summary of it, but I didn't read the whole contract."
Q. Who prepared the summary you reviewed; sir?
A. Would have been Kathy Jorrie.
Q. Ok. When was that comprised for you, sir?
A. Prior to execution.

Q. Ok. So she where is the summary?

A. Where is the summary?
Q. Yeah.
A. Probably in my files. I don't know.
Q. Well, did you review it to refresh your recollection to testify?
A. No.
Q. Now, sir, you would agree that it was tom barrack from colony capital, is the real reason you
had Michael Jackson ; correct?
A. No.
Q. Ok. Exhibit 8111. June 22nd, 2009, e-mail. Show that to defense. We have to give them a
copy first. You can look at that if you like. Would you like a copy also, sir?
A. Yes, please.
Q. Be happy to.
A. Thank you.
Q. You can read it in the meantime, if you can. Is that big enough for you?
A. Ok.
Q. Ok. But you'll get a copy, so just to kind of speed it up. Ok. I'm handing you exhibit 8111, an
e-mail chain. The top e-mail, June 22nd, 2009 see that before, sir?
A. Would you let me read it, please?
Q. Sure.
A. Ok. Yes.
Q. Ok. Well, let's look at the second from the top e-mail. Is that an e-mail that you wrote; sir?
A. That is correct.
Q. Ok. Can you read for us first of all, you agree that Mr. Anschutz is a close friend of tom
barrack; right?
A. Yeah. You asked me that already. I don't know about friends, they were business associates.

Q. Ok. Why don't you read what you wrote, sir?

A. Ok. In response to a request for tickets to one of Michael Jackson 's shows just trying not to
take it out of context. I want to give it context.
Q. Sir, could you please
A. "it would probably be tacky to not comp him since he is the real reason we have MJ tell
him we have comp'd seats and offer him a suite at some hard cost charge. Phil a will be there,
and they are close friends."
Q. Ok. You're referring to Mr. Barrack, aren't you, sir?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Ok. And you said, "Mr. Barrack is the real reason we have MJ " did you say that, sir?
A. Yeah, I did. In context.
Q. And did you say him and Phil are close friends?
A. I did.
Q. And is "Phil a" Mr. Anschutz?
A. Yes.
Q. The goal for the 02 was to go after a handful of worldwide superstars and convince them to do
residence there; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Michael Jackson was at the top of that list?
A. Well, let me just say one thing; ok? The 02 is not just an arena for residencies. We have plenty
of one-off shows there.
Q. Ok. So let's play what you said in interview 85-c, a video clip of an interview of the witness.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm going to object, your honor. Again, this is not on their exhibit list.
Judge: the video is not on the exhibit list?
Mr. Panish: it's impeachment.
Ms. Stebbins: the issue, your honor, is it's if it's a new document

Mr. Panish: it's from the movie that's already in evidence.

Judge: which movie?
Mr. Panish: the movie that they've shown numerous times with Mr. Gongaware. And I
think it's the "this is it." I think it's the last exhibit number.
Mr. Putnam, what's the number?
Mr. Putnam: I don't know.
Mr. Panish: he kept saying it yesterday; the This Is It movie that he kept saying, this
whole movie is in evidence. I am now marking a clip from the movie that they have been
showing throughout the trial.
Judge: ok. Overruled.
Mr. Putnam: I couldn't know that by saying, "85-c."
Ms. Stebbins: there is no 85 on their exhibit list.
Mr. Panish: I'm marking it specifically as a clip from the movie. The entire exhibit was put
into evidence by the defendants in this case.
Judge: ok. You just need to identify it adequately. So it's a clip of the This Is It movie,
which is otherwise in evidence?
Mr. Panish: yes.
Judge: all right. You may play it.
(a video clip was played.)
Mr. Panish: all right. That's good.
Q. That's you; right? You made that statement?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Ok. Now, you knew that Michael Jackson was interested in making films; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And part of the negotiations for the tour agreement was including a film development
agreement?

A. Yes.
Q. I want to show you exhibit defense exhibit 12,246. It's a development agreement for films.
Is there any question in your mind Mr. Jackson didn't want to make films?
A. Didn't want to make films?
Q. Right.
A. No. He very much wanted to make films.
Q. Did you think he would be good at it?
A. I think "thriller" 3d would have been a winner. I'm not sure what other products he had in
mind.
Q. You thought he was one of the most creative people you ever met; right?
A. In the music business.
Q. And that he "thriller" 3d, you said "a winner." you mean a smash, a hit?
A. In that terminology, yes.
Q. I mean, in the music business, you kind of say blew it out; right? He'd blow it out?
A. For the jury's sake, a commercial success, yes.
Q. It means you'd make money; right? That's a commercial success, you'd make money; right?
A. Funny way to say it, but, yeah.
Q. Well, a commercial success doesn't mean that you're helping the environment.
A. No, no, no. And we're not a not-for-profit. I'll give you that.
Q. You'll give me that, a commercial success, meaning making money?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's what you're in the business of doing, making money; right?
A. That is correct.

Q. Ok. And no question in your mind "thriller" 3d would be a commercial success and make
money?
A. "thriller" live action 3d, yes.
Q. All right. He's looking for that. Let's let me not waste time and move on. When you're ready,
just let me know I'm only going to ask you two questions.
A. Yes.
Q. Is this the feature film development agreement that you entered into, you, AEG live, concerts
west and Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. And you signed it?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Jackson signed it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew he was interested in making films?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Yes? Ok. Thank you. Now, sir, you knew that Mr. Jackson had been on tours before; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you knew that he was on the "Dangerous" tour; right?
A. Well, I knew he was on tour, yes.
Q. Did you know about the "dangerous" tour? Had you ever heard of that before?
A. I never saw him on that tour, but I knew about the tour.
Q. Ok. My question is: had you ever heard of it?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. If the question is unclear, let me know; ok?
A. I know.

Q. And, sir, did you learn if Mr. Jackson went into substance rehabilitation, and that tour ended
early?
A. No.
Q. You never heard that?
A. I don't remember hearing it.
Q. Ok. And when's the first time you heard that?
A. Just now.
Q. Just now? So as of, from you started working, trying to develop this with Mr. Jackson , in
2007?
A. When Ramone Bain and Peter Lopez first approached us, yes.
Q. I'll ask you again, sir.
A. Not a "yes" or "no" answer.
Q. You started working on this in 2007?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And from 2007 until today, June 5th, 2013, you've never heard that Mr. Jackson went into
Rehabilitation after or at any time prior to me just telling you that; right?
A. No.
Q. Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And nobody ever sent you any articles that said that; right?
A. Oh, no. I received articles after 2007. After the first meeting, I received articles.
Q. Well, sir, I thought you just told me that the first time you ever heard that Mr. Jackson went
into substance-abuse rehabilitation was right now?
A. I don't remember it being that he went into rehab. I don't remember that he went into rehab.
Q. So is it you don't remember, or you just heard it today for the first time?

A. I don't remember.
Q. Ok. That's your answer?
A. That's my answer.
Q. Thank you. And did you know that Mr. Gongaware was involved in the "dangerous" tour?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was his role in that tour, sir?
A. I'm not sure what his title was, because that was prior to him joining AEG live. My guess is I
shouldn't guess.
Q. If you don't know
A. I don't know what his title was.
Q. Fair enough. And you've never said Mr. Gongaware has worked there for how many years
where you've been his boss?
A. He and John Meglen sold their company no. I'm going to give you the date. I believe they
sold Their Company, concerts west, to AEG in 1999 or 2000.
Q. So the
A. It was prior to me getting to the company.
Q. Ok. When did you come to the company?
A. I believe 2001.
Q. From 2001 until today, approximately 12 years you've been with the company. Is that a fair
statement?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Gongaware, you've always been his boss?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've never discussed the "Dangerous" tour with Mr. Gongaware in those 12 years;
correct?
A. No.

Q. And you've never asked Mr. Gongaware, how was Michael on the tour? What problems did
he have? What are his idiosyncrasies? Nothing like that?
A. No.
Q. And you did receive an e-mail from Mr. Gongaware where he said that AEG live should get
the tour because they're familiar with Mr. Jackson 's problems and idiosyncrasies, didn't you, sir?
A. Probably.
Q. Well, did you ask Mr. Gongaware what Mr. Jackson 's problems were when you received the
e-mail?
A. I assumed that Mr. Gongaware meant his prior work with Mr. Jackson , plus I had been
involved with Mr. Jackson .
Q. Sir
Mr. Panish: could I ask, your honor, that the question be read back, and the witness answer
the
Question that was asked?
Judge: yes. Listen to the question, and answer the question that was asked.
Mr. Phillips: ok.
Judge: go ahead.
(the requested question was read back.)
Mr. Phillips: no.
Q. And you never asked Mr. Gongaware about any problems Mr. Jackson had had
Before; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, you're aware that Dr. Finkelstein was also involved in the "Dangerous" tour; correct?
A. No.
Q. Ok. Do you know who Dr. Finkelstein is?
A. Yes. He gave me a flu shot once.

Q. So I guess the answer is "yes"?

A. Yes.
Q. And do you know that him and Mr. Gongaware have been friends for over 35 years?
A. I knew they were friends. I had no idea how long.
Q. Did you know whether they were good friends or not?
A. They seemed like friends.
Q. Well, you're not friends with Dr. Finkelstein; correct?
A. No. Not really.
Q. That's correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And, sir, were you aware that Dr. Mr. Gongaware was trying to retain Dr. Finkelstein for the
This Is It tour?
A. No.
Ms. Stebbins: objection. Misstates the evidence.
Judge: overruled.
Mr. Phillips: no.
Q. "no"?
A. No.
Q. And as far as you know, there's been no communication from anyone from AEG live and Dr.
Finkelstein in the five years before Michael Jackson died; correct?
A. Restate the question.
Q. Sure. As far as you know, there were no communications between Dr. Finkelstein and anyone
from AEG live for five years before Michael Jackson died?
A. Dr. Finkelstein the answer is yes, there was some interaction.
Q. There was?

A. There was some interaction between my company and Dr. Finkelstein.

Q. In the five years?
A. Correct.
Q. And tell me the interaction that occurred in the five years before Michael Jackson 's death,
which would take us, then, to 2004, June, to June 2009. Tell us about the interaction.
A. The only interaction I'm aware of is that Dr. Finkelstein and his wife, who I believe is also a
nurse, were giving flu shots at a concert in Anaheim. I'm not sure what the date, what the year
was. And I remember getting a flu shot. So obviously someone communicated with him, because
he was at the arena, the Honda center.
Q. Did you ok. Did you finish your answer?
A. Yeah. At the Honda center.
Q. Anything else you want to add?
A. No.
Q. Anything else, other than the flu shot? Any other communication of any sort in the five years
before Dr. Finkelstein excuse me. Other than your flu shot or flu shots of others strike that.
Were you aware, was he brought there by AEG live, Dr. Finkelstein?
A. Well, I assume he was, because he was in the building, so somebody had to let him in the
building.
Q. Ok. So the answer would be "yes"?
A. Yes.
Q. And other than and you don't know when that was?
A. No.
Q. Could have been somewhere in that five years? Anywhere in there? A. Probably.
Q. Probably. And in that five years, other than the flu shot job, are you aware of any
communications whatsoever from anyone at AEG live and Dr. Finkelstein?
A. No.
Q. Now, in December 2008, you were sent an article by Richard Nanula, including information
about Mr. Jackson 's drug abuse; correct?

A. Yes.
Mr. Panish: ok. Your honor, I'd like to play page 347, line 11, to 343, line 7, of the witness.
Judge: is this the deposition?
Mr. Panish: yes, it is. I said that wrong, so let me say that again. 341/7 to 343/9.
Ms. Stebbins: 341/7? That's the middle of
Mr. Panish: 341/7. Do I have the wrong one? Let me look first of all, I'd like to show the
witness exhibit 45. I think it's line 4. 3 or 4. I can't read my own writing I'm going to
specifically but you can take your time, if you want.
Q. I'd like to put that up while you're reading it. This is an e-mail to you; right, Mr. Phillips?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. Ok. You received this e-mail; correct?
A. That is correct.
Mr. Panish: all right. Let's play the deposition. We just gave you the transcript.
Ms. Stebbins: so you're doing all of that?
Mr. Panish: yes.
Ms. Stebbins: just for the record, can we get the start-and-stop lines?
Mr. Panish: 340, line 7, to 343, line 7.
Ms. Stebbins: 9.
Mr. Panish: 9. Can't even read my own writing. 9. Looks like a 7. Ok. Counsel?
Mr. Putnam: uh-huh.
Mr. Panish: ok. Go ahead.
(a video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
Q. "exhibit 68 seems to be Mr. Nanula forwarding you an article in the Sunday Independent from
December 7, 2008. Do you see that?

A. "I see it. I don't remember reading it.

Q. "there's a on the page that ends -6562, there's a statement: 'Jackson 's productivity could
very well be suffering due to his alleged relationship with alcohol and prescription medication.'
"do you see that?
A. "yeah. I see the paragraph. "ok. Somebody wrote that anyway; right? "obviously. I'm reading
it.
Q. "yeah. And you read it back at the time in 2008, didn't you?
A. "I don't remember reading this article at all. "ok. You wouldn't "and I wouldn't have put much
credence in anything in the English
Press."
Objection: sustained
(a video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
Q. "exhibit 68 seems to be from Mr. Nanula forwarding you an article in the Sunday Independent
From December 7, 2008. "do you see that? "I see it. I don't remember reading it. "ok. There's a
on the page that ends -6562, there's a statement: 'Jackson 's productivity could very well be
suffering due to his alleged relationship with alcohol and prescription medication.' "do you
see that?
A. "yeah. I see the paragraph. "ok. Somebody wrote that anyway; right? "obviously. I'm reading
it.
Q. "yeah. And you read it back at the time in 2008, didn't you?
A. "I don't remember reading this article at all.
Q. "ok. You wouldn't
A. "and I wouldn't have put much credence in anything in the English press.
Q. "ok. When you know who Diane Dimond is, don't you?
A. "I have no idea who she is.
Q. "at least what she had quoted as saying is he's had problems with alcohol and painkillers for
years. "you saw that; right?

A. "no.
Q. "you see it now?

A. "I see it now. I didn't see it then.
Q. "you didn't see it then?
A. "no.
Q. "ok. You shook your head
A. No.
Q. "no."
Q. Let me show you exhibit 47, sir. By the way, you didn't change that when you
Read your deposition, did you, sir?
A. No.
Q. There's exhibit 47 let me know when you're ready.
A. I'm ready.
Q. Ok. Thank you. Now, exhibit 45 was an e-mail sent to you on 12-8-08 by Mr. Nanula from
colony capital; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And then exhibit no. 47, you see that, is an e-mail by you to Tohme; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you we'll put it up there this is forwarding the e-mail from Mr. Nanula; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Ok. And tell us what you wrote when you forwarded the article from Mr. Nanula that included
references to drug and alcohol abuse.
A. I wrote: "doc, have you read these stories? This reporter did a lot of
Research. Rp."

Mr. Panish: and then I'd like to play your deposition. Page 343, line 15, to 344, line 17; and
then 346, line 13, to 347, line 14. And I've provided a
allowed-out copy to counsel. And when counsel is ready, please let me know.
Mr. Putnam: ok.
Mr. Panish: ok. Thank you. Let's please play that. Let's see what you said there.
(a video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
Q. "would you agree with me, Mr. Phillips, that you took this article, and you forwarded it to Dr.
Tohme about a week later?
A. "it's very possible.
Q. "well, it's more than possible, isn't it? That's what it says; right?
A. "that there's an e-mail forward from me to him, yes. "right. And this was produced
By AEG live in this litigation. You see that down at the bottom?
A. "yes.
Q. "and your e-mail to Dr. Tohme forwarding this story was: "'doc, have you read these stories?
This reporter did a lot of research'; right?
A. "yes.
Q. "that's what you wrote?
A. "correct.
Q. "is it fair to say you probably read this article in order for you to write that?
A. "or I was told that by Richard Nanula I don't remember.
Q. "ok. Did you talk to Mr. Nanula about the assertion in this article that Mr. Jackson had
problems with painkillers?
A. "I don't remember.
Q. "what did you do after you read the article in exhibit 69 to determine whether Jackson had
problems with alcohol or painkillers?
A. "I don't remember reading it.
Q. "well, you agree, though, that you said to Dr. Tohme, 'have you seen these articles? This

Reporter did a lot of research.' right? Correct?

A. "correct. It was a long article. There was a lot of paragraphs, so
Q. "all right. Did you ask ever ask Dr. Tohme what about this claim that Jackson has problems
with alcohol and painkillers?
A. "no.
Q. "did you do anything between the time you received this article on December 8, 2008, to the
time of Mr. Jackson 's death, to determine whether he had a problem with alcohol or painkillers?
A. "no.
Q. "or any other kind of narcotics or prescription drugs or just prescription drugs. We'll leave
It at that.
A. "no. I was strictly his promoter.
Q. "ok. You never asked Dr. Murray about that?
A. "no."
Q. Now, sir, there was a press conference for the This Is It tour in March of 2009; is that
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you were there; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And was it March 5th, to your recollection?
A. It was March 5th.
Q. And you and Mr. Jackson were late to that press conference; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Was it a miracle that the press conference even happened?
A. Pretty much, yes.
Q. Is that a "yes"?

A. That's a "yes."
Q. Were you late because Mr. Jackson was drunk and despondent?
A. By the time I saw him, he had a hangover from drinking. At one point he must have been
drunk, yes.
Q. Sir, my question was: were you late because Mr. Jackson was drunk and despondent?
A. Correct.
Q. So that's a "yes"?
A. That's a "yes."
Q. Ok. I'd like to show you exhibit 100 when you're ready, let me know.
A. Ok.
Q. Ok. Let's show that. now, sir, this was one of those e-mails you were shown for preparing for
your testimony?
A. Correct.
Q. Just like the other article I showed you, you were shown those to prepare for your testimony;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Those were the two articles you read?
A. Yes.
Q. No other articles you read; right?
A. There was one more.
Q. What was the other one?
A. There was an English newspaper. I forget the article.
Q. If I get to it, you can just let me know; ok?
A. Ok.

Q. Is this an e-mail you wrote on March 8th, 2009?

A. Yes.
Q. And is Mr. Morey a former manager of Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Can you tell us the yellowed-out lines that I wrote? Could you read those that I've yellowed
out? Could you please read those for me, sir, what you wrote to Mr. Morey on March 8, 2009?
A. "MJ was not speaking to Dr. Tohme because of the stupid auction set up that MJ never
agreed to until the day they left for London on the Gulfstream I chartered."
Q. "Gulfstream," is that an airplane?
A. It's a jet.
Q. Is a jet an airplane?
A. Of course.
Q. So gulfstream is an airplane that you chartered to take people to London?
A. Correct.
Q. Who went on the plane?
A. To the best of my knowledge, it was Michael Jackson , his three children; hair and makeup
artist whose name I can't remember, and Dr. Tohme.
Q. Ok.
A. And Alberto Alvarez, security.
Q. And you didn't travel with them?
A. No.
Q. Did you travel on your own?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have your own Gulfstream?
A. No.

Q. You went commercial?

A. Yeah. I'm just a working guy.
Q. Mr. Anschutz didn't lend you one of his planes to go?
A. No.
Mr. Putnam: objection.
Judge: I'm sorry. Didn't lend him?
Q. Didn't lend you one of the planes he uses?
Mr. Putnam: objection. Relevance, your honor.
Judge: sustained.
Q. Ok. So could you read the next line that you wrote, sir?
A. Yes. "the fact that the press conference even happened is a miracle, let alone getting
through the unprecedented demands for shows that has caught us off guard."
Q. Ok. Was that true, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. It was true that the press conference happening was a miracle; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, sir, I'd like to play your deposition, page 59, 19 to 25; 60, line 20, to 62, line 12; and
62/15 to 63/25, regarding this issue. While they're reviewing that, I want to ask you a couple
questions. Did you yell at Mr. Jackson ?
A. Did I yell or did I shout?
Q. Did you yell? Y-e-l-l.
A. I raised my voice.
Q. Did you yell at Mr. Jackson ?
A. I raised my voice.

Q. So the answer is you didn't yell at Mr. Jackson ?

A. I think when I wrote that, I was exaggerating.
Q. Sir, do you know what it means to yell at someone?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you yell at Mr. Jackson ? "yes" or "no"?
A. In the two and a half hours that this all took place, ok, it's very hard if you take it out of
Context, the answer is not going to make any sense, anyway.
Q. Sir
Mr. Panish: your honor, could I ask that he answer the question?
Judge: yes.
Mr. Panish: it's a very straightforward question.
Judge: just "yes" or "no."
Q. Did you yell at Mr. Jackson ? "yes" or "no"?
A. I raised my voice.
Q. So the answer is no, you did not yell; correct?
A. Matter of interpretation.
Q. Did you scream at Mr. Jackson ?
A. I raised my voice.
Q. So you did not scream at Mr. Jackson ; correct?
A. At the time, I felt like I may have screamed. I just raised my voice.
Q. Sir, did you or did you not scream at Mr. Jackson at this time? "yes" or "no" or "I don't
remember"?
A. I can't answer the question that way.
Mr. Panish: your honor, I think it's a pretty straightforward question.

Judge: I can't force him to answer it.

Mr. Panish: it's "yes," "no" or "I don't remember."
Judge: the answer is what the answer is.
Q. So you can't answer the question; right?
A. No more than I just did. I raised my voice because it was a very tense situation towards the
end of getting him ready to leave, and we were two hours late.
Q. So you will not admit that you yelled at Mr. Jackson or screamed at him; correct, sir?
A. I will admit that I raised my voice, and I got agitated towards the end of this period of time
because we were so late for this press conference.
Q. Ok. Let's play the deposition and see what you said at your deposition about this.
(a video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
Q. "all right. Mr. Phillips, exhibit 6 is a an e-mail that was produced by AEG live in this
litigation, first from Mr. Morey to you, and then you responding to Mr. Morey. "you see that?
A. "I'm reading it right now.
Q. "my question is simply, is this an e-mail you got from Mr. Morey and an e-mail you responded
to Mr. Morey? "based on the headers,
A. Yes.
Q. "ok. And it was produced by AEG live. You see the production stamp at the bottom; right?
"right.
A. "ok. All right. There's
Q. Some language up at the top that talks about that you you wrote the top of this; correct?
A. "that is correct.
Q. "and you wrote: 'MJ was not speaking to Dr. Tohme because of this stupid auction he set up
that MJ never agreed to'? "correct.
Q. "is that what you were just telling us about, the Julien's auction?
Q. "that is correct. "and then there's language about the day they left for London. Is that the
press conference for the 'this is it' tour?

A. "that is correct.
Q. "then you wrote: 'the fact that the press conference even happened is a miracle.' do you see
that? "I see that. "what did you mean by that?
A. "to the best of my knowledge, at the time, the fact that Dr. Tohme and Michael were not in
constant contact with each other, and we were dealing with Dr. Tohme on the logistics of the
press conference and that that's what I meant. I had to rely on Dr. Tohme to bring Michael and
Michael for Michael 's participation in the press conference, and if they were estranged, I had
no one to deal with.
Q. "was there a problem, Mr. Phillips, with Mr. Jackson 's appearance at the press conference
That day?
A. "are you talking about when he went to the microphone and was photographed?
Q. "well, I was thinking, actually, really, hours before going to the microphone and being
photographed. "Did something unusual happen?
A. "we were late.
Q. "why?
A. "to the best of my knowledge, based on statements made to me by Dr. Tohme, Michael was
scared of the reception he was going to get because he hadn't been in the public eye in so long
and that he might be hung over. "hung over?
Q. "hung over. "that's what Dr. Tohme told you?
A. "correct.
Q. "but you didn't see that yourself?
A. "at one point during the afternoon, I went into the room as Michael was getting prepared,
and he seemed a bit 'hung over' would be I mean, I'm not an expert and I don't drink, so I've
never been hung over, so it's just an observation.
Q. "well, my hunch is, in 30 years in the music industry, you may have seen somebody hung over
at some point. No?
A. "Actually, no.
Q. "How about drunk people?
A. "Yes.

Q. "Ok. Was Mr. Jackson drunk?

A. "No. Not to the best of my knowledge, no.
Q. "Ok. Was he despondent?
A. "No."
Q. Now, sir, you testified there that Mr. Jackson was not drunk and he was not despondent;
correct?
A. There? Yes.
Mr. Panish: let's play page 64, lines 1 to 16, and 64, lines 22 to 21. Before we do that,
though, I
Want to show you exhibit 93, sir. It's an e-mail when you're ready, let me know, sir.
A. I'm ready.
Q. Is that one of the 30 e-mails you reviewed in the over 30 hours of preparation you did with
your lawyers?
A. That is correct.
Q. Ok. Let's put that is that an e-mail that you're involved in writing some of the e-mails, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. Ok. Let's look at the bottom. This is March 5th. Is that the day of the press conference?
A. That's correct.
Q. Ok. Why don't you read for us by the way, who are you writing this e-mail to?
A. To Tim Leiweke.
Q. And refresh my recollection. Who is Tim Leiweke?
A. Tim Leiweke was the CEO of AEG
Q. And is that one of the people who you directly reported to?
A. Yes.

Q. And would you say that he's in charge of all the AEG operations here?
A. Correct.
Q. At that time?
A. At that time, yes.
Q. And he's no longer with the company, and you don't know why he left, and you never talked
to him about it; right?
A. About why he left?
Q. Yeah.
A. No.
Q. You don't know whether Mr. Anschutz fired him?
Ms. Stebbins: objection. Relevance.
Judge: overruled.
Mr. Phillips: I do not know why he left. We were told, all of us at the company, to not
engage in discussions about that. But Tim is still a very good friend of mine, and he has a
very big job now.
Q. Who told you not to discuss that?
A. Uhm, Dan. And just, it's not something for us to engage in speculation about, the other
executives.
Q. Sir, you said you were specifically instructed not to discuss why Mr. Leiweke left the
company; correct?
A. With Tim, correct, yes. Nor did Tim discuss it with us.
Q. Sir, I'm only asking about you just told us that you were specifically instructed not to discuss
why Mr. Leiweke left the company with anyone; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And was that an e-mail that you received?
A. No, no.

Q. Was that a meeting?

A. It was a conversation.
Q. Who was present when the conversation occurred?
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, I'm going to object to relevance, this entire line of questions.
Mr. Panish: goes to Mr. Leiweke's bias as a witness and credibility.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, this has nothing to do with this. The case is about the negligent
hiring of Dr. Conrad Murray in 2009, not why Mr. Leiweke left the company in 2013. And
Mr. Phillips already testified he doesn't know why Mr. Leiweke left the company.
Judge: overruled.
Q. You remember the question after those objections?
A. How could I forget? Ok. They Tim and Phil Anschutz had a disagreement, I'm sure, ok, and
whatever it was, they mutually decided that it was time for Tim to move on. That's all we know.
Q. That wasn't even my question, sir.
A. No. I'm trying to answer your question.
Q. Ok. So he was fired?
A. You can say he was fired; ok? That doesn't make it true. Because you say a question, that
doesn't make it the truth.
Q. I'm asking you.
A. I don't know.
Q. The big boss, Mr. Leiweke, had a meeting with the biggest boss of AEG , Mr. Anschutz, and
after that meeting, Mr. Leiweke was no longer with the company. Is that a fair statement?
Ms. Stebbins: objection. Lacks foundation.
Mr. Phillips: I don't
Judge: overruled.
Mr. Phillips: I don't know. I don't know why Tim left.
Q. I didn't ask

A. I don't know.
Q. All I asked you was: they had a meeting, Anschutz and Leiweke. After the meeting, Leiweke
was no longer with the company?
A. I don't know if it was a meeting, phone call, an interaction over three months. I have no idea
why he left the company.
Q. Didn't you just tell us there was a meeting?
A. Then I made in the course of testimony, I may have made a mistake. There probably was a
meeting. There were probably conversations. This is a 20-year relationship. I do not know why
he left the company.
Q. All I was asking initially, my question was: who told you from the company not to discuss
Mr. Leiweke's leaving, and the reasons for it?
A. Dan Beckerman and Mr. Leiweke.
Q. Ok. So Dan Beckerman who is now the CEO
A. Correct.
Q. And you were in a meeting with him and Mr. Leiweke when that was said?
A. No.
Q. Who was in the meeting when that was told to you?
A. Just Mr. Beckerman and myself.
Q. Ok. And then Mr. Leiweke, when were you in a meeting with him when he told you, don't say
anything, who was in the meeting?
A. No. It was a phone conversation with Tim and I, and he said to me, he said, "you know, there's
no reason for us to discuss why I left."
Q. Ok. Fair enough. Now we got that answered. Thank you.
A. Yes. You're welcome.
Q. Ok. Read to us we just heard you say that Mr. Jackson wasn't drunk and wasn't despondent
in your deposition. Why don't you read for us what you wrote to Mr. Leiweke, the CEO on
March 5th, 5:49 p.m. Or is that a.m.?
A. 5:49 must be p.m. I'm not sure.

Q. Well, you know what? Actually, it's possible what is the time difference in London?
A. Eight hours.
Q. So if it's eight hours from this time, what time would it be in London?
A. What time is it now? Almost 10:30.
Q. I don't mean right now. I mean at 5:49 a.m. In the morning.
A. So you add eight hours, it would probably be 4:49 in the afternoon.
Q. Does that make sense now, that you probably sent it from London, Leiweke received it at
5:49, and you were sending it at 4:49 in the afternoon?
A. It makes sense.
Q. Seems consistent with your recollection of when this was occurring?
A. Makes sense based on the time stamp on the e-mail.
Q. Why don't you read us what you sent to Mr. Leiweke at 5:49 p.m. London time.
A. I said: "MJ is locked in his room drunk and despondent. Tohme and I are trying to sober
him up and get him to the press conference with his hairdresser/makeup artist."
Q. Now, sir, just one second. Let's go up to the next e-mail that Mr. Leiweke wrote you back. He
wrote back, looks like, two hours later; right? Approximately?
A. Yeah. 7:29.
Q. Yeah.
A. "Are you kidding me?"
Q. He wanted to know if you were pulling a gag on him; right?
A. No. I think he just felt that it was incredulous that this was happening at this time.
Q. Ok. What did you write back? Let's see what you wrote back to him in response. And you
wrote this now at 7:33. So if we advance it eight hours help me out. What time would it be?
You're a numbers guy.
A. I'm the numbers man? Ok. It would make it 5:33 in the afternoon.

Q. London time?
A. Correct.
Q. Ok. So read to us what you told your boss, Mr. Leiweke.
A. "I screamed at him so loud the walls are shaking. Tohme and I have dressed him, and they
Are finishing his hair, and then we are rushing to the 02. This is the scariest thing I have ever
seen. He's an emotionally paralyzed mess, filled with self-loathing and doubt now that it is
show time. He is scared to death. Right now I just want to get through this press conference."
Mr. Panish: all right. Now, I want to play what you testified at your deposition. Page 64, 1
to
16, and page 64, 22, to 65 64/22 to 65/21. Did I already play that? No, I didn't. Is that ok?
Mr. Putnam: (no response.)
Mr. Panish: ok. You can play that.
(A video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
Q. "did you yell at him?
A. "at some time during the afternoon, I you know, the word 'yell' might be a little bit extreme,
And I might have used it to describe it. But I at one point it was taking so long, we were waiting
for him to get ready, and there was one item of clothing that he was waiting for, and time was
ticking away, and I got a little louder and a little more affirmative than I had been in dealing
with him up till then.
Q. "Did you yell at him?
A. "I raised my voice. I was a little firm.
Q. "you were a little firm?
A. "yeah.
Q. "ok. Was there anything you saw that afternoon before getting to the press conference that
scared you in terms of Mr. Jackson 's condition, behavior?
A. "yeah. Well, you know, the word 'scary,' in looking back at it, probably is an overreaction to
what was going on that afternoon, the fact that we were late for the press conference. "and, yeah,
when you have a press conference to announce the comeback of the greatest star in the world,
and he's running two hours late, and he appeared to be somewhat hung over, yeah, I would say
I'm not sure 'scary' looking back, if I'd use the word scary or really more concerned.

Q. "and did you conclude, based on what you saw, that Mr. Jackson was an emotionally
paralyzed mess?
A. "that was a description that I used to describe the what I encountered, what my observation
was.
Q. "you know what I'm talking about; right?
A. "yes.
Q. "you send an e-mail to Mr. Leiweke?
A. "yes."
Q. So you said in the e-mail he was drunk; you said in the deposition he was hung over; right?
And now you've told us he was drunk; correct? Is that right, sir?
A. It's not a "yes" or "no" answer.
Q. All right. Did you testify in..
A. Do you want the truth, or do you want what I testified?
Q. You want to ask me questions? I just played your testimony, sir, didn't I?
A. Correct.
Q. Ok. Is that the truth, what you said in your testimony?
A. I was responding to what Dr. Tohme had told me, and I was relaying that message.
Q. Sir, were you telling the truth in the deposition that I just played?
A. To the best of my recollection, I was, yes, sir.
Q. So is it so the truth, were you telling the truth? "yes" or "no"?
A. Yes.
Q. Ok. Were you telling the truth in this e-mail?
A. The e-mail?

Q. "MJ is drunk and despondent." were you telling the truth to Mr. Leiweke when you wrote
that? "yes" or "no"?
A. I was relaying what Dr. Tohme had told me.
Q. Do you say that Dr. Tohme told you that MJ is locked in his room drunk and despondent?
A. No, because these things everything was happening so fast, it's all merged together in one e-
mail.
Q. I see. I see. So, really, if you knew lawyers were going to ask you about this, you wouldn't
have wrote it this way; right? You would have written it differently?
A. No. At the time I didn't have any time. I wrote it as fast as I could write it.
Q. All right, sir. And you must have yelled pretty loud or screamed pretty loud to make walls
shake?
A. It's an expression, exaggeration.
Q. Do you have a tendency to exaggerate, sir?
A. I knew you were going to ask that. No. No, I don't.
Q. This is the only time you've ever exaggerated anything relating to Michael Jackson ?
A. No, no. Mr. Panish, in our lives, I'm sure we all exaggerate at times; ok?
Q. I asked you, sir.
A. Yes.
Q. You want to keep talking?
A. No. Well, actually, Mr. Panish, if you would allow me to, I would like to explain the
circumstances of what was going on that afternoon.
Q. I'm getting to that right now.
A. Ok.
Q. Let's go to your deposition and see what you told us.
Mr. Panish: page 66, line 15, to 67, line 11; and 67, line 14, to 69/5.

Q. And once again, sir, were you telling the truth in your deposition?
A. To the best of my ability at the time of my recollection, yes.
Q. Your recollection has changed when you're telling the truth here; is that right, sir?
A. No. I've had more time to prepare for this testimony.
Q. Ok.
A. And refreshed my recollection.
Q. Ok. And the lawyers helped refresh your recollection in those 30 hours of meetings before
coming to testify here; right?
A. The lawyers did not put words in my mouth; ok? It's my recollection, not theirs.
Q. Well, sir, you signed this deposition six weeks after you took it and didn't change anything
and had all the exhibits attached to the deposition, didn't you?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you take that seriously?
A. Yeah. And it took a lot of time to remember exactly what happened four years ago.
Q. So you remembered it since February 28th in the last
A. More, yes.
Q. In the last three and a half months, you've now remember everything; right? In a different
light
A. I haven't remembered everything. There's still a lot of things that are foggy. It was four years
ago.
Q. Sir
A. And as you tear these e-mails apart and parse them apart to try to create the reality that you
think happened, I was the one who lived it; ok?
Q. Well, let's see what you testified under oath, sir.
A. Ok. Go ahead.
Q. Ok. Let's see what you testified under oath and then swore again was the truth; ok?

A. Please.
Q. Let's see it.
(a video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
Q. "would you agree with me, sir, that you described Mr. Jackson in
Exhibit 7 as an 'emotionally paralyzed mess'?
A. "that is correct.
Q. "and you said, 'this is the scariest thing I've ever seen'?
A. "that's what I wrote at the time.
Q. "ok. And Mr. Leiweke is I'm sorry. I'm mispronouncing names. Is it Leiweke?
A. "Leiweke, yes.
Q. "he was your boss?
A. "he was my direct report.
Q. "direct report. All right. And you sent this to him for a reason, I take it?
A. "because to keep him informed about what's going on.
Q. "you wanted to be honest with your boss, your direct report, as to what was happening in
London?
A. "I wanted him to understand what was going on at the time.
Q. "all right. Direct report was your word, was it not?
A. "correct.
Q. "and so you sent him this e-mail?
A. "that is correct.
Q. "and you started off at on march 5th at the bottom, what did you write to Mr. Leiweke?
A. "what it says here.
Q. "could you read it?

A. "'MJ is locked in his room drunk and despondent. Tohme and I are trying to sober him up
and get him to the press conference with his hairdresser/makeup artist.' "and then Mr. Leiweke
responds, 'are you kidding me?'; correct?
A. "yes.
Q. "and then you responded with the longer entry there?
A. "correct.
Q. "and you wrote, 'I screamed at him so loud the walls are shaking'? "yes.
A. That was an exaggeration. But I did raise my voice.
Q. "all right. And was it also an exaggeration when you wrote 'this is the scariest thing I've ever
Seen'? "
A. For the size and the scope of what was going on, it was one of the most concerning things I
don't know, looking back at it, if I would have said it was the scariest, you know, having been in
this business as long as I have.
Q. "ok. Was that an exaggeration?
A. "a little bit.
Q. "and was it an exaggeration also that 'he is an emotionally paralyzed mess'?
A. "that's what I that's what I felt at the time."
Q. Sir, did you tell anyone that Michael Jackson is a self-loathing, emotionally
Paralyzed mess?
A. Yes.
Q. Ok. I don't know if I asked you did I say "anyone else" or did I say "anyone"?
A. I don't know.
Q. Let me I'm sorry. I apologize. Did you tell anyone else besides your boss, Mr. Leiweke or, as
you call him, your direct report that Mr. Jackson is a self-loathing, paralyzed mess?

A. I probably had a conversation with Paul Gongaware who was at the 02 at the time, where I
may have used similar terms. I had an associate of mine who was downstairs getting the
transportation ready. I may have said that to him. I'm you know, there were probably a few
people in my company that I may have said that to.
Q. Ok. First of all, Mr. Loeffler, is he a friend of yours?
A. Loeffler.
Q. Is he a friend of yours?
A. As is Mr. Gongaware, yes.
Q. Does he go over to your home?
A. Does he go over to my home?
Q. Yes.
A. He has been to my home, yes.
Q. I mean, he was at your home does he live there at your home?
A. No. He lived in utah with his wife and kids.
Q. Well, he was at your home the day that Michael Jackson died, wasn't he?
A. No. We were he was in my car. We were at the dry cleaners. We were on the way to the
staples
Center.
Q. So let's play, sir, more of your testimony that you gave. Before I do that, I want to show you
exhibit 2787. And once again, when you write e-mails, you try to be truthful; right? Is that right,
sir?
A. To the best of my ability at the time, yes, I do.
Q. So ok. You want to look at that, sir is this another one of the e-mails you saw preparing for
your testimony?
A. No.
Q. Ok. You remember being asked about this at your deposition?
A. I don't remember being asked about this in the deposition.

Q. Ok. Go ahead. Let me know when you're ready.

A. Yes. Actually, there are there is a part of this e-mail chain that I did see prior to coming here.
Q. Ok. Thank you for pointing that out. Now, sir, Mr. Loeffler, does he work with you
Ever?
A. At the time, Mr. Loeffler was my partner in a management company, an artist management
company, and he was managing Lionel Richie at the time.
Q. You still work together?
A. David and I? Yes.
Q. And you still have your management company?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is your management company called?
A. Phillips digital media
Q. So in addition to being the CEO of AEG live, you have another job where you run a
management company; is that right?
A. It's a small management company, yes.
Q. And is Mr. Loeffler I kept saying Loeffler. I know you're going to correct me. Mr. Loeffler; is
that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is Mr. Loeffler a partner with you in that business?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Did Mr. Loeffler ever work on the This Is It tour?
A. He was with me in London during the press conference because he was producing he and I
were both producing Lionel Richies European tour. So he was there with me then, so he was
helping me out at the press conference. And then I asked him to do me a favor when we were in
rehearsals the last two days, June 23rd and 24th, at the staples center.
Q. Now, could you answer my question, please?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was Mr. Loeffler working for AEG live in conjunction with the This Is It tour?
A. No.
Q. So he wasn't being paid?
A. No.
Q. And the favor was, you stationed him in Mr. Jackson 's dressing room for the last two days;
Correct?
A. I stationed him?
Q. Yeah. You had him stand with Mr. Jackson ?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Loeffler to go into Mr. Jackson 's dressing room the last two days?
A. No.
Q. Ok. And he wasn't in Mr. Jackson 's dressing room, was he?
A. No, he was. I was I asked him to help
Q. There's no question pending, sir.
A. No, I know. I know. But you want to color something that isn't the
Mr. Panish: excuse me, your honor. He's just talking. Can I ask that he
He court: do you
Mr. Panish: there's no question pending. He answered the question.
Mr. Phillips: your honor, it's very hard for me to answer his questions, because the word is
"loaded questions." unless I can give him the full answer and explain the context
Judge: give the full answer.
A. Ok. Mr. Loeffler, ok, was not stationed, the way you put it, in Mr. Jackson 's dressing room.
Mr. Ortega, our director, asked me if I could get somebody to just ask Michael if he needed tea,
water, food, things like that, because he had a staff of four bodyguards and an assistant, and no
one seemed to care about what his needs were. So the person who was going to do that on the

tour, Brigitte Segal, was in London scouting out houses for him for the 02 run. She was going to
be back that week. I asked Dave to do that for me so because Michael knew him, it was not a
strange face; ok? And believe me, ok, he was not a spy. There was nothing in that dressing room
I needed to know.
Q. Anything else you wanted to say, sir?
A. No. I'm glad I got a chance to say that. Thank you.
Q. You're welcome. Brigitte Segal, was she overlooking housing for Conrad Murray, also?
A. No. I don't know if Dr. Murray was going to stay in a hotel, he was going to stay at Michael 's
house. I had no idea what arrangements were being made for him.
Q. Wait a minute. You don't know that Brigitte Segal had been finding houses for Dr. Murray,
sir? You never heard that?
A. No.
Q. You never heard that she showed Dr. Murray properties where he could live in London?
A. I know you think I am an omnipotent being in this job
Q. Excuse me. Just answer
Judge: he's answering.
Q. Would you answer
A. Brigitte Segal, her job, as I understood it, because she reported to Paul Gongaware, was to
find
Michael living accommodations. If she was also looking for Dr. Murray, ok,
It would have been added to the instructions of Michael or Dr. Murray to find a house for him,
too. I don't know. I wasn't involved in that.
Q. So the question was: do you know if Ms. Segal was also trying to secure living
accommodations for Dr. Murray? And the answer is, you don't know?
A. Correct.
Q. If you don't understand the question, sir, I'll be happy to repeat it; ok?
A. I know. You've offered that a number of times, yes.
Q. I have.

A. Yes.
Q. And could you at least try, please, to answer the question? That was a straightforward
question,
Wasn't it?
A. It was as straightforward as you get, yes.
Q. Well, let's see if we can refresh your recollection, sir. Here's exhibit 342-1 seen that before,
sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's an e-mail, sir, that you, as you say, not the omnipotent person, received,
Did you not, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. And, sir and who is that e-mail from?
A. It was from Brigitte Segal to Paul Gongaware and myself.
Q. Ok. And Brigitte Segal is who we just talked about; right?
A. Uh-huh. Correct.
Q. And this was on June 24th, the day before Michael Jackson died; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And what was Ms. Segal doing what was she advising of in this e-mail; sir? What's the
subject matter?
A. The subject matter is "this is what I have secured so far, the Chislehurst house"
Q. Subject matter says "subject," sir.
A. "overview, Chislehurst accommodations," which I assume was the house she was looking at
for Mr. Jackson .
Q. Ok. Let's look at whose houses she was getting, sir, at this time; ok? You see that, sir? Tell us,
whose houses she was securing?
A. Karen Faye, Alberto Alvarez, Dr. Conrad Murray, Michael Amir, Rosalyn Mohammed,
Michael bush, frank & Miko.

Q. Ok. That's enough.

A. Ok.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection that Brigitte Segal was securing a 4-bedroom home for is
that 2,000 pounds? Is that what that means, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. What does pcm mean?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Maybe for the month. Price
A. I'm not sure on this.
Q. I don't know, either. But it certainly seems there that you were advised that Ms. Segal was
securing a place for Dr. Murray; correct, sir?
A. Yes, Mr. Panish. This is one of 9,000 e-mails during the time, yes.
Q. So you counted them up? There's 9,000?
A. I was told there was 9,000.
Q. Who told you?
A. My attorneys.
Q. Your attorneys told you 9,000?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever look to check that?
A. Did I count the e-mails? No.
Q. Right. So you don't know how many e-mails there were, do you, sir?
A. No. But I trust my attorneys.
Q. Trust them to do what's in your best interest as far as preparing you to testify under oath;
right?
A. Preparing me

Q. Yeah.
A. to testify? Yes.
Q. Mr. Panish: sir, you know what it means to sober someone up?
A. To sober someone up? I assume if they're drunk, that means to get them sober.
Q. When they're drunk, you try to sober them up; right?
A. Correct. That's what I'm assuming it means, yes.
Q. Well, sir, you wouldn't try to sober up someone who had a hangover, would you?
A. I don't know. I don't drink.
Q. Ok. Well, let's see what you say about that. Let's look at 93-1 again, in the bottom. And you
told me that Dr. Tohme told you all this information about Mr. Jackson being drunk; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But you and Dr. Tohme were trying to sober up Mr. Jackson , weren't you?
A. What I told you, and what I testified to prior, is that this e-mail, it's kind of compressed, the
two events, that makes it sound like it's all at the same time.
Q. Ok. Could you answer my question, please? Were you and Dr. Tohme trying to sober up Mr.
Jackson ? "yes" or "no"?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you write that in this e-mail? "Tohme and I are trying to sober him up," meaning Michael
Jackson ?
A. And I used the word "sober."
Mr. Panish: excuse me, your honor. Can he answer the question, please?
Judge: ok. Listen to the question, and answer. Your attorney will have an opportunity to
ask you questions to clarify something. I mean, if I don't if you have an explanation, I want
you to give an explanation.
Mr. Phillips: I understand.

Judge: focus on the question.

A. I understand. The answer is "yes." the answer is "yes."
Q. Now, let's go back to exhibit no. 270 no. 2780, and let's start at page 3,
Which I showed you earlier. You have it there in front of you. And this is with your colleague, I'll
call him, Loeffler. Did I get that right?
A. David Loeffler, yes.
Q. Mr. Loeffler?
A. My colleague.
Q. Is it fair to call him your colleague?
A. And friend, yes.
Q. And you're telling Mr. Loeffler that you and Dr. Tohme threw Michael Jackson in a cold
shower; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then, go to the page before that so you and Mr. Loeffler were communicating back and
forth, weren't you?
A. By e-mail.
Q. Right. By e-mail. By Blackberry, actually. You had a Blackberry?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then he tells you, you're crazy; right?
A. I'm just looking for that in the e-mail.
Q. Yeah, sure. Just look at the screen. Maybe that will be better for you.
He says, "your crazy." look like he sent it from a Blackberry, too.
A. Yes.
Q. And then you two minutes later, approximately, three minutes, later you correct him; right?
While you're dealing with Mr. Jackson , who is drunk and despondent, you're correcting Mr.
Loeffler on his grammar; right?

A. It's a habit I tend to have.

Q. But while all this was going on in a short period of time, and everything was jammed
together, and you're so busy, you're correcting your friend on his grammar; correct?
A. That's the role I play with most of my executives as a mentor, yes.
Q. Ok. Then by the way, did you hit Mr. Jackson ?
A. No.
Q. Ok. Well, let's see what you said at the top of that page at 712/17. Why don't you read what
you said, sir?
A. This is in response to getting the transportation set up. I said: "you guys are going to follow
Us behind a 12-passenger bus back there. I just slapped him and screamed at him louder than
I did with Arthur Cassell."
Q. Who is Arthur Cassell?
A. Arthur Cassell is one of the most annoying human beings on the face of the earth. He
committed Lionel Richie to a date at a police department fundraiser for the LAPD., and Lionel
never had agreed to do it, and I had to get him out of it. So on the phone with Mr. Cassell, I did
actually scream loud enough to shake the wall, the glass walls of my office.
Q. But this time you screamed louder at Mr. Jackson , didn't you?
A. Well, that's what I wrote, but that's not what I did.
Q. And you slapped Mr. Jackson , didn't you?
A. You ever see a coach with a football team getting ready to leave; ok? And I created
Q. Sir, could you please answer my question? Did you write you just slapped Mr. Jackson ?
A. You want a "yes" or "no" that doesn't tell the story of what actually happened? What do you
want? Ok. When we were I know what you want.
Mr. Panish: your honor, could I ask him I just asked him
Q. Did you write
A. I'm going to answer.
Q. did you write that you just slapped Mr. Jackson ? "yes" or "no"?

A. No.
Q. Ok. You didn't write "I just slapped him"?
A. Yeah, I wrote that.
Q. Ok.
A. But you want to know what happened?
Q. Sir, can you answer one at a time?
A. Ok. Yes, you're right. You're right.
Q. Ok. But that's an exaggeration again; right?
A. No. I slapped him.
Q. But you slapped him, oh, like a nice slap, like, oh, come on, let's go, and then you screamed
Louder than you did at Arthur Cassell; is that correct?
A. Here's what I did; ok? This was a very tense situation. And, you know, frankly, I created the
tension in that room; ok?
Q. Sir, I
A. Because I was so nerve-racked, ok, the time slipping away, and his career slipping away; ok?
Mr. Panish: your honor, could he answer the question? And the question was
A. as to the slap. I'm going to get to it.
Judge: you know what? Only one person can talk at a time, so probably best if you can
listen to the question and answer what is asked.
Q. Ok. Your lawyer, who you trust, will get to ask you whatever you want; ok?
A. Ok.
Q. Can you try to answer mine now? It's my turn. I get to ask questions on behalf of my client;
ok?
A. Be my guest.
Q. When you wrote "I just slapped him," was that an exaggeration?

A. Nah. I slapped him on the butt.

Q. Ok. And when you screamed louder than you did at Arthur Cassell, and that time the windows
shook in your office, was that another exaggeration?
A. At the time it was an exaggeration, yes.
Q. So that's another exaggeration?
A. It was an exaggeration.
Q. Ok. Fair enough. Now, sir, is it true that the demand for sales of the tickets was
underestimated for Mr. Jackson ?
A. Correct. That is correct.
Q. Now, did you ever tell anyone that the prospect of even getting him on the stage was scary?
A. Yes.
Q. Ok. Let's look at exhibit 112. Who is Bill Silva?
A. Bill Silva is actually is my
Q. I didn't say anything.
A. Is the, you looked Bill Silva
Q. I can't look at you? You're looking at your lawyer. I can't look at you?
A. I can't even see my lawyer. You're all I can see Bill Silva is the head of Live Nation southern
California when I was dealing with him here, he was managing Jason Mraz, the artist.
Q. All I want to know is, who is Bill Silva? We know he was your competitor at Live Nation.
Fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Who you called an 800-pound gorilla?
A. Not Bill. Bill wasn't an 800-gorilla
Q. The company?
A. At the time of this e-mail, he was managing an artist, a fabulous artist named Jason Mraz.

Q. That's all I asked you. This is an e-mail that you wrote; right?
A. Correct.
Q. To Bill?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Who you've told us who he is; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then you said, "we could have done 200-plus shows based on the demand"; right?
A. Yeah. Correct.
Q. And then you said, "we left 525k." does that mean thousands?
A. People in the cue.
Q. Did you hear my question, sir?
A. I thought you asked me to read it.
Q. No. I asked you does 525k mean 525,000?
A. Yes.
Q. So what that means is, there were 525,000 more people that wanted to buy tickets; is that a
fair statement?
A. That's what I was told, yes.
Q. Well, that's what you wrote to your friend; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then you talked about major stars, like Coldplay, Akon, Blackeyed Peas, et cetera, want
to support. Does that mean be involved?
A. Open up for Mr. Jackson .
Q. Open up, like be opening act?
A. Support act.

Q. And you underestimated the demand. "now I have to get him on stage. Scary!" did I read
that right?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. Were you exaggerating again there?
A. No.
Q. You were being truthful and honest at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever tell anyone that you scraped Mr. Jackson off the floor in a hotel room in
London before the press conference?
A. It never happened.
Q. So that's a "no"; right?
A. That's a big "no."
Q. And you remember that, no question?
A. Only because someone testified to that, yes.
Q. Ok. How do you know someone testified to that, sir?
A. Because I'm a defendant in this action, so at the end of the day, because I have a job during
the day, I'm filled in on what was said during the day.
Q. So do you read the transcripts every day?
A. No.
Q. Ok. Well, how do you learn that somebody you just volunteered that somebody testified that
you said you scraped him off the floor, and now you say you specifically remember you didn't
do it, and somebody told you that. Who told you that?
A. One of my lawyers at the end of the day, when they gave me a summary of what happened in
court that day.
Q. Did they give you a written summary of the testimony?
A. No.

Q. And who was that that told you that?

A. Could have been either Laura Robinson or Tad Allan.
Q. Who?
A. Laura Robinson or Tad Allan.
Q. Sir, after the press conference, AEG live's C.O.O., Tom Miserendino, had some observations
about Mr. Jackson 's performance, did he not?
A. Tom Miserendino.
Q. Can you pronounce it again?
A. Tom Miserendino.
Q. He still works for your company; right?
A. He's the chief operating officer.
Q. What does your chief operating officer do?
A. Everything I don't want to do. He's the
Q. Did you tell him that?
A. We talk about it all the time. He tells me that. He's the chief operating officer. He deals
With legal, accounting, the real estate, that division. That type of stuff.
Q. Ok.
A. What he doesn't deal with is the artists.
Q. Sir, when I just asked you about that statement
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Whether you scraped someone off the floor, you say now that you specifically recall that you
never said that; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Ok. Let's see what you said a few months ago in your deposition at page 74, lines 10 to 21.
It's coming.

A. I'm patient.
(a video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
Q. "did you ever tell anybody that you scraped Mr. Jackson off the
Floor in his hotel room in London before the press conference?
A. "not to my knowledge.
Q. "I'm sorry. When you say 'not to my knowledge,' is it your testimony that you don't remember
ever saying that, or is it your testimony that you did not say that?
A. "I don't remember ever saying that.
Q. "ok. So it may have happened, it may not have happened. You're not sure?
A. "I'm not sure."
Q. Now, sir, did you change that testimony February 28th when you signed under penalty of
perjury that that was true?
A. Yes.
Q. You did?
A. Are you saying did I sign the deposition?
Q. No. Did you change what we just read, when you read the deposition six weeks later, and
signed under penalty of perjury that everything was true?
A. No.
Q. We were talking about Mr strike that. We were talking about the C.O.O right?
A. Tom Miserendino.
Q. Easy for you to say. I want to show you exhibit 102. And, sir, what I've done for you can I
talk to you in private about one thing? I think that counsel won't object.
Judge: talk to who?
Mr. Panish: the witness.
Judge: you don't want to do that.

Mr. Panish: well, all right. I'll let them go. Because I don't know if they've advised him of
the ruling of the court.
Judge: well, let's do this: we can have a conference ourselves, and then we can talk about
what we're going to do next; ok?
Mr. Panish: I don't even think we need the reporter. It will be fast believe me, I don't think
It's going to be an issue.
Ms. Stebbins: I actually concur with Mr. Panish. I think it will be fast. Obviously we never
know when we go back there whether it will be fast.
Judge: if we need the reporter, we'll bring her back.
Mr. Panish: I'm just trying to be very careful.
Judge: ok. I appreciate that. We all appreciate that.
Sidebar- sealed
Q. Ok. Do you have exhibit 102, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you involved in that e-mail chain?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And this is from the C.O.O correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And he writes to you we can look at it. And part of it has been redacted. It's unrelated to this;
right?
A. Correct.
Q. Ok. So you've been this is him writing to you; right?
A. That is correct.
Q. "Radio silent" means no communication?
A. Correct.

Q. And this is four days later?

A. Correct.
Q. You still in London now?
A. Yes.
Q. But you communicate by Blackberry; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say: "the press conference didn't overwhelm me." you don't say that, he says that.
A. That's correct.
Q. "I hear there are 450,000 registrants. So I guess the press conference didn't really matter."
so he was not really impressed with the press conference; right?
A. No.
Q. Is that
A. That's correct.
Q. Ok. So then you write back: "I don't understand. 335 media outlets, front page in every
Major newspaper in the world, and the equivalent of over a million tickets sold in
registrations." so in other words, to buy the tickets you had to first register; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then once you get in what they call the cue, depending on where you are in the cue, you
start selling tickets?
A. Correct.
Q. It's like first come, first serve?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you limited everybody to four tickets?
A. That is correct.
Q. And then it says: "we're going to sell 50 shows out at the 02. What was
Overwhelming"

A. Underwhelming.
Q. "I'm going to sleep?" "what was underwhelming? I'm going
To sleep." that's what you wrote; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you write: "MJ will blow through 50 shows. The next battle is getting
Him to play those shows"; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you were concerned within five days of the press conference as to whether you could get
Mr. Jackson even to play the shows; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, was Mr. Miserendino writing that he didn't feel that Michael could do 30 shows?
A. I don't see that here. Where is that?
Q. Well, let me play your deposition. 255/22 to 256/11. And 256/24 to 257
A. I actually see it.
Q. Let's just play it so we're clear on what you really said; ok?
A. Ok. Yes.
Mr. Panish: 256/24 to 257/25. Got it?
Ms. Stebbins: just give us one second.
Mr. Panish: ok. Let me know when you're ready. You know what? Let's expedite it.
Q. Will you now agree with me?
A. On?
Q. On my question. You remember it?
A. That he said he wasn't sure he could do 30 shows?
Q. Yes.

A. I read it in the e-mail.

Q. Is that what your C.O.O. Said?
A. Would you like me to read it?
Judge: just answer the question.
A. yes.
Q. And that was his opinion, based on watching the press conference; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Ok. Let's look now that saved time. Thank you. Exhibit 178
A. Reading
Q. Ready?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is this another one you saw in preparing for your testimony?
A. That is correct.
Q. You were asked about this in your deposition?
A. I don't remember if I was or not.
Q. Ok. Well, we'll see if we can refresh your recollection. Ok. This is on February 27th, 2009. So
this is about a month after the agreement between Mr. Jackson and AEG live were entered into;
Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And this why don't you this is what you wrote to Mr. Gongaware; right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Ok. And this is about logo issues; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And whose logo's going to be on, AEG , AEG live, AEG live plus concerts west, and such;
correct?

A. Correct.
Q. Ok. So tell me what read the yellow part that you wrote to Mr. Gongaware.
A. "I would worry less about a bullshit logo that has no relevance to the consumer and a lot
more about the fact that MJ has not spoken to Dr. Tohme in a week and may not get on that
plane Monday night, nor has he approved the marketing collateral. Where the fuck"
Q. We've all heard it before.
A. I know. I don't use it as often as you think I do.
Q. Well, I only know what you use in the e-mail, sir.
A. "where the fuck is your head on this?"
Q. So you don't care about the logo. You have less concern about the marketing issue than
Michael going to the press conference. Fair statement?
A. Fair statement.
Q. And you're trying to tell Mr. Gongaware, what the heck are you worried about this for when
we have a bigger problem on our hands?
A. Pretty much, yes.
Q. Ok. And then you wrote, "actually" can you read that?
A. "actually, now that you've opened up this discussion, it is time to get rid of all these brands,
including Moore Entertainment. If they are 100percent wholly-owned, and focus on AEG "
doesn't make sense, but "wholly owned and focus on AEG , especially if we're going to
compete with live nation entertainment about the ticketing space. I am much more concerned
that MJ may try to breach our agreement and leave us with a mess on our hands. RP."
Q. That's you?
A. Yes.
Q. You wrote that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you admit that you were competing with live nation entertainment for ticketing space?
A. Correct.

Q. And you admit that you were concerned at this time before the press conference about
Michael breaching the contract and leaving you with a mess on your hands?
A. Yeah. Let me correct one thing. We hadn't started to compete with live nation in the ticketing
space. We were going to.
Q. Right.
A. Ok.
Q. Ok. Fine. And then but you were concerned here before you even had the press conference
about Michael not speaking to Tohme, about Michael even showing up, about Michael
breaching the agreement and leaving you and "you" or "us" is AEG live; right?
A. Correct.
Q. So you were worried about the mess that you would have to deal with?
A. Correct.
Q. And you were worried about your reputation as a promoter, weren't you?
A. I wasn't worried about that, no.
Q. You weren't worried about the reputation of the company, saying, "we're going to do this big
event" and not getting it to go? That didn't affect you, had no play on this?
A. Not really, because of Michael 's credibility.
Q. So you didn't think you weren't worried about a big mess on your hands if he didn't come
through?
A. I was worried that we would have a mess, his career would be over. There were a lot of things
I was worried about.
Q. You didn't say you're worried about a mess for Michael Jackson , did you?
A. No, because he was dealing with Mr. Gongaware on another issue.
Q. You were talking to Mr. Gongaware about you us being AEG live?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, at this point, no production costs had been expended; correct?

A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Gongaware, he responded to you about when you wrote this to him, didn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. And let's see what he responded.
Mr. Panish: you know, actually, before that, I want to play page 75, line excuse me. 72, line
5, to 72, line 22; and 72/25 to 73/20, taken out of the deposition. Ok?
(a video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
Q. "when Mr. Gongaware replied to your e-mail here, exhibit 8, up at the top of the page; right?
A. "uh-huh.
Q. "now, this is before the London press conference; right? "this is February 27th,
A. Yes.
Q. "and the London press conference is March 5?
A. "right.
Q. "Mr. Gongaware wrote: "'meanwhile, our play here is to not back off. We are holding all
the risk. If MJ won't approve it, we go without his approval.' "you see that?
A. "correct.
Q. "did you agree with that tactic?
A. "yeah. I'm not 100 percent sure what he was referring to.
Q. "what do you believe he was referring to?
A. "that Michael was trying to back out of the press according to this, that he wasn't going to
get on the plane and go to London to do the press conference "and Paul " that had been
scheduled. "and Paul recommended going ahead with the press conference and putting the
tickets on sale, because 'once we go on sale, which we have the right to do,
Q. He is locked. He has no choice. He has to do it.' "right?
A. "that's what he wrote.

Q. "ok. Did you agree with that?

A "no.
Q. "did you ever respond to this e-mail saying that you disagreed with it?
A. "not that I remember."
Q. So Mr. Gongaware told you that: "if Michael doesn't approve it, we go without his
approval." correct?
A. The marketing collateral, yes.
Q. And he said: "once we go on sale, which we have the right to do, he is locked." that means
Mr. Jackson is locked in; right?
A. That's what he's saying, yes.
Q. "and he has no choice. He has to do it." right?
A. That's what Mr. Gongaware was saying, yes.
Q. And you never corrected those statements; correct?
A. I did to verbally to him, but not in e-mail.
Q. I'm sorry, sir?
A. I did verbally to him but not in e-mail.
Q. You didn't respond to this and say, "don't say that. We don't want to pressure Mr. Jackson . He
is not locked in." you didn't say that, did you?
A. That's not my conversation with him.
Q. Did you write back to Mr. Gongaware and say, "Paul, hey, that's not right. We don't want to
push him into this. We don't need it's not correct that there's no time left to push this back"? Did
you tell him that?
A. Well, we could have canceled the press conference we didn't have to do a press conference.
Q. Did you write back and say, "Paul, we can back off now. It won't be a disaster for us. There's
time left to push this back"? Did you write back and say that?

A. No. I had a conversation with him.

Q. And when was that conversation?
A. After I received this e-mail.
Q. Right away?
A. I don't remember if it was right away or not.
Q. Where were you?
A. In my office.
Q. Where was Mr. Gongaware?
A. I think he was in Utah. I'm not sure at the time. He could have been in L.A.
Q. And did he respond to you in writing about
A. He could, actually, have been in London. I'm not 100 percent sure where he was.
Q. So he was either in L.A., London or Utah. Anywhere else he could have been?
A. When you talk to someone on the phone, it doesn't tell you where they are. It could have been
New York. It could have been a million places. I don't know where he was.
Q. Now, sir, on what is the AEG board?
A. The AEG board?
Q. Yeah.
A. That's the that would be the board of the company. Of the parent company.
Q. Ok. Can we go back to that? Did you ever tell Mr. Gongaware that Michael 's not lazy?
A. Did I ever tell him he's not lazy? I wouldn't know. I mean it wouldn't have been an opinion or
an observation I would have made.
Q. So then, of course, he responds to you, telling you that his head is all into this, using the same
kind of language that you used; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then he says that "I let go of CW." what is CW?

A. That's concerts west. That was the company he sold, he and John Meglen sold.
Q. In other words, what happened was, he and Meglen sold their company to AEG live, but
they still got to keep the name; right?
A. Yes. We still use it.
Q. And so he wanted to have it say, AEG live and Concerts West promotes Michael Jackson ?
A. Or it could have been just Concerts West.
Q. But he wanted to get some play for his name?
A. Yeah. He had pride in it, yes.
Q. All right. Well, he wanted he had a deal where he got some percent, didn't he?
A. He would have gotten it whether the concerts west name was used or not.
Q. He wanted to use the name, didn't he, sir?
A. Because he had pride, yes.
Q. What percent was he getting?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, you
A. At this point in time they were discretionary bonuses, and that's how his contract was.
Q. Ok. So you've read his contract?
A. Years ago.
Q. How many years ago?
A. 12.
Q. Did you read his new contract he just got?
A. No.
Q. You didn't have to sign his new contract

A. No.
Q. as his I have to finish the question. You're the cCEO. Of the company; right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And who's Mr. Gongaware's new contract with?
A. It's with probably AEG live.
Q. Ok. And so you don't review the contracts of the people?
A. John well, actually, Tom Miserendino does that. But John and Paul, their deals were directly
with AEG , ok, and I believe Dan Beckerman did their new deals.
Q. So the new contracts that Mr. Meglen and Mr. Gongaware have are directly with the parent
company AEG ?
A. They were negotiated by the corporate office, but they are AEG live contracts.
Q. But, in other words, since you didn't negotiate them, you didn't have to sign off on them?
A. Correct.
Q. They were signed off by AEG , Mr. Beckerman who would be the CEO.?
A. Correct.
Ms. Stebbins: objection. Calls for speculation as to who signed them.
Judge: if he knows. Overruled.
A. well, you know what? I'm not sure, because Tom Miserendino may have signed them on
behalf of AEG live.
Q. Well, sir, they were negotiated after Mr. Leiweke left the company; right?
A. No. I believe they were done before he left.
Q. So you know when they were done, then?
A. No. I don't know the exact time, but I believe it was before.
Q. Ok. Now but they were in for discretionary bonuses, depending on how this 02 event went
with Michael Jackson ; correct?

A. Correct.
Q. And who was it that decided what kind of bonus Mr. Gongaware was going to get?
A. Tim Leiweke.
Q. That's the CEO of AEG ?
A. Correct.
Q. So he was involved in the whole process, because you were writing to him to keep him
updated as to what was happening; right?
Ms. Stebbins: objection. Vague as to "involved."
Judge: overruled.
A. I'm not sure what you mean by "involved." I reported to Tim Leiweke. He was the president
and CEO of AEG, the parent company, so I kept him apprised of everything that was going on.
Q. Ok.
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. So then Mr. Gongaware tells you: "our play here is to not back
Off. We are holding all the risk." who is "we"?
A. I assume he's talking about AEG live.
Q. Ok. "if MJ won't approve it, we go without his approval." right?
A. Correct.
Q. Now we're talking about the marketing materials; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then he goes on to say: "we let mickey know just what this will cost him in terms of
making money." did I read that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you refer to Mr. Jackson as Mickey, sir, in e-mails?
A. No. I don't have Pauls relationship with him.

Q. So I guess the answer would be "no," then, wouldn't it?

A. "no."
Q. And then he says: "and we go with or without him in London" meaning the press
conference; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if he didn't show up to the press conference, how much money was it going to cost him?
A. If he didn't show up to the press conference, and we just put the tickets on sale with just a
press
Release instead of a press conference, who knows? I can't speculate on what would happen.
Q. Well, when you were going to let mickey know just what it was going to cost him in terms of
making money, what was Mr. Gongaware saying? How much was it going to cost him?
Ms. Stebbins: objection. Calls for speculation.
A. I don't know. You'll have to ask Paul.
Judge: sustained.
Mr. Panish: I asked him, and he didn't know, either.
Ms. Stebbins: objection.
Judge: yes. Sustained. Comment is stricken.
Q. So you never spoke to Mr. Gongaware when he said: "we let Mickey know just what this will
cost him in terms of him making money." is that correct, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q.. Ok. "we cannot be forced into stopping this." is this the press conference he's referring to?
Ms. Stebbins: objection. Calls for speculation.
Judge: overruled.
A. yeah. I'm not sure if he's talking about the press conference or the entire This Is It project.
Q. Well, you were already concerned that Michael was going to breach the contract and not do
the concerts; right?

A. I was I had a concern, yes.

Q. Well, you wrote that in an e-mail?
A. Yeah. The answer is "yes."
Q. Were you exaggerating you have to let me finish
A. Ok.
Q. and I'll let you finish. I promise.
A. Ok.
Q. Were you exaggerating when you wrote that you were afraid that Michael was going to
breach the contract?
A. No. I wasn't exaggerating.
Q. That was the truth, then?
A. That's how I felt.
Q. Was that the truth?
Judge: you know, I don't know how the court reporter is taking this down, with the two of
you talking over each other. You have to let each other finish. I don't know where you want
to start.
Mr. Panish: I'll start.
Q. Was that the truth when you wrote that e-mail?
A. Yes.
Lunch break
Continued Direct Examination by Mr. Panish:
Q. At the break, we were talking about the board of directors.
Do you remember that, sir?

A. Yes.
Q. OK. In 2009, were you on the board of directors?
A. Of AEG or AEG Live?
Q. Do they both have boards of directors?
A. No. AEG Live has an executive committee, AEG Has a board.
Q. I asked about board of directors. Does AEG Live have a board of directors, sir?
A. No, not that I'm aware of.
Q. Well, you're the CEO Wouldn't you expect yourself to know whether the company that you're
the CEO Of has a board of directors?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. So you wouldn't expect the CEO Of a company to know whether there's a board of directors
for the company; is that right?
A. No, because sometimes for tax structure, stuff like that, there could be a board that doesn't
meet regularly, and I wouldn't but there is a board at AEG
Q. So what do you mean you mean the CEO they would set up a secret board of directors, and
the CEO wouldnt know about it? Is that what you mean?
A. No, Mr. Panish, that's not what I mean.
Q. Well, sir, you've been a CEO for 12 years?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Would you expect a CEO to know whether the company that they're in charge of has a board
of directors?
A. We have an executive committee, I chair that.
Q. Sir, I was talking about board of directors. wouldn't you expect the CEO Of a company like
yourself to know whether the company that they're in charge of has a board of directors?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. OK. Fair enough. But AEG has a board of directors,

Doesn't it, sir?

A. Yes, it does.
Q. And you're not the CEO Of that company, are you?
A. No.
Q. But you know they have one there, right?
A. Because they have one, correct.
Q. And, sir, in 2009, who was on the board of directors?
A. Of AEG Corporate?
Q. Well, you just told us you don't know whether AEG Live has a board of directors.
A. No, no. I'm not 100 percent sure who are actual board members because Phil Anschutz ,
Christian Anschutz but I'm not sure Tim Leiweke May have been on the board, Dan
Beckerman May have been on the board, ted Fikre, but I'm not sure who else. Steve Cohen.
Q. OK. So who do you know for sure? Christian Anschutz and Philip Anschutz ?
A. Well, Christian was, I wasn't I'm not sure if he still is. Steve Cohen and Phil Anschutz , ted
Fikre, Dan Beckerman are the people I know who are actual boards members.
Q. So is that for sure, they're on there?
A. That's for sure.
Q. They were on there. Fikre, that's the general counsel, lawyer, for the company?
A. Correct.
Q. OK. And Christian Anschutz , that's Mr. Anschutz 's son?
A. Correct.
Q. And he's involved in the company, also?
A. He hasn't he hasn't been in the last couple of years. That's why I'm not sure.
Q. OK. Well, he was in 2009, though?
A. Probably, yes.

Q. Now, in 2009, in May 2009 do you remember that period of time, sir?
A. May 2009, yes.
Q. And were you called to come to the board of directors for a meeting?
A. Most likely sometime in May, yeah.
Q. Let me back up. In May of 2009, the production costs for This Is It had exceeded the 7.5
million that had been initially listed in the contract, correct?
A. Correct, correct.
Q. And what were the production costs as of May end of May 2009?
A. To the best of my
Ms. Stebbins: objection; lacks foundation.
Judge: overruled.
A. to the best of my recollection, they could have been somewhere between 15 to 23 million. I
wasn't sure of what time you mean.
Q. That's a pretty big swing, 15 to 23. That's $8 million, right?
A. Correct.
Q. OK. Let's focus in on the end of May, the last week of May.
A. OK. .
Q. Would it be closer to the 18 million than the I'm sorry. You said 15 to 23?
A. 15 to 23.
Q. So it would have been closer to the 23 or the 15?
A. Probably the later, the 20 the 23.
Q. So your best recollection, only asking for an estimate, would it be your best estimate as of the
end of May 2009 that production costs for the This Is It tour would be closer to 23 million than
15 million.

A. Most likely.
Q. That's your best estimate?
A. Best estimate.
Q. And that wouldn't account artist advances, would it?
A. No.
Q. And artist advances as of that time would be how much?
A. To the best of my recollection, there was the 5 million in the beginning; 3 million to pay the
settlement in Bahrain, 2 million for Michaels expenses and the rental of the house. I'm not sure
what else what else might have been given to him.
Q. Well, that seems to me between 10 and 12 million.
Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates the answer.
Judge: overruled.
A. no.
Q. OK. Well, let's add it up. 5 million, 3 million
A. no, no. The 3 was included in the 5.
Q. OK. Well, I didn't you didn't say that. But OK. So 5 million, 2 million.
A. no, no. 2 is in the 5.
Q. list out for us, then, sir
A. OK. In the beginning, when we did the deal, in January, we paid $3 million to settle the
lawsuits that Michael was having with whoever the people were from Bahrain.
Q. so we have 3 million there?
A. Yes.

Q. What was the next payment?

A. To him, $2 million for his expenses.
Q. So we have 5 million?
A. And then I believe we made a commitment of 1.2 million on the lease on the house.
Q. Right. The house at Carolwood was 100,000 a month, there was a 12-month lease signed by
AEG, correct?
A. I think we guaranteed it, we didn't sign it.
Q. Who signed the lease?
A. Either Michael or Dr. Tohme or an authorized representative.
Q. Who paid the money for the rent?
A. We advanced it as an advance to Michael.
Q. All right. So as of May, then, it had only been about five months, then, let's say, right?
A. From January to May, yeah.
Q. That's 500,000?
A. Huh?
Q. 500,000 is 100,000 times five
A. Of the 1.2, yes.
Q. five months, that's 500,000, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So help me out. How much is that so far?
A. 6. for the whole year, it would have been 6.2. For there, up to then, it would have been 5.7.
Q. OK. So let's just say 5.7, approximately. I'm not going to hold you to it exactly. So 5.7 plus
approximately 23?
A. At that point, about

Q. So now we're at 28, almost 29 million out of pocket, AEG, right?

A. Probably. Rick Webking could testify to that better than me.
Q. I just need you know, I don't need a CPA auditor
A. A range.
Q. A financial statement. Just a general estimate.
A. OK. .
Q. To your understanding, as of the end of May 2009, that figure would be about how much?
A. About 28 to 29 million.
Q. OK. Fair let's call it 28 and half, in the middle. How is that? Is that fair?
A. That's fine.
Q. Is that OK. with you?
A. It's OK. with me.
Q. So and it was estimated initially 7.5 plus 5 million, 12 million, approximately?
A. In the very beginning of the deal, yes.
Q. OK. So you were at least double what was anticipated, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the board of directors of AEG, the parent company, they keep track of the money, don't
they, that they're spending?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; vague.
A. yeah.
Judge: overruled.
A. OK. We are a self-contained company. I'm sure I don't deal with them on that, but I'm sure
they're aware of where we are with the budget.

Q. So if I understand you right, then the whole 28 million came out of AEG Live; is that right?
A. It could have. I'm not sure. You have to ask Rick Webking.
Q. Well, Rick Webking, is he the C.F.O Of AEG Live?
A. That is correct.
Q. So you don't know where the 28 million came from as the CEO?
A. No, because we hold we hold funds. I don't know if all of it came from us, part of it came
from AEG I'm not sure.
Q. Would to be fair to say that a substantial amount of money had been put into this project by
AEG, the parent company?
A. Correct.
Q. So AEG, the board of board of directors, they would call you in to discuss what was going
on with the project since they have a substantial investment in it; fair statement?
A. Fair statement.
Q. Because they might be concerned like, "why are we so much over budget?" and that's a
reasonable thing they would do, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And that happens from time to time, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And they called you in in the end of May 2009 to discuss the This Is It project; isn't that
true?
A. No; me amongst others.
Q. OK. Fair enough. Well, do you remember being called in to the meeting in May of 2009?
A. I remember being asked to join the meeting, yes.
Q. OK. Well, let's play your deposition testimony of what you testified under oath in your
deposition. OK. ?
A. OK.

Mr. Panish: and that will be page 120, 4 to 11 and 15 to 19. And just don't play it until they
say
(A video clip was played during which the following testimony was said :)
Q. Do you remember there being a board of directors meeting of AEG that you participated in in
late May 2009?
A. It's possible. I don't remember it.
Q. You don't have any recollection of participating in a Board meeting at AEG In late May
2009?
A. It's very possible. I do not remember.
Q. I'm simply asking whether you have any memory at all of being at a board of directors
meeting for AEG In late 2000 May 2009.
A. No.
Q. Now, that's what you testified under oath in January, correct, sir?
A. That I had no memory of it.
Q. Sir, is that what you testified in January?
A. Yes.
Q. And then six weeks later, you again reviewed that and signed off under penalty of perjury that
that was true, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And now you remember, correct?
A. Vaguely.
Q. OK. And when is it that you first remembered?

A. You're asking the question now. It's the first time I thought about it see, the problem is, Mr.
Panish, I wasn't called in, as you put it, to discuss just Michael Jackson. We discussed our entire
year.
Q. Sir, my question was, when did you first remember that you went to the board meeting in late
2009? Was that just now when I asked you?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you were asked that in January, you didn't remember; and when you signed it on
February 28th, you didn't remember then, either, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Well, let me show you, sir, a document that's exhibit 11359.
And when they have board meetings, do they have agendas, sir?
A. I don't I don't do the agenda, so sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
Q. OK. And do they keep minutes of board meetings, sir?
A. I'm to be honest with you, I'm not sure. It would be done at the corporate level.
Q. Have you ever been to other board of director meetings other than at AEG?
A. No.
Q. And let's this is a board meeting agenda, is it not, sir, for May 26th, 2009?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And then it says, between 1:00 and 3:00 p.m., "AEG Live" on the calendar, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And it says "budget review," right?
A. Correct.
Q. Is that AEG Live's budget that was supposed to be reviewed?
A. Correct.
Q. Michael Jackson tour?
A. Correct.

Q. Coachella event?
A. Correct.
Q. And festival business, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And it was you, Meserino and Webking that were called in, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Webking, is he the one that's the C.F.O ?
A. Yes.
Q. Meaning chief financial officer?
A. Of AEG Live.
Q. Correct. And Mr. Meserendo (sic)
A. Miserendino.
Q. is the C.O.O. Chief Operating Officer, and you're the CEO?
A. That's right.
Q. So you were there to discuss the four matters, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did you make a presentation to the board?
A. Rick prepared financials for them to review, yes.
Q. And did you look at those financials?
A. During the meeting, yes.
Q. Do you know where they are?
A. Do I know where they are?
Q. Yes.

A. I have no idea.
Q. OK. And do you know who was at the meeting?
A. I a lot of it, Ill be guessing; but I'm assuming it would be I shouldn't I shouldn't assume.
Q. I want you just if you know, that's fine, to tell me. If you don't, that's fine, also. Do you
remember who was at the meeting?
A. I remember Phil Anschutz , Tim Leiweke, Dan Beckerman, ted Fikre, Steve Cohen, Cy
Harvey and possibly Matt Anktell (phonetic), who worked in Denver. But I'm not sure who else.
Q. And Mr. Anschutz , he would attend these meetings, would he not?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. And he would ask questions, would he not?
A. Sometimes.
Q. And he's a financial he understands finances, doesn't he, sir?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; lacks foundation.
Judge: sustained.
Q. Are you a direct report to Mr. Anschutz now, sir?
A. Now?
Q. Yes.
A. To the executive committee.
Q. And is he on the executive committee?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you attend meetings with Mr. Anschutz ?
A. I went to one since Mr. Leiweke left, about six weeks ago.

Q. OK. ?
A. Twice
Q. Did you finish?
A. Yes.
Q. But before that, you would attend board meetings with Mr. Anschutz , would you not?
A. Occasionally, yes.
Q. And Mr. Anschutz , he would discuss financial matters with AEG Live, wouldn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. And your observation was he understood financial matters to be in charge of this whole
operation; wouldn't you agree with me, sir?
A. Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm going to object to relevance to this line of questioning.
Judge: overruled.
Q. so, Mr. Anschutz do you remember him questioning you about the budget and how much
money you were spending on this Michael Jackson tour?
A. Actually, Phil did not say much in that meeting. It would have been Cy Harvey.
Q. And is he from Denver?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he part of the Anschutz companies?
A. I believe he's the president of the Anschutz Corporation.
Q. In other words, the way it works is the Anschutz company is the company that owns AEG,
AEG Live, and those entities, right?

A. Again, it's hard for me to answer because I don't know what the structure that they set up for
those entities is.
Q. OK. So you don't know who owns your company?
A. It's a I don't know what the structure is of the corporate structures of the companies, but the
only thing I can answer is that we have we do have AEG Board meetings, and those people are
on the board.
Q. And they're from the Anschutz companies, correct.
A. Correct.
Q. So wouldn't that lead you to believe, reasonably, that they have ownership control, since
they're attending the board meetings?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; calls for speculation, lacks foundation.
Judge: overruled.
A. Ill repeat I just don't know what the structure is.
Q. All right. So let's see if I understand this correctly. You don't know what the structure is as to
who owns the company that you're the CEO Of; is that right?
A. Because you're asking for a yes or no answer. I can't give it to you.
Q. No. I'm asking you do you know the corporate structure of the entity that owns the company
that you're the CEO of?
A. I do not you're talking about AEG Live?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. It's AEG
Q. OK. And who owns AEG?
A. I'm not 100 percent sure where the where the shares are held. I'm just not.
Q. So you don't know?

A. No.
Q. OK. Fair enough. That's OK. to say. You just don't know, right? OK. Now, were there
minutes from those meetings, sir?
A. You asked me that, and I said I'm not sure because we wouldn't we wouldn't have been
responsible for taking them.
Q. So the answer to the question is you don't know?
A. I don't know.
Q. Sir, now, after Michael Jackson died, you made numerous statements to the media, didn't you,
sir?
A. Yeah, I did.
Q. And did you tell the truth there?
A. I always tell the truth.
Q. OK. Well, let's play for you exhibit 378, your interview with sky TV. or sky news. You know
sky news, right?
A. Yes, I do.
(a video recording was played.)
Q. sir, was that you?

A. It looks like me, yes. That was me.

Q. Is that in front of your AEG Live, is that your office?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And did you make that statement?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Now, sir, you made other statements about Dr. Murray in the days after Michael
Jackson's death before any lawsuits were filed, didn't you, sir?
A. Probably, yes.
Q. And, sir, were you aware did you see the e-mail that was sent around regarding all the
statements that you made to news about Dr. Conrad Murray?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; vague.
A. you'd have to show me the e-mail.
Judge: wait a minute. If there's an objection, you need to wait until I can rule on it. "did
you see the news reports " I missed the question.
Ms. Stebbins: the question was, "did you see the e-mail that was sent around about the
news reports?" I was confused, so I objected.
Judge: maybe I was confused, too.
Mr. Panish: OK. That's OK. I guess I was, too. So here you go, sir. This is the exhibit I
showed Mr. Trell, exhibit 406, dash, 1.
Q. Was that an exhibit that you've seen before, sir? I gave it to you already.
A. No, I don't remember I don't remember seeing this exhibit, no.

Q. OK. Is it true that you made statements in many articles saying the thing that you said to sky
TV.?
A. I said a lot of things in the sky TV. Interview. What are you referring to?
Q. Regarding the hiring of Dr. Murray.
A. At Michael Jackson's behest, yes.
Q. You told other news outlets is sky a news outlet?
A. It's a big news outlet, yes.
Q. And you told other news outlets that AEG Live hired Dr. Murray at Michael Jackson's behest,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. OK. And, sir, isn't it true, also, that AEG strike that. Do you know who Mr. Black is?
A. Yes.
Q. OK. And I know there's it's not reservoir dogs. I know there's a lot of Mr. Blacks. But do you
know Mr. Black in this case, his first name?
A. Bruce.
Q. And what type of a job does he have?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; relevance.
Judge: overruled.
A. I believe he's general counsel of the Anschutz corporation.
Q. OK. And does have you met him before, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you understand that he's like the lawyer for Mr. Anschutz ?

A. In-house, yes, probably.

Q. OK. And Mr. Black, have you talked to him about his concern about any statements you made
to the media?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; calls for privileged information.
Judge: sustained.
A. we never had
Judge: sir, "sustained" means you don't have to answer.
A. OK. Thank you. Thank you, your honor.
Mr. Panish: well, it's not, your honor, because it's in the document, so the privilege has been
waived on that issue.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, there's no waiver of privilege on this issue.
Judge: at least not the document I'm looking at.
Mr. Panish: well, if we go here
Judge: we should probably have this discussion at sidebar. Let's go to sidebar.
Sidebar
Q. do you know Mr. Roth, sir?

A. Yes.
Q. Who is he?
A. Michael Roth is the vice president of publicity for the for AEG
Q. Would that be like he's the PR. Man?
A. In-house, yes.
Q. All right. And did you discuss with Mr. Roth that you had said to many news medias that
AEG Live hired Dr. Murray?
A. Michael set up a bunch of these interviews; so, most likely, I had that conversation.
Q. OK. And did he ever send you all the articles where you said that?
A. Not that I remember receiving it from him.
Q. Would it be fair to say that your statement was consistent that AEG Live hired Dr. Murray at
the behest of Michael Jackson?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; vague as to "your statement."
Judge: overruled.
A. not each interview was different. I might have expressed it differently, but that was the gist
of what I was saying.
Q. and that was the intention of the message you were trying to get out?
A. Correct.
Q. OK. And you don't dispute that, right?
A. No, no.
Q. OK. .
A. It's called the truth.
Q. Pardon me?

A. It was the truth.

Q. Right. That's not your testimony, that's the truth, right?
A. That's cute. It's the truth.
Q. OK. And, sir, isn't it true that AEG Live facilitated contract negotiations with Conrad Murray?
A. As we did with the sound company, the light company, yes.
Q. OK. Let me ask you again, sir.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is it true that AEG Live facilitated contract negotiations with Dr. Conrad Murray, yes or no?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that under oath previously, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But you yourself you, Randy Phillips, were not involved in those negotiations?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, sir, what you did know, though the only thing you knew about Mr. Jackson and Dr.
Murray's relationship, that he had been Mr. Physician let me start over. I'm sorry. The only thing
you knew about the Jackson/Murray relationship is that Dr. Murray had served in the past as Mr.
Jackson's physician, correct?
A. That's how Michael had introduced him to me, yes.
Q. Is that a "yes," sir?
A. "yes."
Q. OK. And, for example, that's all you were told; isn't that true, sir?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you have no idea what Dr. Murray ever treated Mr. Jackson for, correct?

A. Correct.
Q. And you knew that Dr. Murray had treated Michael Jackson's children when they were sick,
correct?
A. I was told that by Michael, yes.
Q. And nobody ever told you before Mr. Jackson passed away what, if anything, Dr. Murray had
treated him for, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, sir, AEG Live productions, what is that?
A. I'm assuming it's the entity that we contracted for
Q. Sir, in your deposition, you were asked what is AEG Live productions. Do you remember
those questions, sir?
A. Yes; and I didn't know.
Q. And as the CEO Of the company, AEG Live, you didn't even know, nor had you ever heard of
AEG Live productions, correct?
A. We have many, many entities. I did not know what that entity particular entity was used for.
Q. OK. Sir, you were asked is there such an entity as AEG Live productions, and you responded,
"I don't know"; isn't that true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And have you now learned that there is such an entity as AEG Live productions, sir?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. So as you sit here today as the CEO Of AEG Live, you don't know whether an entity called
AEG Live productions even exists, correct?
A. No; I'm assuming because you're asking me that it exists.
Q. well, don't assume, you know whatever I say is not it's a question.
Judge: it's not evidence.

Mr. Panish: exactly. You have to adopt it for it to be evidence. OK. ? So let's see let's try
that again.
A. OK. .
Q. as the CEO Of AEG Live, you don't even know whether there is such an entity as AEG Live
productions,
Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you were asked about that in your deposition, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you haven't gone to check out whether such an entity exists since then, correct?
A. I haven't.
Q. And you haven't been shown any documents to refresh your recollection if there is such an
entity, correct?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. OK. Now, sir, you had Mr. Gongaware negotiate the terms of the contract with Dr. Murray,
correct?
A. I. I did not.
Q. OK. Well, you know, sir, I'm going to play your testimony at the criminal case. Because you
testified under oath at the criminal case for Dr. Murray, didn't you, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you tell the truth then, sir?
A. Of course.
Q. And have you watched your testimony, sir?
A. I did, a couple of weeks ago.
Q. So in preparation that's another thing you reviewed that
A. Not a couple of weeks ago. For the deposition, so it was

Q. I thought you didn't do any preparation for the deposition.

A. No, no. I they they gave me the DVD I went home and watched it.
Q. Oh. So whatever the lawyers provided to you, you went and read it?
A. Correct.
Q. So all they provided to you was your DVD. of your testimony?
A. That is that is correct.
Q. OK. So if they'd have provided you the documents, you'd have reviewed those?
A. Correct.
Q. OK. And that was just a choice, as far as you know, made not to provide you any of your e-
mails, correct?
A. No
.
Ms. Stebbins: calls for speculation.
A. I have nothing
Judge: hold on.
Ms. Stebbins: objection; calls for speculation, potentially work product.
Judge: sustained on speculation.
Mr. Panish: OK. .
Q. You were not provided any e-mails, right?
A. Correct.
Q. All you were provided was this DVD. Of your testimony, right?
A. That is correct.

Q. OK. So I'm going to play page 8248, line 17 to 25, of your testimony under oath. And the date
of that was October 15th, 2011, a year and approximately four months before you gave your
testimony under oath in this case. OK? Approximately.
A. OK. .
Mr. Panish: October 25th. my mistake. I'm not great at numbers. Sorry. OK. Let's see what
you said there, sir.
(a video clip was played during which The following testimony was said:)
Q. And you said what after Michael Jackson told you that?
A. Well, I mean, he was firm and I said, "OK. Then Ill have Paul Gongaware negotiate the best
terms he can with the doctor for you."
Q. All right. And that was that was your idea, to have Paul Gongaware call this particular
doctor?
A. Well, Paul was already engaged in the discussions. I really had nothing to do with the hiring
of
Q. All right. Now, sir, what specialty did Dr. Murray have?
A. I learned after Michaels death that he was a cardiologist.
Q. So is a cardiologist a heart specialist, as far as you know?
A. Yes.
Q. And you never went to medical school, you're not a doctor, right?
A. No.
Q. So I'm just going to ask you general questions. Do you know what type of cardiology or
cardiologist Dr. Murray was?
A. No.
Q. Do you know that there are different types of cardiologists?

A. No.
Q. Do you know what an interventional cardiologist is?
A. No.
Q. And did you know what field Dr. Murray practiced in at any point within cardiology?
A. No.
Q. And you had no information as to why Mr. Jackson May or May not need a cardiologist; is
that correct?
A. When no, they correct, yeah.
Q. Did you think that it might have something to do with Mr. Jackson having a heart condition?
A. I found out after he passed away, so I don't know what how to answer the question.
Q. I'm sorry, sir?
A. I said I found out after Michael passed away that he was a cardiologist, from the news
programs. I didn't know before then that he was a cardiologist.
Q. That wasn't my question, sir.
A. I know. Go ahead.
Q. You know could you answer it, since you know what it was?
A. Yes. Did I know why Michael Jackson needed a cardiologist?
Q. Yes.
A. And I said and the answer is no.
Q. And you can't remember any discussions about Dr. Murray's contract with AEG Live before
he died, correct?
A. No. I wasn't involved.
Q. Is that correct, sir?
A. Correct.

Q. And did you know whether or not Dr. Murray had signed the contract at the time Michael
Jackson died?
A. I was told that the contract had not been signed yet.
Q. You knew that at the time Michael Jackson died, correct?
A. I can't I I'm trying the reason I'm hesitating, Mr. Panish, I'm trying to determine if it was
before he died or after he died that I found out that there was never a signed contract.
Q. Well, let's see what you said in your deposition. OK. ?
A. OK. .
Q. That's 445, line 6 to 9 and lines 14 to page the next page, line 3. Let's see what you said
when you were asked those specific questions at your deposition. OK. ?
A. OK. .
Q. maybe that will refresh your recollection.
A. Thank you.
Mr. Panish: happy to do that.
(a video clip was played during which the following testimony was said:)
Q. Can you identify any employee of AEG or AEG Live, or Independent contractor for AEG Live
with whom you had a conversation about Dr. Murray's contract prior to June 25, 2009?
A. I don't I don't remember. I don't remember who I might have Spoken to.
Q. OK. You have no information about
A. No.
Q. the contract or proposed contract at all?
A. It wasn't my responsibility.
Q. And you have no information about it, right?
A. Correct.

Q. OK. Who were .

A. Just to clarify my answer, I don't remember if I knew that there wasn't a signed contract
before Michael passed away or after. That's the only thing I don't know
Q. So that that's the truth, you didn't know, right, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, sir, prior to this time when Dr. Murray became involved, did Mr. Jackson have some
type of representation?
A. Repeat the question?
Q. Sure. Do you know what it means to have representation?
A. Legal, business, management, personal management for entertainers, that kind of thing, yes.
Q. Prior to the Dr. Murray negotiations with Dr. Gongaware and the hiring that you discussed,
did you know if Mr. Jackson had any type of representation?
A. Well, when we made the deal for This Is It. we dealt with Dr. Tohme Tohme, we dealt with
Dennis Hawk and Peter Lopez.
Q. So my question is do you know if he had representation. So I guess the answer is "yes"?
A. "yes."
Q. And, sir, do you know if any of those people that you just mentioned had any involvement or
say in the negotiations and contract with Dr. Murray?
A. Well, to my understanding to my understanding, they were not involved with Michael when
the Dr. Murray matter came up.
Mr. Panish: OK. Well, sir, let's see what you said in your deposition. That's page 95, line 25,
to 96, line 9. It's actually just to line 4.
(a video clip was played during which the following testimony was said:)

Q. To your knowledge, what role, if any, did Dr. Tohme have in Dr. Murray being retained?
A. I have no knowledge of that.
Q. What role, if any, did Mr. Dileo have with Mr. Dr. Murray being retained?
A. I have no knowledge of that.
Q. Do you have any knowledge withdrawn. What role, if any, did Dennis hawk have in Dr.
Murray being retained?
A. I have no knowledge.
Q. That was true, right, sir?
A. Well, one one mistake. OK. ? Frank Dileo was involved in that.
Q. Well, sir, you didn't change that when you reviewed your deposition, did you, sir?
A. I didn't I didn't catch that, no.
Q. So the first time you've ever testified since this that Mr. Dileo was involved is today, right?
A. Just now.
Q. And when did you first recall that Mr. Dileo was involved after giving all these testimonies?
When was it?
A. When did I just now when I read when I saw this.
Q. OK. And Mr. Dileo, is he able to come here and tell us whether he was involved?
A. You know the answer. Of course not. He passed away.
Q. Yeah, he's not here to talk about it, is he?
A. No. But the re- but the reason I'm saying that is because when I got back from that meeting
we had at the at the forum, it was frank Dileo, Timm Woolley, Paul Gongaware who actually
came to me about Dr. Murray
Q. Sir
A. a doctor.

Q. there's no question pending.

A. Uh-huh.
Q. The only question is, can Mr. Dileo come here and testify? That was the question. OK. ?
A. Yes. The answer is how I answered it.
Q. And you testified under oath that that was true, and you were under penalty of perjury then,
right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you knew that you had to testify completely and fully at that time, correct?
A. I to the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. So you're saying you weren't told that?
A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. Does that mean you were or you weren't?
A. That instruction?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm sure I was given that instruction. OK. ? And I'm telling you to the best of my recollection,
I answered those questions fully and
Q. And then you again swore under oath on February 28th that you answered that question
completely and fully, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And today, you're changing that, correct?
A. I'm explaining, I'm clarifying.
Q. Well, you had an opportunity to explain in your deposition, didn't you, sir?
A. Yeah, but
Q. Did you, sir?

A. As usual, Mr. Panish, there are no yeses or nos that it's not that easy. Frank Dileo wasn't
involved in negotiating Dr. Murray's contract, but he was involved
Mr. Panish: your honor, can I ask that the witness answer the questions?
Judge: he's answering. Let him finish.
A. Frank what are you, Frank Dileo was involved when the hiring of a doctor came up. He
wasn't involved in the negotiations for the doctor. That's my clarification.
Q. OK Well, sir, you were asked if Mr. Dileo had any role in Dr. Murray being retained, didn't
you? Weren't you asked that question?
A. We just saw that, yes.
Q. And you said "I have no knowledge of that." it wasn't negotiating the contract, it was any role
in retaining Dr. Murray; isn't that true, sir?
A. And I made a mistake.
Q. So that's just another mistake you made?
A. It's a mistake I made just now, that I
Q. And you made that mistake under oath once, and you made it again under oath, right? And I
and I asked you again, and you said yes, so you made it three times under oath, right?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; argumentative.
Judge: sustained.
Q. OK. Well, sir, the first time you met Dr. Murray was at the Carolwood house that was being
advanced and paid for by AEG, correct?
A. The the Carolwood house that we advanced the money to Dr. Tohme or whoever signed the
lease, yes.
Q. You don't know who signed the lease?
A. No.

Q. OK. And the money for the lease was paid for by AEG, wasn't it, sir?
A. I don't I don't remember if we advanced the money or we just guaranteed the lease. I'm not
100 percent sure.
Q. Did you make a direct payment, sir, for that?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. So you have no knowledge of that?
A. No.
Q. OK. So the first meeting you had, was that in early June?
A. It was sometime it was sometime in June, I'm not 100 percent clear if it was early or mid
June.
Q. Well, let's let's back it up. All you know is that you had three meetings or encounters, let's
say, with Dr. Murray, right?
A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. You keep saying everything "to the best of my recollection." are you planning on recalling
more stuff as we go?
A. No, I'm just I can't give you an absolute answer. I know you would like one, I can't give it to
you because it wouldn't be real.
Q. Well, did you did you take an oath here today to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
A. Of course I did.
Q. OK. And I'm asking you, is it the truth that you had three meetings with Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it the truth that the first meeting you had with Dr. Murray was at the Ccarolwood home?
A. That is correct.
Q. And is it the truth that that was a short meeting?
A. Define "short" for me, please.

Q. Why don't you tell me how long the meeting was.

A. To the best of my recollection, probably about 45 minutes.
Q. OK. Less than an hour?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that meeting, did you discuss Mr. Jackson's physical condition?
A. We discussed protein shakes, working out with Lou Ferrigno. Those are the things we
discussed at that meeting.
Q. OK. So you did not discuss Mr. Jackson's physical condition at that meeting; is that correct?
A. We discussed his weight; so yeah, that's that would be considered physical condition, yes.
Q. So let me see if I understand.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You were at the meeting for 45 minutes or less, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Jackson, was he there?
A. Yes.
Q. The whole time?
A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. Was it the truth that Mr. Jackson was there the whole time, sir?
A. I don't in the game of gotcha, I don't remember, I believe he was there the whole time, yes.
Q. Sir, I'm just trying to get
A. I know.
Q. What am I you don't know what I'm trying to get. Sir, Mr. Jackson was there the whole time.
That's the truth, according to you, right?
A. I believe so.

Q. And Dr. Murray, was he there the whole time?

A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Ortega, was he there?
A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. So the truth is Mr. Ortega was there?
A. I think so.
Q. The whole time, you were there?
A. I believe so.
Q. And he didn't leave early, before you?
A. Not not at that meeting, I don't think so. He May he May have had to go to rehearsals. I
don't remember.
Q. Did he leave early from another meeting he had with you and Dr. Murray?
A. Slightly earlier on the meeting of the 20
Q. We'll get to that meeting.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And who else was present, sir?
A. Paul Gongaware and Frank Dileo.
Q. And everybody stayed the whole meeting; is that right?
A. I believe so.
Q. And is it your best estimate that meeting was in early June?
A. Early to mid June.
Q. OK. What's mid June to you?
A. 15th or 16th, early June would be the first week.

Q. So it's somewhere between the 3rd and the 16th? How is that?
A. That's fine.
Q. Is that a fair estimate?
A. Yes.
Q. That's your best estimate you can give?
A. Yes.
Q. The 16th, to me, seems like mid June. Does it not to you?
A. That's what I said, early to mid June.
Q. OK. And did you discuss Mr. Jackson's physical condition at that time?
A. We discussed his weight; and that,
Q. I would consider that part of his physical condition, so yes. OK. So it was real simple. Did
you discuss Mr. Jackson's physical condition? I take it now your answer is yes, that's the truth,
right?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; asked and answered.
Judge: overruled.
A. yes, yes.
Q. Thank you. And you discussed Mr. Jackson having protein shakes, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And who was going to make the protein shakes?
A. Dr. Murray.
Q. So Dr. Murray, one of the things he was going to do for Mr. Jackson was make protein shakes
for him to eat or drink?

A. And he and he explained that there was some kind of mineral-enriched shakes that he did for
patients.
Q. But that wasn't something that you really knew about?
A. No.
Q. That wasn't your area of expertise, so to speak?
A. No.
Q. You weren't taking those kinds of protein shakes?
A. No. Unfortunately, I like milk shakes, so
Q. OK. I think we all do. So then, sir, you also discuss cool-downs; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. What's a cool-down?
A. The way it was explained to me it's the first time I heard it was that after Michael performs,
he loses weight onstage, he gets dehydrated, and he has to cool down, which is his body is hot,
he has to cool down, replenish his electrolytes and proteins and stuff like that, and that's what it
was explained to me in the meeting.
Q. OK. And, sir, that meeting was the first meeting, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. In early to mid June. The second meeting was at the forum
Briefly, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the third meeting, according to you, was January excuse me. The third meeting,
according to you, was June 20th, correct?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. All right. So let's talk back now the first meeting that you had, did you learn at that time
about any relationship between Mr. Jackson and Dr. Murray?
A. Would you rephrase that? When you say "learn about," what type of relationship?
Q. Any.

A. No, it just I just observed how close they were, that's all.
Q. Did you learn anything about his medical specialty at that meeting?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss Mr. Jackson's overall health and stamina at that meeting?
A. Very possibly.
Q. Possible?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Did you ask Dr. Murray anything about his relationship with Mr. Jackson?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Dr. Murray about anything about his past medical treatment for Mr. Jackson?
A. No.
Q. Was it discussed
A. I would have thought that was inappropriate.
Q. So that's a "no"?
A. That's a "no."
Q. OK. Did you discuss that Dr. Murray was going to go to London with Mr. Jackson?
A. At that meeting? It's very possible.
Q. Well, sir, isn't it true that that meeting was in late May or early June?
A. I don't I don't remember if it was early to mid June. I don't think it was late May.
Q. OK. Well, let's see what you testified under oath in your deposition. Did you tell the truth
there, sir?
A. To the best of my ability recollection, yes.
Q. OK. When you were testifying then, did you say, "this is the truth to the best of my
recollection," sir?

A. Can you differentiate between late May and early June an event that happened four years ago?
That's
Q. I sure can, so
A. That's all I'm saying. Then you're better than me.
Judge: you know what? This is going to end up in an argument. Let's answer the question.
Q. let's see what you said when you were asked these questions, sir, five or six months ago.
OK.?
A. Uh-huh.
Mr. Panish: OK. It's page do you have the pages?
Ms. Stebbins: you haven't given them to us.
Mr. Panish: I did give them to you. 127, lines 1 to 21.
(a video clip was played during which the following testimony was said:)
Q. What did you ask Dr. Murray about his relationship with Mr. Jackson
A. I can
Q. if anything?
A. I didn't ask anything.
Q. What did you ask Dr. Murray, if anything, as to what his medical specialty was?
A. I didn't.
Q. What information did you have about Dr. Murray's past medical treatment of Mr. Jackson?
A. I did not have any knowledge at that point. I was not even involved in anything to do with the
doctor at that point.
Q. OK. I'm just asking what, if anything, came up at that particular meeting.

A. No, no. It's really Michaels overall health and stamina and, you know, what Dr. Murray was
going to travel with him to London.
Q. And that came up during the meeting at you said late May or early June?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you correct that testimony, sir, when you had the opportunity, and then verify it under
oath, it's true?
A. No.
Q. Did you say, "I can't tell what happened, whether it was mid June or early May," when you
signed that under penalty of perjury and had the opportunity to explain your answer?
A. No; because in preparing for this testimony, I looked at e-mails, and it's very confusing as to
whether Kenny Ortega remembers the meeting in early June or mid June, so it's confused me,
too.
Q. That wasn't my question, sir.
A. No. I know.
Q. Did you write, when you read this, that "I was confused"?
A. I just I answered your question. Because it happened afterwards, my confusion happened
after I signed the declaration.
Q. Sir, by the way, you knew on June 20th that Dr. Murray was a cardiologist, didn't you, sir?
A. I don't Mr. Panish, I'm not trying to get you perturbed, but it's very hard to differentiate what
I learned after Michaels passing versus what I learned before that because it all kind of comes
together.
Q. OK. Sir, let's see what you said about that question in your deposition under oath. And I'm
not perturbed, I'm happy to play your testimony under oath.
A. Oh, I know that.
Mr. Panish: page

Judge: again, I'm going to have to caution both of you because I don't want this to escalate.
Just
Mr. Panish: I'm not escalating. I'm sir, I'm just going to ask you the question, and I'm
going to play what you said to that question five months ago. OK. ?
A. no problem.
Mr. Panish: page 413, line 9, to 414, line 5.
Q. Do you remember what the question was, sir?
A. 414, line 5, to 414 no, I have no idea
Q. No, no. My question to you was, "isn't it true " or strike that. Isn't it the truth that you knew
on June 20th that Dr. Murray was a cardiologist?
A. I'm not sure when I found that out.
Mr. Panish: OK. So let's see what you said in your deposition.
(a video clip was played during which the following testimony was said:)
Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether you ever had any discussion as to whether
Dr. Murray was a psychiatrist?
A. No.
Q. This doesn't refresh your recollection?
A. Whether I ever had a discussion whether he was OK. .
Q. Yeah.
A. No. I mean, I knew he wasn't a psychiatrist. I knew he was A Med- a practicing doctor of
another specialty.
Q. OK. What specialty did you know that Dr. Murray had?

A. I knew he had heart clinics.

Q. OK. .
A. He was a heart specialist.
Q. And did you know what type of cardiologist he was at any point?
A. No.
Q. Did you know what field he practiced in at any point within Cardiology?
A. No, I never had that discussion with him.
Q. So, sir, when your lawyer that was your lawyer, Mr. Putnam, questioning you at the
deposition, right?
A. Yeah, no. And now I know.
Q. Hold on, sir. Was that your lawyer questioning you at your deposition?
A. That sounded like Mr. Putnam, yes, it did.
Q. And you knew as of June 20th that Dr. Murray was a cardiologist, and you testified that way
in your deposition when your own lawyer
A. OK. .
Q. questioned you, didn't you, sir?
A. Yes, yes. Absolutely.
Q. You didn't change that when you signed your deposition under penalty of perjury, did you, sir?
A. No.
Q. Now, did you raise with Dr. Murray at this first meeting Michael Jackson's weight?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you raise with Dr. Murray that you had a concern about Michael Jackson's weight?
A. Yes.

Q. And did you raise with Dr. Murray that you wanted to make sure that Dr. Murray would
ensure that Mr. Jackson had a proper diet?
A. Ensure that he had a proper diet?
Q. To make sure. I'm sorry. Make sure.
A. Most likely, yes.
Q. You did, didn't you, sir? Do you remember testifying to that?
A. Probably, yes.
Q. And this is where the discussion came up as you called them very-high-nutrient protein
shakes, correct?
A. That's how Dr. Murray described them, yes.
Q. Right. And that would be the highlight of the meeting, as far as you recall, discussing Mr.
Jackson's weight that you were concerned about and for him to please, Dr. Murray, make sure
that Mr. Jackson got proper nutrition?
A. Please I'm not sure of the question.
Q. To make sure that Dr. Murray you wanted him to make sure that Mr. Jackson kept his weight
up and had proper nutrition, right?
A. I cared about Michael, yes.
Q. And do you remember asking Dr. Murray, "how is Mr. Jackson's health?"
A. Vaguely remember asking him that.
Q. Now, the second time strike that. Did you ever tell anyone that you sorry. Let me rephrase.
OK. ? I apologize. Did you ever tell anyone that at the first meeting, there was a concern
regarding Michael Jackson's apparent lack of nutrition and weight loss?
A. Did I tell anybody?
Q. Yes.
A. I think I mentioned it in that meeting, that I was concerned about Michaels weight and
whether he was eating properly.
Q. So that's a true statement, then?

A. Correct.
Q. And you also told that to the Los Angeles police didn't, didn't you, sir?
A. I'm sure I did.
Q. And when you gave your statement to the police department, how many attorneys were there?
A. To the best of my recollection, there were three.
Q. All representing you?
A. That is correct.
Q. And who were they?
A. Marvin Putnam, Shawn Trell, and I believe Bruce Black.
Q. That's the man from Denver that's
A. G.C. For the parent company.
Q. General Counsel for the parent company?
A. Yes.
Q. Now you know they're the parent, right? The parent company means they own your company,
right?
A. I'm not saying they don't, I just don't know what the structure is.
Q. OK. Fair enough. And, sir, do you remember telling the Los Angeles police department that
your second encounter was with Dr. Murray was three weeks prior to Michael Jackson's death?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, was that the meeting that you referred to as late May, early June, mid June?
A. It's the one I'm confused about as to whether it was in the first week in June or the second
week in June.
Q. OK. So that's your second encounter, though?
A. No; that's the first encounter.

Q. Well, let me show you, sir, exhibit 504. Did you tell the truth to the police department, sir?
A. Yes; but let me add, Mr. Panish, that in reviewing this police report for this testimony, there
are many inaccuracies in that police report.
Q. OK. So the Los Angeles police department took down your statement wrong; is that right?
A. Well, I never sought to verify it, so they made mistakes or misunderstood didn't understand
what I was saying, in some instances.
Q. And did your lawyers refuse to let your statement be taped?
A. I don't I don't remember.
Q. OK. So this is this police statement is another document you reviewed to refresh your
recollection to testify in this case, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it did refresh your recollection about all the mistakes that the Los Angeles police
department made, correct?
A. There were a few.
Q. OK. .
A. There were a few.
Q. OK. And do you think the Los Angeles police department was out to get you?
A. No.
Q. So
A. I'm not the conspiratorial list here.
Q. Is there a question, your honor? Is that the document that you read, Mr.
A. Correct.
Q. to refresh your recollection?
A. Yep, yes.
Q. OK. So let's start off with the first paragraph.
Is that accurate?

A. You want to go line by line? Because there's some mistakes.

Q. Oh, there's mistakes? OK. Let's start with the first line. What's wrong?
A. Put it up again.
Judge: wait a minute. We're going to go line by line? I don't think so.
Mr. Panish: well, I didn't say that. I tried to say paragraphs, he wants to go line by line.
Judge: there's two pages of this, so is there a certain portion of this statement you want to
focus on? Because it's maybe we can do it that way.
Mr. Panish: fair enough. All right.
Q. First of all, sir, tell me where all the mistakes are.
A. I OK. .
Q. Do you have one where you wrote them on
A. Here's one. It says this meeting also took place at the Carolwood address. Randy stated that
Kenny got in Michaels face, at which time Dr. Murray admonished Randy, stating, 'you're
not
A. Doctor. Butt out.'" that's not what I said.
Q. Let's hold on here.
A. OK. .
Q. Let's first identify where it is. OK. ?
A. It's the June 20th meeting.
Mr. Panish: no, no, no. Where in the statement.
Judge: in the document.

A. the last paragraph next to last paragraph.

Q. the last or second to last?
A. Second to last.
Q. OK. You know what? Can you do me a favor? The second to last. OK. And it says "Randy
stated." let's why don't you let's yellow that out so we can see what you're talking about.
A. OK. .
Q. And why don't you read the part that you just read, because you went fast.
A. OK. "Randy stated that Kenny got in Michaels face, at which time Dr. Murray
admonished Randy, stating, 'you're not a doctor. Butt out.'"
Q. OK. And that's a mistake?
A. A huge one, yes.
Q. OK. And so you never told that to the police?
A. I told them something completely different than this. They just conflated the people and the
things.
Q. OK. So you never told that to the police department, correct?
A. Correct, in that way, that's right.
Q. OK. And did you did you say that Kenny got into Michaels face?
A. Never.
Q. OK. So that's just made up, false?
A. A mistake by the detectives who wrote this.
Q. Well, they must have made it up, right? Because you never said it?
A. No. Why don't you ask me what I said?
Mr. Panish: OK. .

Judge: again, please.

A. OK. I know. I know. I'm sorry.
Q. Sir, did the police make up where it said "Randy stated Kenny got in Michaels face,"
attributing that to you?
A. The police made a mistake.
Q. Did they make that up?
A. I'm not going to say the police make things up.
Q. Well, you never said it, right?
A. I never said it like that, no.
Q. Did Mr. Putnam say it?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Black say it?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Trell say it?
A. No.
Q. No one said it, right? Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So the police officer wrote that down, and no one said it, right?
A. He misconstrued what was said and made a mistake.
Q. Did anyone say that, sir?
A. In that way, no.
Q. Let's just stay with the first part. Did you say something different relating to "Randy stated
Kenny got in Michaels face?" did you say anything about anyone getting in anyone's face?

A. Yes.
Q. OK. Who got in whom's face?
A. Dr. Murray got into and admonished Kenny Ortega to not be an amateur physician and
analyze Michael.
Q. All right. So Dr. Murray, without anyone saying anything, got into Kenny Ortegas face and
told him not to be an amateur physician and analyze anyone? Is that what you told the police?
A. When you say repeat that question again? That was a strange question.
Q. I don't think I can.
A. OK. .
Q. So let me try over. Did you tell the police that excuse me. Did you tell the Los Angeles
Police Department that Dr. Conrad Murray got into Kennys face? Did you say that?
A. Yes.
Q. OK. Did you tell the Los Angeles police department that Dr. Murray got into Kennys face
and told him, "don't try to be an amateur physician and analyze Michael"?
A. Correct.
Q. OK. So when they wrote "Randy stated Kenny got in Michaels face, that's just totally made
up because you never said that," right?
A. No.
Q. Correct?
A. I never said that.
Q. OK. Do you have any reason to believe the Los Angeles police department would make up
things that you said, any issues you had with them, too many calls, anything?
A. I don't want to argue with you. I just don't know how to answer your questions.
Q. It's easy. Do you have any reason to believe that the Los Angeles police department would try
to make up something you said? Either you do or you don't.
A. Of course not.

Q. OK. That's fine. Well, maybe you had an issue with them, and they had a bias against you or
something.
No?
A. Do you know something I don't know?
Q. I don't know anything. That's why I'm asking you.
A. OK. Sometimes I'm not sure which one of us is testifying.
Q. OK. .
A. We I believe the Los Angeles police department is a fine organization, the same way I
believe in this judicial process.
Q. OK. Now, where it says "at which time Dr. Murray admonished Randy, stating, 'you're not a
doctor. Butt out,'" that's a mistake, too, right?
A. Well, if you read it, it makes no sense. Yes, it is a mistake.
Q. Thank you. And then Randy confirmed that his meeting took place on Saturday, June 20th.
A. Correct.
Q. That's right, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he believed Michael was off for three days, and rehearsed the 23rd and 24th. So all the
rest of that is correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Focused and ready, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So that's a mistake, according to you, right?
A. The description of what
Mr. Panish: I think you've explained it to us.
Judge: just so I'm clear, that was the only error of that entire thing of that

Mr. Panish: paragraph.

Judge: that paragraph, that highlighted portion?
A. let me I'm going to
Judge: I wasn't sure if you said there was something else.
A. I remember there was something else. I'd have to read it to find it.
Mr. Panish: OK. Now
Judge: wait. I asked him a question.
Mr. Panish: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A. OK. The other mistake is in paragraph 3, it says "Mr. Phillips goes back 16 years with
Michael Jackson, and both he and Paul Gongaware produced two of Michaels previous
tours." I had no involvement, that was Mr. Gongaware.
Mr. Panish: OK. .
Q. But you did see an e-mail where Mr. Gongaware wrote and said that on behalf of AEG Live
that "we have experience with Michael, doing his past tours, and know his problems and
idiosyncrasies," right?
A. Paul was referring to his experience with Michael on those two tours. I had my own
experience with Michael, which was not related to his tours.
Q. OK. Can you answer my question now, please, which was, you received an e-mail from Mr.
Gongaware where he said "we have previous experience," referring to AEG Live? Did you
know that, sir?
A. He was referring to himself.
Q. Did you ask him that?

A. No.
Q. So you just thought of that right now?
A. No.
Q. But you never asked him
A. AEG Live wasn't even in existence during those previous tours.
Q. No. But him and Mr. Meglen, they were in existence before, weren't they, sir?
A. Not no.
Q. OK. Now, when it got to June, sir, it was very strike that. As it got to June, it was extremely
important that rehearsals are attended and done well by all individuals involved, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. That doesn't exclude Michael Jackson, does it?
A. Well, no, it shouldn't.
Q. All individuals are to be involved in rehearsals as it gets close to the time for the show to start.
That's extremely important, isn't it, sir?
A. That is correct.
Q. And, sir, you started to see pressure in Mr. Ortega in June, didn't you, sir?
A. When you say "pressure," please define that for me.
Q. The pressure on Kenny Ortega and the entire production rises as you get closer to the show.
Would you agree with that, sir?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. You've testified to that under oath, didn't you, sir?
A. I'm sure I did.
Q. Is that a "yes"?
A. That's a "yes."
Q. OK. And the pressure you started seeing the pressure in Mr. Ortega in June, didn't you, sir?

A. Towards the middle of June, yes.

Q. On?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Ortega's main concern was that Michael Jackson was not showing up at rehearsals,
correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that Michael Jackson was not focused in mid to late June on the rehearsals, correct?
A. Correct. Just to correct your previous thing, Michael Jackson was showing up to rehearsals,
just not enough of them, in Kennys in Kennys opinion.
Q. Was Kenny Ortega having concerns about Michael Jackson's performance and him showing
up to rehearsals, yes or no?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And it was not only not showing up to rehearsals, but it was his performance when he did
show up that concerned Mr. Ortega, correct?
A. I believe so. I believe there's an e-mail to that effect.
Q. Is that a "yes"?
A. That is a "yes."
Q. Now, sir, when Mr. Ortega brought this to your attention, you called Dr. Murray, didn't you,
sir?
A. Dr. I believe Dr. Murray called me, and I believe at the behest of Frank Dileo. I don't I
don't think I called him, he called me.
Q. OK. Well, let's see what you testified to at the criminal trial, page 88 I'm sorry 8255, line
26, to 8256, line 11. Did you tell the truth at the criminal trial, sir?
A. I always tell the truth.
Ms. Stebbins: I would object to this since it's being used for impeachment, your honor. It's
not inconsistent, and this is not deposition testimony, it's trial testimony.

Mr. Panish: it's inconsistent and it's an admission by this party opponent.
Judge: well, don't play it yet. Do you have a copy of the transcript? What portion are you
trying to read?
Mr. Panish: I want to read just up to well, you see the problem is it the whole answer. I
mean, the first part; but I just can't stop in the middle of the answer, so I want to read until
he finishes answering the question, which unfortunately, he doesn't end until line 11. The
answer where his he addresses it up to line 2, really. But, I mean, I can't do an incomplete
answer.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, Mr. Phillips' testimony was he didn't call, but Dr. Murray called
him. There's nothing in this that relates to that. I don't see how it's impeaching.
Judge: I'm going to sustain the objection. It's ambiguous at best.
Mr. Panish: it doesn't have to impeach, it's the admission of a party opponent.
Q. Let me ask you this. Did you have a call with Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long was that call?
A. I know where you're going with this. When I was asked at the deposition, I remembered it
being shorter; but it was actually about 22 minutes.
Mr. Panish: your honor, could I ask that the witness please answer the question and not
make comments like, "I know where you're going with this, my answer before was this"?
My question is asked here, "how long was the call with Dr. Murray."
Judge: Ive asked you to focus on the question. I'm sure you're doing your best, but I think
it's important to try to focus. That way you're answering the question that's asked.

A. I understand.
Mr. Panish: and he just wants to give a speech.
Judge: Mr. Panish
Ms. Stebbins: your honor
Mr. Panish: I'm not arguing with him, I'm just pointing out
Q. Sir, how long was the call with Dr. Murray?
A. Probably around 25 minutes.
Q. You testified different to that under oath, didn't you, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. OK. And, sir, how many phone calls did you have with Dr. Murray?
A. Well, that was the one I remember having. I May have had one or two others. I don't
remember.
Q. So the answer to the question of how many calls you had with Dr. Murray is, "I don't
remember"?
A. Well, you actually subpoenaed my phone records; so you would know better than I would.
Mr. Panish: could he please answer the question, your honor?
Judge: I don't Ive asked him to focus.
Mr. Panish: well, you can instruct him to answer the question.
Judge: Ive I know.

Mr. Panish: you are the judge.

Ms. Stebbins: your honor, I think the witness is trying to answer the question.
Mr. Panish: oh, come on. Your honor, I it's pretty simple.
Q. How many calls did you have with Dr. Murray? One? Two? 1,000? "I don't remember"?
A. The only one I remember is the one when he called me on June 20th; and it lasted about 20,
25 minutes.
Q. OK. First of all, sir, how do you where do you get that information, that we subpoenaed your
phone records?
A. In the deposition. You guys showed me you showed me, when Mr. your co-counsel
Q. That was the Los Angeles police department that subpoenaed the phone records, wasn't it, sir?
A. I have no idea. I thought you guys did.
Q. Well, no, no. You just said you didn't say "I thought," you just said I would know because I
subpoenaed your phone records. Did you just testify to that?
A. Yes, because they were shown to me when I was sitting in the deposition.
Q. Well, sir, that's not truth, is it
A. It's an assumption.
Q. that we
A. It's an assumption.
Q. OK. So you again testified to something that's not true, correct?
A. Well, it's better than you calling me a liar, so correct.
Q. OK. So now let's go back to the question, sir. Was it one call only that you remember with Dr.
Murray?
A. That's the one I remember, yes.

Q. OK. And, sir, isn't it true that you had

A. Phone call with Michael Amir about Mr. Jackson not coming to practice?
A. That is correct.
Q. And isn't it true that you told Michael Amir it's really critical that Michael show up for
rehearsals because the show he is the fulcrum of the production and it really involves around
him?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you tell him that it's not in his contract that he doesn't need to go to rehearsal?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever tell anyone that Michael Jackson doesn't need to go to rehearsal?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell Michael Amir so even though he, Michael Jackson, might know these dance
moves, you know, intimately, and he's just reinterpreting what he has done during his whole
career, the entire show is a massive production, it really needs Michaels presence because
people have to key off him and they have to build the cues that affects everything off of Michael?
A. Yes, I I made that call at the behest of Kenny Ortega.
Q. Did you say those things
A. Yes.
Q. I have sir, I'm sorry. I don't talk as fast as you, so please just take a breath, let me try to finish
the question. I don't want to interrupt you. OK. ?
A. Yeah.
Q. And I certainly don't want to argue. So did you say those things to Michael Amir in a phone
call?
A. Yes.
Q. Kenny Ortega was very concerned that Michael Jackson was not coming to the rehearsal; and
when he was coming to rehearsal, his performance was not good, correct?
A. Some of the rehearsals, yes.

Q. Well OK. Now, sir, you were getting reports during the week of June 14th, within two weeks
of Mr. Jackson's death, that he wasn't doing good in rehearsals, correct?
A. I I mean, you'd have to show me the the reference to that. The first time that I became
really aware that there might be a problem was on June 18.
Q. So let me ask the question again, sir. Were you getting reports during the week of June 14th
that Michael Jackson was not doing well at rehearsals?
A. Most likely, yes.
Mr. Panish: well, let's let's see what you testified under oath. I'll start at 128, line 12,
through 129, line 3. And, you know, if you'll give me a pencil, i'll write it out, because I cut
out the objections.
Ms. Stebbins: if you want to give it with objections, that's fine.
Mr. Panish: let me just write it out for you so there's no issue, because I haven't been saying
here you go. You know, before I do that, I'm going to show you exhibit 263-1 and 2. And
this is what's being referred to in the deposition, but I want to make sure that you see that.
OK. ? Is it OK. to play the deposition now?
Mr. Putnam: uh-huh.
Mr. Panish: is that a "yes"?
Mr. Putnam: "yes."
Mr. Panish: thank you. OK. Go ahead.
(a video clip was played during which the following testimony was said:)
Q. All right. Mr. Phillips, you've got in front of you exhibit 22. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had a chance to read that while we were

A. Not yet.
Q. during the break?
A. Not yet, no.
Q. OK. .
A. I'm reading it now.
Q. OK. Were you getting reports as of June 14, 2009, that Mr. Jackson was not performing well
at rehearsals?
A. No. I just the e-mail you've given me was the first time I was told that.
Q. Your first meeting with Dr. Murray, was that before June 14th, 2009?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And so that was at that time there was you had no information about rehearsals,
Mr. Jackson not performing well at rehearsals?
A. No.
Q. And
A. Not to the best of my knowledge, no.
Q. OK. Mr. when Mr. Ortega writes here "he is not in great physical shape, I believe he is
hurting, he has been slow at grabbing hold of the work," as of June 15, 2009, did you get that
same information?
A. I don't remember receiving this e-mail.
Q. Well, let me ask you about the the language there that Mr. Gongaware wrote at on June
14th at 4:11. "Frank and I have discussed it already, and have requested a face-to-face
meeting with the doctor, hopefully Monday." that would be June 15th, I think, if we do the
calendar calculations. "we wanted to remind him that it is AEG, not MJ., who is paying his
salary. We want him to understand what is expected of him." do you see that?
A. Yeah, I see it, yes.
Q. All right. Was your does this refresh withdrawn. Did you participate in a meeting with Dr.
Murray after June 14th, 2009, but before the meeting at the forum the next weekend?
A. I I don't remember.

Q. So you May have had a meeting you May have already participated in a meeting with Dr.
Murray around June 15th?
A. I May have. I don't remember.
Q. Now, sir, you testified you don't remember getting that e-mail, correct?
A. The one from that was well, I wasn't on this e-mail exchange, but I believe Paul Gongaware
May have forwarded this e-mail to me because I I saw it in my
Q. Do you remember testifying in your deposition that you didn't receive that e-mail?
A. Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates the deposition testimony.
A. I said to the best of my recollection
Judge: overruled.
A. I didn't remember receiving it.
Q. and that wasn't true, was it, sir?
A. Wasn't true? I didn't remember at the time, so I don't know how lack of memory of an event
is a a non-truth. OK. ? But I found out afterwards that I I was forwarded this e-mail by Paul
Gongaware.
Q. OK. You didn't say you don't remember whether you got it or not, sir. You said, "I don't
remember ever receiving this e-mail," didn't you?
A. That's what I said, and I was wrong.
15 minutes.break
(the following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors:)

Judge: one thing. I'll just remind plaintiffs' counsel there's only so much Ill instruct a
witness to answer. The answers are going to be what they're going to be, and the jury gets
the point. It's frustrating, but
Mr. Panish: and Ive been very watching trying to argue with this witness, who wants to
engage me, and Ive tried to behave myself. But you can instruct him to answer the
question; and if he doesn't follow your instructions, the jury will see that, also.
Judge: there's only so many times I'm going to do that. I think the jury gets the point.
Mr. Panish: can I ask can we stop at 4:00 o'clock today?
Judge: yes, we already have said that.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, obviously, the witness will try to answer the question; but he is
permitted to explain to the extent necessary to answer the question.
Mr. Panish: but he's not answering, and then he's volunteering speeches and saying things
that are totally unresponsive to the question.
Judge: and the jury gets that, too, sometimes, so
Mr. Panish: I think so.
Judge: all right. Thank you.
(16-minute break taken.)
Mr. Panish: I heard what you said earlier. How about if I move to strike the nonresponsive
testimony? I mean

Judge: we can keep doing that; but, you know, sometimes the answer is going to be what
the answer is, and the jury will determine if an answer is evasive or not. I mean, there's
only you know, I can't jail somebody for not answering a question.
There's only so much I can do. The jury is going to get the full question and if the witness is
going to be evasive. You have to understand that, too. You give an answer, and you're not
answering the question, the jury is going to get the impression that you're being evasive.
A. I realize, I realize that.
Judge: so I'm not going to tell you not to make a motion to strike.
Mr. Panish: I hear you.
Judge: but
Mr. Panish: I don't want to make it and it's going to be denied. Is that what
Judge: I guess what I'm saying is maybe sometimes it's better just to leave it the way it is.
Mr. Panish: I get you. I hear you. I'm listening.
Judge: all right.
Mr. Panish: I haven't been arguing.
Judge: I understand. I'm not complaining about your behavior.
Mr. Panish: it's hard not to, but
Judge: and Ive noticed the both of you, and I'm trying to keep that under control. All
right. Bring them in.
(the following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors:)
Q. Mr. Phillips, the e-mail that I just showed you about Mr. Gongaware telling stating that you
should remind Dr. Murray who is paying him and what's expected of him, you remember that e-
mail, right?
A. I'm not sure if I was copied on at least from this chain, Mr. Panish, I can't tell, because I
wasn't I'm not copied on this.

Q. OK. Fair enough. That was where I was going, sir. This e-mail where he says, Mr. Gongaware
you don't have to look back. It's on your screen, and you have it there. But if you want to look
there, that's OK. , too.
A. At this?
Judge: he can look anywhere.
Mr. Panish: that's what I'm saying.
A. Ill look at that one.
Mr. Panish: whatever you want, sir. I didn't mean to restrict you. I just wanted to let you
know there were other places where you could look so you could see me, although maybe
that's not a good thing.
Q. Where he says "he" being Mr. Gongaware we want to remind him that it's AEG, not MJ
Paying his salary," do you see that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. You need to answer
A. Yes.
Q. OK. Thank you. And we want "him" to understand what's expected of him. You knew he was
speaking about Dr. Murray, right?
A. In this context, yes.
Q. OK. But you told us before the break, and your lawyer objected, that you don't recall
everybody seeing that. That was your testimony, right?
A. When did I make you mean today?
Q. Today, yeah.
A. Today?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates the testimony.

Judge: it is a little confusing what you're asking.

A. yeah, I don't think that's what I said.
Mr. Panish: OK. .
Q. Well, sir, did you testify under oath that you never heard or received any communication from
Mr. Gongaware where he said we wants to remind him that it's AEG, not MJ , who is paying his
salary?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge: overruled.
A. I would need to see the if I'm if it's on a forward to me, it would be helpful if you gave me
that chain.
Q. OK. Well, sir, what I'm going to do is even better. I'm going to play for you what you said
when you were questioned about it at your deposition.
A. OK. Thank you.
Q. you're welcome. And it's going to start and page 131, lines 5 through 10, and it's going to
then go to 131-25 to 133-9, and 133-13 to 134-10 to 14. This is where you were questioned about
this. And we'll wait for your lawyer to let us know. I just gave her the page. OK. ? And just for
the record, exhibit 22 that's being referred to is exhibit 263, which you have in front of you, Ive
given to you.
A. yes.
(a video clip was played during which the following testimony was said:)
Q. Did Mr. Gongaware ever communicate to you that that "we
Want to remind Dr. Murray that it is AEG, not MJ , who is paying his salary"?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Gongaware ever communicate with you "we want him to understand what is
expected of him"?

A. No.
Q. Do you understand what Mr. Gongaware meant by that?
A. No.
Q. Did you withdrawn. You don't ever you never asked Mr. Gongaware what he meant by
"what is expected of" Dr. Murray?
A. Never, no.
Q. "no"? All right. Now and you don't remember ever getting this particular e-mail?
A. No.
Q. Is that reading so withdrawn. Sitting here right now, is that the first time you've read this
language from Mr. Gongaware saying that "we want to remind Murray that it is AEG, not MJ ,
who is paying his salary"?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first time you've read "we want him to understand what is expected of him," Dr.
Murray? The first time is reading that here today?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Then would you tell me, then, what exhibit 23 is, which appears to be an e-mail?
Mr. Panish: let's stop right there. I want to bring exhibit 23 up to you, which is court
exhibit 665-80 and 81, which was marked as exhibit 23 to your deposition, sir.
A. got it.
Mr. Panish: can we put that up, please? OK. Let's blow it up so we can see what we're
talking about here. OK. So this one we refer to this as 23, right? You're with me, Mr.
Phillips
A. yes.
Q. it says "23" right on the bottom, right?

A. Yes, it does.
Q. OK. And this is what was shown to you when you were asked these questions at the
deposition, right?
A. Correct.
Mr. Panish: OK. Let's go.
(a video clip was played during which the following testimony was said:)
Q. that you received forwarding the e-mail that exhibit 22 that we've just been talking about?
A. Oh, from is this the same e-mail?
Q. Does it look like it?
A. Same e-mail trail?
Q. It looks like it, doesn't it.
A. It appears to be.
Q. And it looks like Mr. Gongaware forwarded it to you and to Mr. Dileo at 2:33 in the morning
on June 15th, right?
A. Yeah. I just don't remember receiving it.
Q. OK. And so when did you ever ask Mr. Gongaware what he meant when he wrote "we want
to remind him that it is AEG, not MJ , who is paying his salary?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever admonish or correct Mr. Gongaware to say that that's not accurate?
A. No, because I don't remember seeing it in the first place.
Q. OK. There's no question that Mr. withdrawn. This document, exhibit 23, was produced to us
by AEG Live in this litigation. And that was your e-mail address, was it not?
A. That is correct.
Q. On June 15, 2003 2009, right?

A. Correct.
Q. You have no reason to dispute that this document was sent to you, you just don't have
A. No, I just don't remember
Q. OK. .
A. seeing it.
Q. Were you beginning to develop a concern about Mr. Jackson's commitment to the tour as of
June 15, 2009?
A. No.
Q. Now, sir, first you testified under oath you never received it, right?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge: overruled.
A. I didn't remember.
Q. sir, did you first say when asked whether you received that e-mail you said no, didn't you,
sir?
A. And then I qualified it by saying I don't remember receiving it.
Q. No. Sir, first, when you were shown the e-mail, and you said, "my name is not on it, I never
received this"
A. Yes.
Q. didn't you?
A. Yes.

Q. Then when you were shown the e-mail that was forwarded to you, you said, "oh, is this the
same e-mail?" didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you said, "oh, but I don't remember receiving it," right?
A. A little different inflection, but yes.
Q. I'll give you that. OK. ?
A. Yes.
Q. But, sir, you did receive this e-mail, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. So your testimony that you gave that you never received it; and then when shown that it was
sent to you, saying, "I don't remember receiving it," you never changed that after you received all
these e-mails at the deposition; and then six weeks later read it and had the opportunity to change
it, you never changed it, you signed it under penalty of perjury it was true and correct, right?
A. Because I felt I had qualified it in my answer in the deposition.
Q. Sir, you never changed it from no. You could have said, "I don't remember," you didn't, to "I
don't remember" you never changed that, did you, sir?
A. No, no.
Q. And now you're saying you did receive it, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So that's three different stories, right?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates
A. I don't I never received it.

Judge: wait a minute. Hold on. There's an objection.

Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates the testimony fairly egregiously.
Judge: overruled.
Q. three stories you told, right?
A. One story with a qualification.
Q. Sir, first you never got it, "I don't remember getting it," "I got it," right? Did I get that right,
your three versions?
A. Correct.
Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates the deposition testimony.
Judge: overruled.
A. because that's
Q. is that right, sir?
A. Because I was c.c.'d on an e-mail that Paul forwarded to Frank Dileo.
Q. Did I get it right, the three versions you testified to, sir?
A. Yes, Mr. Panish, you did.
Q. Now, you don't remember doing anything in response to that e-mail, do you, sir?
A. Frankly, I don't remember reading Paul's e-mail. I was more focused on Kennys e-mails.
Q. Well, thank you, but could you please answer my question, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember what it was?

A. Yes, "do you recall reading " no.

Mr. Panish: could I ask that the question be read back?
Judge: yes.
Mr. Panish: it would be helpful if you tried to listen to the question so you can answer.
OK.?
A. you're right, you're right.
Mr. Panish: thank you.
(the record was read as follows:
Q. Now, you don't remember doing anything in response to that e-mail, do you, sir?)
A. and the answer is "correct."
Q. and, sir, Kennys e-mails, those weren't until five days later, were they, sir?
A. Kenny's e-mail says the 14th, Paul's e-mail says the 14th.
Q. No. You said you were too concerned about Kennys e-mails, didn't you, sir?
A. On June 19th.
Q. Yeah.
A. Yes.
Q. Those were five days later, weren't they, sir?
A. Earlier. Earlier.
Q. Five days from June 14th. What day is that, sir?
A. Oh, you're saying those were five days later?

Q. Right.
A. OK. I thought you were saying these were five days later.
Q. Right. So nothing happened for five days, so you couldn't have been concerned about Mr.
Ortega's e-mails between June 14th and June 19th because they hadn't even been sent, had they,
sir?
Ms. Stebbins: objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge: overruled.
A. I'm confused. What are you asking?
Mr. Panish: could you read the question back, please.
Judge: you May.
(the question was read.)
Ms. Stebbins: I'm going to object, vague and ambiguous as to which of Mr. Ortega's e-
mails. Maybe I'm just confused, but
Judge: overruled.
A. to answer to give you a direct answer, are you talking about these e-mails or the ones I
received the evening of the 18th?
Q. when you say "these e-mails," how many of those e-mails are from Kenny Ortega, sir?
A. Two.
Q. Two. So those when you say you were more concerned about Kenny's e-mails, you're saying
the ones on the 14th?
A. No; the one on the evening of the 18th.

Q. OK. So from the 14th to the 18th, there was no e-mail from Kenny that concerned you,
correct?
A. I believe Michael went to rehearsal, so probably not.
Q. Sir, you told me that the reason you didn't do anything in response to this e-mail on the 14th is
because you were more concerned about Kenny's e-mail on the 18th, which hadn't even been
written; isn't that true?
A. That's not what I meant.
Q. Pardon me?
A. That's not what I meant. No, Mr. Panish, my concern about what was going on in rehearsals
because, remember, I wasn't at rehearsal my concerns started my real concerns started on the
18th. I think Michael actually went to rehearsal after these e-mails were sent.
Q. Sir, I asked you why I didn't even ask you that. I asked you did you do anything in response
to this e-mail; and you said, "no, because I was more concerned with Kenny's e-mails." didn't
you testify to that, sir?
A. Then I misinterpreted what you were asking me.
Q. Oh, my question did you not understand, "did you do anything in response to this e-mail?"
was that not clear to you, sir?
A. You know, I don't I don't remember what happened between the 15th and the 18th, other than
I know Michael was sent home on the 18th.
Q. Well, he wasn't sent
A. On the 19th. He was sent home on the 19th.
Q. Sir, I asked you very clearly did you do anything in response to this e-mail, and you said, "no,
because I was more concerned with Kenny's e-mail." do you remember that testimony?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And Kenny's e-mails that you were concerned about weren't even written until the 18th, were
they, sir?

A. No. But I'm answering the question now about a whole period of time. The answer is yes. The
answer they weren't written before these
Q. So you couldn't have been concerned about Kenny's e-mails on the 18th on the 14th, 15th,
16th or 17th because he hadn't even written them yet, correct?
A. Those e-mails, yes.
Q. Did you ever have a meeting where you discussed this e-mail with Dr. Murray?
A. That's where there's some confusion, Mr. Panish. There was I believe there was a meeting on
June 16th, and but there's some confusion as to whether the meeting was on the 16th or was
earlier.
Q. OK. So now this is another meeting that you didn't tell me about earlier with Dr. Murray,
right?
A. No. That's the meeting, the first meeting.
Q. OK. The first meeting that you said was in late May or early June is now on the 16th?
A. I said either either early June or mid June.
Q. But in your deposition, you said it was in late May or early June, didn't you, sir?
A. I made a mistake.
Q. You didn't correct that, did you, sir?
A. No, no.
Q. And so you're now saying that the meet- now you remember the specific day of the meeting
that was either in late May, early June, mid June now you remember specifically it was June
16th; is that right?
A. Only because there were e-mails that make it make it appear that there was a meeting on the
16th.
Q. So now is it the truth that you met with Dr. Murray on June 16th?
A. I believe so. I believe so.
Q. Did you put that in any of your changes of your deposition?
A. No.

Q. Did you testify to that in the deposition?

A. No, I I a mistake on the period, the week.
Q. I'm sorry. That was another mistake you made?
A. There were a few, yes.
Q. Sir, what's an intervention?
A. What is an intervention? It depends on what you're referring to.
Q. OK. What I'd like to know is what is you your, Randy Phillips', CEO Of AEG Live's
understanding of what an intervention is?
A. In this case, it was to or just in general?
Q. Let's go in general, sir.
A. OK. An intervention can be when there's something going wrong in a project, you intervene
the parties to figure it out and how to correct it.
Q. OK. So as far as you're intervention doesn't have anything to do with somebody using
substances?
A. It has been used in that regard. That's not how I used it, but it has been used in that regard.
Q. Well, sir, there was an intervention with Michael Jackson in June of 2009, wasn't there, sir?
A. An intervention? There was a meeting that I called an intervention, yes
Q. Sir, was there an intervention with Michael Jackson in June of 2009?
A. Yes; and it wasn't drug related.
Q. Is that a "yes," sir?
A. That's a "yes," sir.
Q. OK. Now, sir, let me show you exhibit 274. Did you write that e-mail, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember writing it, sir?
A. Somewhat, yes.

Q. Did you review it in preparation to come testify here today, sir?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. So let's put it up. And who are you writing this e-mail to?
A. This is to Dr. Tohme.
Q. OK. Was Dr. Tohme at the intervention?
A. At the meeting, no.
Q. OK. Well, did you call this a meeting or an intervention?
A. Well, I called it I mean, I, obviously, misspelled it; but I called it an intervention.
Mr. Panish: I thought you were so careful about grammar and punctuation.
Ms. Stebbins: objection; argumentative.
Judge: sustained.
Mr. Panish: withdraw the question.
Q. Sir, did you call this a meeting or a intervention?
A. I called it an intervention, but it was not drug-related.
Q. "intervenion" is what you called it, right?
A. Yeah, I made a typo.
Q. OK. Typo. And Kenny Ortega, Gongaware, Dileo and Conrad Murray from Vegas were all
present at the intervention, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you were trying to get Michael to focus and come to rehearsals, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And this intervention was on June 16th, right?

A. I I believe I believe so, yes, based on these e-mails.

Q. Well, if we're to believe what you wrote here, it would be June 16th, right?
A. The answer is yes.
Q. And you say, sir well, why don't you read what Ive written or what Ive what's been
yellowed out.
A. "Kenny Ortega, Gongaware, Dileo, his doctor named Conrad from Vegas, and I have an
intervention with him to get him to focus and come to rehearsals yesterday. Getting him fully
engaged is difficult and the most pressing matter as we are only 20 days out from the first
show."
Q. How many days was that before Michael Jackson died that you had the intervention?
A. The meeting was on the 16th.
Q. Well, you called it an intervention, didn't you, sir? That's not my word, that's yours, isn't it?
A. No, I understand; but it was a meeting.
Q. Well, sir, Dr. Tohme, are you friends with him?
A. Am I friends with him. I became friendly with him as we progressed in negotiating the deal to
do "This Is It."
Q. Was he ever fired by Mr. Jackson?
A. You're going to hate this, but it's just not a yes or no answer, because
Q. Let me ask you this.
A. The answer is yes, but he kept in contact with him.
Q. OK. Well, the answer is was he ever fired? That's a yes or no, isn't it? Was he fired or not
fired? What is it?
A. For with Michael Jackson, his advisors, you needed a scorecard. But yes, at one point, he
was fired; but we received a a letter signed by Michael terminating him.
Q. So, sir, my question was, I thought, simple. Was he ever terminated by Mr. Jackson? Can you
answer that yes or no?

Ms. Stebbins: objection; asked and answered.

A. yes.
Judge: overruled.
A. we received a letter terminating him.
Q. is that a "yes"?
A. That's a "yes."
Q. What is the last time you saw Dr. Tohme?
A. Today, from today, or then?
Q. From today.
A. We had lunch with him I had lunch with him maybe a month ago.
Q. Sir, you understand he's on the witness list, right?
A. I assume.
Q. Well, you understand there's an order excluding witnesses from the trial? Did you know that,
sir?
A. An order excluding
Judge: you mean from attending the trial while it's ongoing?
Mr. Panish: right.
Q. And, sir, you were with Dr. Tohme at the Beverly Hills hotel in the polo lounge within the last
month, weren't you, sir?
A. Correct, that is correct.
Q. And you were discussing his testimony in this case at the polo lounge with him, weren't you,
sir?

A. I wasn't.
Q. You weren't discussing the testimony. So you're as sure as that under oath here today as
everything you're saying in this case?
A. I wasn't, correct, that is correct.
Q. OK. Who was discussing his testimony in this case?
A. I don't remember if it was the testimony in this case or what or what the lunch was about, but
Marvin Putnam was at the lunch with me.
Q. So you and Mr. Putnam were there, Mr. Putnam was discussing with Mr. Tohme his testimony
in this case in your presence within the last month in Beverly Hills, California; isn't that true, sir?
A. No.
Q. Do you know there were witnesses sitting around you, sir?
A. I don't know. There could be.
Q. Do you know people took pictures of you being there, sir?
A. Very possible.
Q. So what I want to know, is it your testimony under oath here today that Dr. Tohme's testimony
in this trial was not discussed with him and you and Mr. Putnam at the Beverly Hills hotel in the
polo lounge within the last month since this trial started?
A. It wasn't his testimony that was discussed.
Q. OK. Was it his interactions with Mr. Jackson relating to this, sir, that was discussed?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember what your lawyer was discussing with Mr. Tohme?
A. It was it was actually more with Dr. Tohme's attorney, Jim Curry.
Q. And, sir, who set that meeting up?
A. I was asked to set that up.
Q. So your lawyer asked you to set up a meeting with a witness in this case, discussed his
testimony in front of you at the polo lounge, right?

A. You keep saying "discussed his testimony." that was not what was discussed at the lunch.
Q. Tell us what was discussed at the lunch, sir.
A. There was a there was an item there was an issue between jim curry in Dr. Tohme's lawsuit
against the estate, it was something about that. I can't remember 100 percent.
Q. Does Mr. Putnam represent the estate of Michael Jackson?
A. No, but but we would most likely be called in that case.
Q. Were you trying to help Mr. Tohme with his lawsuit against Michael Jackson's estate?
A. No. It had to do with something between Marvin Putnam and Jim Curry.
Q. Why was Mr. Putnam at the meeting with you?
A. Because he's my lawyer.
Q. Well, why did you need a lawyer to discuss Dr. Tohme's case against Michael Jackson's
estate?
A. For the reasons you're asking these questions now. Plus, Jim Curry, his lawyer, was there, he
brought his lawyer.
Q. So Mr. Putnam is your lawyer for everything; is that right?
A. For a couple of things, yes.
Q. Well, how many things does he represent you on?
A. He represented me in my testimony before the labor commission; in Dr. Tohme's lawsuit, he
represented me for that; he represented me when I went to testify in Dr. Murray's trial. Those
those two things plus this.
Q. And this case?
A. Yes.
Q. So three cases
A. Yes.
Q. he's represented you?
A. Yes.

Q. And when you testified in the labor commission, that's when Dr. Tohme was claiming that
AEG owed him money, right?
Ms. Stebbins: I'm going to object, relevance to this.
Judge: it does seem like it's
Mr. Panish: it goes to Dr. Tohme's bias and their relationship with Dr. Tohme, and I'm
going to link this up as to what they talked about at that meeting. I have witnesses.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, I'd like some kind of proffer on this before we go really far
afield. It seems that this Dr. Tohme's complaints before the labor commission, whatever
they are, have no bearing on this case.
Mr. Panish: AEG Submitted his bills, Dr. Tohme signed those things to the estate.
Judge: you May continue.
Mr. Panish: all right.
Q. Did Dr. Tohme Mr. Putnam was your lawyer when AEG had a claim made against them in
front of the labor board, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And the claim was that he wasn't paid money that AEG owed him because he had a contract
with AEG, right?
A. No. The claim was he wasn't paid money by by Michael Jackson's estate.
Q. And who was the claim that he being made against?
A. Michael Jackson's estate.
Q. And were you just a witness?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had a lawyer there?

A. Correct.
Q. And did you testify under oath there?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you understand that was tape-recorded?
A. I believe so.
Q. Did you tell the truth there?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. OK. And what happened?
A. I was asked a bunch of questions by Howard Weitzman, and an attorney named Zia
Modabber, who represented Michael Jackson's estate. And I was also queried by Jim Curry, who
is Dr. Tohme's lawyer; and he had a couple of other lawyers there, too.
Q. I want to ask you this, sir. Let's isn't it true, sir, that when Dr. Murray was hired, there was no
one acting as Mr. Jackson's personal manager?
A. No, that's not true. Frank Dileo was hired in some capacity. I
Don't know if Michael referred to him as his manager or not, but Frank Dileo was representing
him
Q. No, sir, who is it your testimony under oath that when you hired Dr. Murray on Michaels
behest, that Mr. Jackson had a personal manager?
A. He had someone who was functioning as a personal manager. I don't know what he referred to
him as.
Q. OK. No, no, no. My question is did he have a personal manager when you hired Dr. Murray
or not?
A. We never hired Dr. Murray. You keep saying that as if it was a fact.
Q. Well, you told me five times you hired him at Michaels behest, didn't you? Are you changing
that testimony?
A. That's a huge difference. OK. ? That's a huge difference.

Q. All right, sir. Let's talk about when that occurred, Dr. Murray's retention. OK. ? Are you with
me? Do you understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Michael Jackson have a personal manager or not?
A. My understanding is that Frank Dileo was functioning in that role.
Q. OK. And do you have a writing that said, "this is my agent"?
A. Yes.
Q. OK. What did it say?
A. It said it was when we advanced Frank Dileo I believe $50,000 at Michaels direction.
Q. You gave Mr. Dileo Mr. Dileo, did he have a contract with AEG?
A. No.
Q. Never?
A. Not that I am aware of.
Q. Well, sir, and AEG Gave money to Mr. Dileo; is that right?
A. At Michael Jackson's direction, yes.
Q. OK. And when was that, sir?
A. Most likely it was sometime in either May or June.
Q. OK. Well, let me show you, sir, exhibit 185, dash, 1.
Have you seen that before?
A. I probably have.
Q. OK. And when was Mr. Dileo what's the date of that, sir?
A. Monday, May 11th.
Q. And did you pay 50,000 to Mr. Dileo after May 11th?
A. Hold on. This letter is dated May 2nd, 2009. The cover letter from Evvy Tavasci to Paul
Gongaware was on the 11th, and the actual document that Michael signed was on the second.

Q. Is it true, sir, that personal managers have responsibility to the artist to promote and protect
the artist's welfare?
A. I don't know if that's written anywhere, but that's generally the idea.
Q. Well, sir, you have been a personal manager, have you not?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And you still are a personal manager for certain people, are you not?
A. That's right.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you registered with the labor board as a talent agent
A. No.
Q. under
A. Personal manager is not a talent agent.
Q. I guess that's a "no," then, right?
A. That's a big "no."
Q. OK. And do you deal with the career strategy and advise artists on their careers?
A. That is correct.
Q. OK. And so, sir, you were introduced to Dr. Tohme when?
A. In either probably in September, whenever I had the Colony Capital meeting, it was right
after that.
Q. OK. What kind of doctor is this gentleman?
A. Not one Ive used, so I have no idea.
Q. Is he a doctor?
A. He could be a PHD. I don't know.

Q. Do you know if he's anything, or he just uses that title?

A. I don't know.
Q. Did you ever ask him if he was a doctor?
A. No.
Q. How many times have you met with Dr. Tohme?
A. Probably, over the course of the This Is It project probably met with him 25 times.
Q. OK. And when you were meeting with him at the Beverly Hills hotel, had the labor
commission hearing already occurred?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. So you're telling me that you were there meeting after the decision of the labor board?
A. I think there was they were not as far as I know, the decision has not come down yet.
Q. But all the testimony had been completed when you and Mr. Putnam went to meet with him,
right?
A. That, I'm not sure.
Q. And did you testify favorable to try to help Mr. Tohme out to try to get money from Michael
Jackson's estate?
A. Did I testify favorable?
Q. In his favor, yeah.
A. I testified the truth to the questions I was asked. I was completely impartial, I was an impartial
witness.
Q. Did you meet with the estate before your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk about this case with Mr. Tohme, Dr. Tohme, when you and Mr. Putnam were at
the polo lounge?
A. No.
Q. Never brought it up?

A. I didn't, no.
Q. Did anyone talk about this case?
A. I don't I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember what you discussed with Mr. Tohme within the last month and your
lawyer?
A. I don't remember what I ate that day.
Q. I didn't ask you what you ate, I asked you what you talked about.
A. I understand, but I'm telling you I don't remember the point is the meeting was had I
believe the meeting had to do with his lawsuit against the estate.
Q. Well, now, sir, the way that you came about meeting Mr. Dr., whatever, Tohme was through
this Mr. Nanula, who Dr. Tohme had worked with at Colony Capital as a longtime consultant,
correct?
A. That is my understanding, yes.
Q. And did you know anything about Dr. Tohme before you before the Michael Jackson
agreement was signed?
A. Before January 28th?
Q. Yes.
A. Did I know anything about him?
Q. Yes.
A. Not nothing other than he was a consultant to Colony Capital, and he also represented
Michael Jackson.
Q. And you learned that at this meeting at Colony Capital, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you understand or have any understanding whether he had any background in the music
industry?
A. No. My understanding was he didn't.
Q. Do you know whether he had other clients in the music industry?

A. My understanding was he didn't.

Q. Did AEG Live have an agreement with Dr. Tohme?
A. As part of the touring agreement with Michael.
Q. Is that a "yes"?
A. "yes."
Q. And let's I'm going to show you exhibit 65. Have you seen that before, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's an agreement between AEG Live and Dr. Tohme on his company, T.T.
International, correct?
A. And Michael Jackson. There were three parties to this agreement.
Q. Which paragraph does it list the parties to the agreement?
A. On the signature page.
Q. Well OK. Now, sir, under this agreement, was AEG Live to pay Dr. Tohme 100,000 a
month?
A. That is correct.
Q. Can we put that up, please? Now, is that common in the industry, where you pay the manager
of an artist?
A. It's when you say is it common, in Michael Jackson's case, it was standard throughout his
career. They always paid a manager because they didn't want to pay him a full commission on
gross earnings. Bon Jovi has a manager that they pay
Q. That wasn't my question, sir. Let me maybe it was unclear.
How many times has AEG Live paid the manager of an artist that they had a touring agreement
with?
A. I don't know. You'd have to ask Shawn Trell.
Q. Ask who?
A. Shawn Trell.

Q. I didn't ask him that, Ill tell you that. Can you name any other times when it occurred?
A. Bon Jovi, we advanced monies for Paul Korzilius; and I know when I was negotiating with
Michael Jackson to be his manager, that they wanted to pay us a monthly stipend against a
bonus.
Q. AEG Live wanted to do that?
A. No, no. Me as an individual for AEG Live.
Q. My question was, sir, how many times were you aware of where AEG Live paid the manager
for the artist?
A. Maybe one one time.
Q. One other time?
A. Yes.
Q. OK. And who was it, sir, that drafted this agreement?
A. I would assume it was either Kathy Jorrie or Shawn Trell, or it could have been no. It was
either Kathy Jorrie or Shawn Trell because it's on our stationery.
Q. Well, who was involved in the drafting for Michael Jackson on his side of this?
A. Dennis hawk and Peter Lopez.
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. OK. Let me play your testimony. Let's start with let's start with 52-21, to 53-1. Actually, it
should be 19.
Ms. Stebbins: what is it? I'm sorry.
Mr. Panish: 52-19. Actually
Ms. Stebbins: no, that's not it.
Mr. Panish: I'm sorry. I'm tired.

Q. While they're messing around with that, have you talked to Sharon Osbourne about This Is
It. the tour?
A. No.
Q. Did you live in the same building with her, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss with her the Michael Jackson This Is It tour and what AEG Was doing?
A. Not to the extent that Sharon is saying we did.
Q. Not to the what?
A. Not to the extent that Sharon is eluding to that we did.
Q. Tell us what you're referring to, sir.
A. I ran into her in the lobby of the building as I was going to my car. She asked me how it's
going. And I said, "it's tough but we're going to get there."
Q. No, no. You said, "not to the extent Sharon is alluding to."
What is Sharon alluding to, to your understanding?
A. I just saw some press accounts of her saying she spoke to AEG
Ms. Stebbins: I'm going to object just to the extent that the jury hears something about
press accounts. We probably shouldn't go into that area.
Judge: overruled, because overruled.
Mr. Panish: he just brought it up, so
Judge: overruled.
Q. tell us what is the extent that she alluded to, sir, that you say you never said?

A. I don't know. I haven't heard her she just said she had conversations with AEG Executives,
and she knew something about the preparations for This Is It. that's all I know.
Q. OK. So wait a minute. You just said that when you talked to her, it wasn't to the extent that
she alluded to, right?
A. Correct. Because I said it was like a salutation. It was hi, goodbye.
Q. Well about
A. But I don't know if it's me she's referring to, so
Q. Did you tell Sharon Osbourne that all the tickets were sold out and you had the money and it
didn't matter whether the show went forward?
A. That would be the most idiotic thing in the world that I could say. The shows have to play or
else we have to refund the tickets.
Q. You didn't refund all the ticket money, did you, sir?
A. Most of it.
Q. Sir, did you refund all of the ticket money?
A. About 93 percent of it, I think.
Q. So you didn't have to refund all the ticket money, did you, sir?
A. No, because some people opted to keep their tickets as souvenirs.
Mr. Panish: exactly.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, I ask that the witness be permitted to finish his answer before
he's interrupted by Mr. Panish.
Judge: are you being interrupted?
Ms. Stebbins: he just was, twice, your honor.

Judge: counsel, I'm asking him.

A. sometimes in our exchanges, it's hard to answer that.
Judge: well, so are you being interrupted or not?
A. no, because I'm OK. .
Judge: I got the impression you were finished, too.
A. I'm OK. .
Q. how much did you keep, sir?
A. How much did we give to the estate from in the settlement?
Q. Sir, let me rephrase it. Can you answer
A. I can't say we kept, because we didn't keep it.
Q. You said you would have to refund all the ticket money, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Some of it wasn't refunded, right?
A. Right, about I believe about seven or eight percent of the people elected to hold the tickets as
souvenirs.
Q. Seven, eight percent of how much was the gross that you collected?
A. I I don't remember what the number was, but it wasn't it wasn't as significant as the entire
gross of the show.
Q. The gross you sold out 50 shows at 14,000 people? I went through these numbers with Mr.
A. There's an accounting of it somewhere is.
Q. Was it more than 5 million?

A. That we kept of the yes, out of 75 million, probably.

Mr. Panish: all right. And now it's 4 oclock the rest can wait till tomorrow