JACKSON V AEG LIVE August 16

th
2013 Please note we have run out of funds NO MORE
transcripts will be posted after this week unless we receive funds, donation can be sent via paypal
to manager@teammichaeljackson.com. Thank you
Dr. Gary Green
(Sports Medicine Expert)
Defense Witness.
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury):
Judge: You want to speak to me?
Mr. Panish: We had a brief discussion last night regarding this witness. I want to make the record
clear. The initial expert witness designations in this case were -- I'm not sure of the exact date. Do you
know, Ms. Bina?
Ms. Stebbins: They were in February.

Mr. Panish: Early February. The 20-day supplemental day plus five for mailing, I think, would have
been March 4th.
Ms. Stebbins: March 4th.
Mr. Panish: So this witness was retained on somewhere between March 2nd and March 3rd. Now
the 20 days had run. They retained him right before the end. Now at the time of his deposition, he filed
a list of everything he reviewed, relied on, and considered. I'd like to file that as a court exhibit.
Judge: What's the witness's name again?
Mr. Panish: Gary Green. I brought this up yesterday briefly.
Judge: That's right.
Mr. Panish: First, I'd like to file -- this is, I think, it's a defense exhibit 13048. It's a list of everything
he's reviewed. So I'd like to show that to the court. I'd like to also show the court exhibit 13052, which
is a list of his opinions that he gave in his deposition. Then I think it's on page -- so then we got into the
discussion at his deposition. I had this discussion yesterday, but I want to make it clear because I don't
think it was clear. Page 45, line 3. "In any event, right now you have no plans to review any other
documents?" answer, "I do not have any plans for reviewing any other documents, and my opinions
are based on what I reviewed to this stage. And if there is further information that's provided to me,
I certainly reserve the right to change my opinions." Okay. That's the only thing he said. He didn't say
he intended to review anything. Now since that time -- and we received no notice that there was any
change in his opinions or additions.
Judge: My understanding is there is no changes.
Ms. Stebbins: There is no change.
Mr. Panish: Well, there is. I haven't got to that yet. That's what was represented to the court. So can I
show this to you?
Judge: Yeah, sure.
Mr. Panish: Does the court have a copy of the exhibits that counsel intends to use.
Ms. Stebbins: The slides?
Mr. Panish: Yes. These were the slides I was given at 9:17 this morning. So I'm handing up to the
court first, the review of the documents which, you know, they said about trial testimony. Well, they
weren't ever given the depositions that existed at the time. So obviously trial testimony didn't exist. But,
for example, deposition testimony. Now he's going to rely on trial testimony, but he was not provided
depositions in reliance on his opinion. Now if you look at his opinions, I think it's pretty well written
out there. If you look at slide number three, I don't know the exhibit numbers, slide number three is
what the Defendants gave us as a list of his opinions for today.
Judge: Is it disagreement or is it --

Mr. Panish: No slide. His only opinions are disagreements primarily. Then he backdoors in his
opinions. So if we look back -- so, your honor, you have in front of you the opinions that he gave that
was written out for the deposition, right?
Judge: The bullet points?
Mr. Panish: Yeah, that's his opinions that he stated in his deposition. Those are his opinions. That's
exhibit 6 to his deposition. Now arguably opinion number one would be bullet point number three,
somewhat. Okay? Sports medicine --
Judge: Right.
Mr. Panish: -- similar.
Judge: Right. So they are stated a little differently, but they are the same opinions.
Ms. Stebbins: That's because Dr. Matheson pared some of his opinions down and altered the way
he'd stated them so we're responding to what he said at time of trial.
Mr. Panish: I'm not making this point. I'm just trying to show --
Judge: Right. You're trying to correlate them. I get it.
Mr. Panish: Then point number point, I guess, could be point number two on the slide and point
number three, the conflict of interest. Now point number three, conflict of interest alleged by Matheson
did not lead to poor medical care." that would appear to be a causation opinion. That's not listed
anywhere in his opinions on that sheet. There is nothing that would do that. If you go to the deposition
-- does the court have the deposition? Did you give the original deposition to the court?
Ms. Stebbins: We certainly can. We usually give up a copy. Your honor, would you like a copy of the
deposition?
Mr. Panish: I think it would be helpful. Your honor, if you look at page 268, starting on line 12, we
specifically were asking about his opinions. "And your view is that Dr. Murray made a mistake,
right? answer, "my view is that Dr. Murray did not practice in an ethical manner." question, "Fair
enough. And the reason that Dr. Murray didn't practice in an ethical manner, you can't say that
within a reasonable degree of medical probability, can you?" "I cannot, but I can say he's
ultimately responsible. Going back to my first point, yeah, my first point he's ultimately responsible."
When we asked him about the causative opinion, he had no opinion at that point in time, and we didn't
follow up on the opinion. Now he has a complete opinion on it and many slides which, if you go look
at the slides, they have now introduced numerous slides dealing with that opinion on it. Number one, he
had no opinion at the time of his deposition, so we didn't follow up with the questions. Number two, if
you look at all the new slides that they have on information that he did not have that he could have
easily had, they are injecting a new opinion and that would be contrary to Bonds vs. Roy, 20 Cal.4th
140, Schriber and Easterly vs. Clark 174 Cal.App.4th, 772, when an expert designation is made, the
party takes the deposition and asks for the specific opinions. We asked him on a specific opinion. He
had no opinion at that time. Now -- and if we look at the slide numbers 12 -- there are not numbers on
all of them.

Judge: You didn't paginate these.

Mr. Panish: No. But there are numerous slides. Like, for example, no evidence linking Pto AEG
Live. Now this goes back to the cause of opinion. He had none of this information at the deposition. Dr.
Slavit's deposition -- he wasn't provided that. Prince Jackson's deposition was taken. He wasn't given it.
Chase's trial testimony was given, but her deposition was the same. He wasn't given that. Martinez, he
couldn't have had that, but he had his report. He could have had his report, but it was not given to him
either which contains the same facts that he testified. So now this slide --
Judge: Doesn't most of what's in the deposition is also testified in trial.
Mr. Panish: Right, but they didn't give the deposition, you see. The deposition was taken long before
his deposition. So they don't -- it's -- I mean, you know, your honor, you can't just intentionally not give
the deposition and then rely on the trial testimony. He doesn't give an opinion on that. We asked him.
He doesn't have any of this information. Now after Matheson, he now has an opinion based on all this
evidence that he could have had --
Judge: Do you have a case that says that?
Mr. Panish: Yes, I do.
Judge: That specifically addresses the issue of, well, the depo versus the trial testimony.
Mr. Panish: Yeah -- no.
Ms. Stebbins: I have one, your honor.
Mr. Panish: I have a case that says, if you're asked in a deposition if you have an opinion and you
don't have an opinion, you can't then offer it at trial, number one. Number two, the case also says
materials that you relied on in your deposition, and I've cited three cases for that proposition. So what
-- I mean, you can't not give information that's available. Now trial testimony isn't available, but all the
other testimony was available. You can't give a new opinion that you're specifically asked for because
then we don't have -- we didn't ask him at his deposition. We didn't have an opportunity because he said
he had no opinion in that regard.
Ms. Stebbins: I have a number of responses, your honor. First of all, this is not a new opinion. That's
the easiest one. Dr. Greene's fifth opinion there is he disagrees with the opinions of Dr. Matheson. One
of those opinions by Dr. Matheson -- Dr. Matheson provided two pages of single-spaced opinions. So
rather than refuting each of them line-by-line and bullets points, he said, "I disagreed with him" and
talked about that at deposition. One of Dr. Matheson's opinions at deposition was that AEG created an
unfavorable environment that increased the likelihood of unfavorable medical decisions resulting in
harm. So Dr. Green was asked about that at his deposition. He said, "The major thing I disagree with
in this paragraph" --
Mr. Panish: Which page?
Ms. Stebbins: Page 307, line 7 through 11. "The major thing I disagree with in this paragraph is that
they, AEG, created -- they, AEG created an environment that increased the likelihood of unfavorable
decisions that result in harm, and it is more likely than not that this caused a substantial factor in

causing Mr. Jackson's death. He stated that at his deposition in disagreement with Dr. Matheson. He
also said at page 259, lines 19 through 23. Question, "Was Dr. Murray operating under a conflict of
interest?" answer, "I did find any evidence that Dr. Murray's actions were a result of the conflict of
interest." Again, that exact same opinion that the actions did not result as a result of the conflict of
interest alleged by Dr. Matheson. Page 275 -- at 276, lines 1 through 5, "I disagree that the
environment created increased the likelihood that poor decisions would be made by Dr. Murray."
Again, your honor, this is not a new opinion. It's not something that was undisclosed at his deposition.
In fact, it was expressly disclosed at his deposition. He said over and over again that he did not believe
a conflict of interest environment led to poor decisions by Dr. Murray.
Judge: Are you saying that the trial testimony that he reviewed just further bolstered whatever --
Ms. Stebbins: Opinion that he had.
Judge: Opinions that he had. He's not really changing it. He's pointing to other evidence that's been
presented in the trial that supports his opinion.
Ms. Stebbins: Right. And to go to the case law, Bonds v Roy is a very limited case. It says if you say
conclusively at your deposition that you were not going to offer any further opinions and then you
come up with a whole new opinion, you can't do that. But there is Dipalma v Rodriguez makes very
clear, your honor, it is perfectly acceptable to offer -- to review further evidence and find further
support for your opinions between preparing for deposition and trial.
Judge: What about the question of, if you had evidence that was available at deposition but don't
present it to the expert and then wait until trial and then you present it --
Mr. Panish: That's Kennemur. Kennemur vs. State of California, 133 Cal.App.3d 907.
Judge: Kennemur said you don't offer new opinions, different opinions.
Mr. Panish: No. It also says all reasonable notice of specific areas of the expert opinions reached and
the bases and reasons supporting the opinions. That says that at Kennemur, page 919 specifically. You
asked me for the case that says the evidence. That's Kennemur vs. State of California. Normally it's
cited on the opinion which he didn't have here. He affirmatively represented he can't say one way or the
other in that page. Now he says differently, and he didn't give his reasons as stated on Kennemur which
is the case that specifically holds new opinion and bases for the other opinions and evidence that you
rely upon and the reasons for that opinion. You can't come now and give new reasons and bases.
Ms. Stebbins: It's not a new opinion, your honor. Those cases deal with new opinions. Dipalma, your
honor, specifically involved a case where the witness at deposition said I believe there was no injury
caused. However, I haven't had an opportunity to review Plaintiff's medical records yet, so I can't be
more specific. At trial he then offered an opinion that the Plaintiff's medical records did not support the
injury. The court said that was fine because the testimony at trial merely constitutes an expanded
description and interpretation of the conclusion stated in his deposition testimony. So long as the
expert, quote, "properly disclosed the general substance of his expected testimony sufficiently so the
parties could adequately prepare for trial, there is no basis upon which to exclude or limit trial
testimony." here, the opinion was disclosed and the evidence based at the time was disclosed. The
witness also stated on the record he'd been retained, your honor. I have the full timeline here. Plaintiff

served disclosures on February 11th. We first contacted Dr. Green on February 15th. He was retained
on March 3rd, disclosed on March 4th. Dr. Matheson's deposition was March 30. If you recall, expert
discovery was very compressed due to some late disclosures like Plaintiffs had some difficulties in
scheduling expert's depositions. Dr. Green was deposed April 1st, less than 48 hours after Dr.
Matheson.
Judge: Was Green present for Matheson's depo?
Mr. Panish: The whole time.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, he responded as very best he could at the time. However, he stated on the
record, you know, that he might review further evidence presented at -- you know, and that he would --
you know, he would consider that. I also made it very clear on the record at the deposition in a number
of places that there might be further documents reviewed. Although, again, there is no rule that you
have to --
Mr. Panish: Yes, there is.
Ms. Stebbins: There is no rule, your honor that an expert cannot continue to review materials
including trial testimony. Dr. Matheson, for instance --
Mr. Panish: You have to give notice under Easterly vs. Clark 171 Cal.App.4th 722.
Ms. Stebbins: No. You have to give notice of new opinions, not of reviewing trial testimony. Every
one of Plaintiff's experts, by the way, your honor, reviewed trial testimony and relied on it in further
support of their opinions.
Mr. Panish: But they have all seen the depos.
Judge: In the old days, they used to have the experts sit in the back of the courtroom and listen to the
testimony as opposed to providing testimony.
Mr. Panish: In our situation --
Judge: That's not an argument.
Mr. Panish: In our situation, any expert that reviewed testimony was provided the depositions, and
he had them at the deposition. Like Dr. Matheson of the trial testimony reviewed, he had all the
depositions that were taken of those witnesses. And this witness said he had no -- he wasn't -- he had no
-- I forgot exactly. It's on page 45 what I read.
Judge: Let me ask the Defendants. In addition to -- I think the trial testimony, that's a done deal. He
can review the trial testimony. There is no bar to that. But what other information or documents were
you able to identify that he's going to rely on?
Ms. Stebbins: Only additional he is going to rely on, he reviewed a few other medical records for
background that he's not actually relying on for his opinion. He'd just asked for more to understand the
situation better. The only other piece he's relying on, your honor, was the testimony --

Judge: That would be relying on.

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, they were -- they are not actually part of the basis of the opinion. They
were about the warnings Mr. Jackson received about Propofol. I don't believe they are anywhere
contained on the slides. He just asked for more details on Mr. Jackson Propofol use.
Mr. Panish: He had no opinion on that.
Ms. Stebbins: He's not giving an opinion on that now. So the only additional things he's relying on
for his opinion, your honor, is Mr. Slavit's testimony which was played in court yesterday. Again, it was
a deposition, but it was played in court. So I think it would fall under the trial testimony category.
Mr. Panish: He could have had that.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, again, there is no rule that you can't go out and find additional support for
your opinions. The rule is you can't change your opinions without disclosing it. He had less time than
Plaintiff's experts to prepare for deposition because they retained Dr. Matheson in January, your honor,
and he was not deposed until March 30th. Dr. Green, by necessity, was retained in early March. It was
at the end of March. By that time, he had reviewed the depositions of many witnesses in the case. I
think six plus nine trial -- plus another three trial testimony, so nine depositions as well as medical
records. He had not had a chance to review everything in the case. We made that clear. We also said he
could continue his review. The only additional materials that he's relied on is Dr. Slavit, which was
played in open court and is relying on it for a single point which is Dr. Slavit was told Dr. Murray was
Michael Jackson's personal physician.
Mr. Putnam: All of that discovery we were supposed to get -- all of the experts we weren't given
until the very last moment. They got additional time and then dumped all of them on us. And as a result
of this, we were scrambling to do all this. We did best as humanly possible in light of that fact. As case
law makes clear, he's allowed to add to his bases for his opinions.
Mr. Panish: First of all, he mentioned the word Propofol one time at deposition in 321 pages. Now
he's coming in with all these opinions about Propofol usage and what AEG did know, did not know. No
opinion on that in the deposition. He was asked specifically if he had an opinion about the causation
related to the conflict interest. He said he couldn't say one way or the other, so we didn't follow up. And
now they dumped all this new stuff on him. He's now got this new opinion.
We didn't have an opportunity to cross-examine at the deposition nor prepare for rebuttal. Anyone that
knew this case would know that conflicts of interest medicine were of issue the whole time. They didn't
need to scramble at the last minute. They should have known that. This wasn't even an appropriate
supplemental designation because you have to show that you wouldn't even know that it had no
reasonable likelihood that's an issue in the case, and you were surprised when you responded.
Remember, he wasn't identified until way at the end. He wasn't listed on the initial designation which
we listed Dr. Matheson.
That clearly was an issue. You wrote in your summary judgment. Anyone who that was at least looking
at the case would know that's an issue in the case. Now, after he was asked in the deposition "Do you
have an opinion," he didn't have one. Now he's coming in giving this direct opinion, citing all this
Propofol information. He didn't say any of this in his deposition. He could have had Kai Chase's
deposition. He could have had Prince Jackson's. He had the police report. All this information was

available before he was deposed. They chose to sandbag -- now go back to exhibit 2 of what he
reviewed all the materials that counsel gave him for his deposition. Counsel chose what to give him.
And, look, it's not even in the ball park now. Now it's completely different. We've been prejudiced.
There has not been an adequate opportunity, as stated in the case, Easterly case, Kennemur vs. State of
California, opinion and a bases. It would be improper. After all of this time, she could have wrote us a
letter and said, oh, by the way, he's going to give a new opinion.
Judge: I haven't heard a new opinion yet.
Mr. Panish: He gave -- that the conflict of interest -- the opinion that there is no evidence linking
AEG -- Propofol to AEG Live? Is that an opinion? That's an opinion.
Ms. Stebbins: The opinion, your honor, is that the conflict of interest did not result in poor medical
care stated on page 259, 275. It's stated on page 307. It's stated on page 290. It's stated on page 304. It's
stated throughout the deposition, your honor. Plaintiff actually inquired a lot into the bases of some of
the earlier opinions, and then towards the end of the deposition, they did not explore all the bases of the
later ones. Instead, they asked what they were and said, well, don't agree that a conflict could be created
in this or that situation, and he responded to the questions. In any environment, your honor, there is no
rule that you can't find further support in trial testimony for your opinions. Dr. Matheson did exactly
that, your honor, when he testified. He added Detective Martinez in his testimony. He added Kai Chase
to his testimony. He added -- I have a whole list.
Mr. Panish: He had all those depositions. He had Martinez's police report and Kai Chase's deposition
at his deposition. We had provided all those materials to him. It is a new opinion, your honor. He's now
saying, in his deposition, he couldn't say one way or the other whether there is any causal relationship.
Now he's not only saying is there a relationship but he has all this evidence that he could have had that
is supporting it that was all available long before he was designated supplementally. They could have
designated him early on. There is nothing that has to do with when experts were designated. The issue
is was that an issue in the case.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, the first time we heard the word conflict of interest in this case was Dr.
Matheson's deposition on April 30. When they designated a sports expert, we were frankly puzzled as
to where they were going with it because their theory up until that point was that AEG Live had a
history of knowingly employing rock docs to supply people with drugs. That was their --
Judge: When was the summary judgment motion?
Ms. Stebbins: Summary judgment was in late February. They weren't making the conflict of interest
argument at that point, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Your ruling said it.
Ms. Stebbins: I think your honor thought of that idea actually.
Judge: I don't just make up ideas. Usually they come to me because somebody provided them. I
admit I'm not that smart.
Ms. Stebbins: That was a week before Dr. Green was disclosed. February 21st was the summary

judgment decision. If you recall prior to summary judgment, we had three claims and many other
parties in the case. They were focusing on negligence, the idea that AEG Live controlled Michael's
medical care, controlled his well-being, and kept him from going to certain doctors. They were alleging
Dr. Murray was an employee.
Judge: It's negligence of hiring, retention and supervision. It was focused on that. But the conflict is
the theory --
Ms. Stebbins: That was a theory that became more developed by Plaintiffs, your honor, after the case
was narrowed to negligent hiring. It's not like this was something that was always at issue in the case.
When they designated this expert, we found our own sports medicine expert. We're still not clear
exactly where they were going with it, your honor.
Mr. Panish: We had him retained before the summary judgment ruling, your honor. I mean, it's not
like no one knew -- we said he's a sports medical ethics expert. How can they now at the, you know,
five months in come in with a new opinion --
Ms. Stebbins: It's not a new opinion.
Judge: I'm going to overrule Plaintiff's objection and allow it.
Mr. Putnam: One other question. For several days, we've been told they are going to rest.
Judge: Right. You keep saying tentatively.
Mr. Panish: I know. She was here yesterday. We didn't bring it up. I'm sorry. I'll see where she is, so
she can come down.
Mr. Putnam: Day four.
Mr. Panish: We don't want to rest. We have some other witnesses based on Ortega, Ms. Faye
impeachment based on this limited area.
Judge: Bring them in on rebuttal.
Mr. Panish: Well, no. We can bring them in in our case in chief because we --
Judge: You can, but we're way into defense case here.
Ms. Stebbins: It's prejudicial to not know when Plaintiff's case is done and not know what evidence
we need to respond to.
Judge: I'm going to tell the jury that the Plaintiffs have rested their case in chief subject to -- if you're
not going to do it, I'll deem it.
Mr. Panish: Wait a minute. It wasn't our control of Mr. Ortega. That's not appropriate. We're trying to
move the case along.
Judge: I know.

Mr. Panish: There are three areas that we want to address in light of Mr. Ortega's testimony which I
told that to the court when Mr. Ortega was here.
Ms. Stebbins: One area --
Mr. Panish: God. Can I -- this is what --
Judge: I'd like to bring the jury in, Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish: You just throw this on me that we're resting.
Judge: We've been discussing it for days.
Mr. Panish: We had. Ms. Chang was here yesterday. No one brought it up. I asked --
Ms. Stebbins: I thought they were going to bring it up, your honor. We had been raising it for days.
Mr. Panish: I'll tell the jury we rest subject to rebuttal.
Judge: Of course. Okay.
Mr. Panish: Well there are --
Judge: Always subject to the admission of various exhibits.
Mr. Panish: Exhibit's, rulings, everything is conditional.
Judge: All right.
Ms. Stebbins: Again, your honor, how can you rest subject to rebuttal. You rest and then to the extent
--
Judge: He's rested. He's rested. It won't matter.
Mr. Panish: You're saying that some of the witness that I want to call in my case in chief, I have to
call them in rebuttal. I would have called them now. You're saying just call them in rebuttal. I said I'd
like to do it now. You said that's what I'm doing, so that's what I'm doing.
Judge: Who is your witness, Green.
Mr. Boyle: Just for the record, there is also some stipulations made about certain witnesses they were
going to bring in that, if they don't bring in, there was testimony we'd want to play that would also be
part of our case in chief if they don't end up bringing those witnesses in. I want to make that clear.
Mr. Putnam: We don't have to call up people for their case in chief.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury)

Judge: Before we start, Plaintiffs.
Mr. Panish: Yes. Your honor, subject to exhibits and other rulings by the court, the Plaintiff would
rest as of Mr. Ortega's, completion of his testimony, and we've been going into some of the defense
witnesses. So our's would be rested as of the end of Mr. Ortega, and the rest would be defense case.
Judge: Very good. Thank you. We're well into defense case. It's a formality you have to rest
technically. We just missed that formality. Very well. call your next witness.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, at this time defense would call Dr. Gary Green.
Judge: Thank you. Dr. Green, if you'd come up. Gary Green, M.D., called as a witness by the
defense, was sworn and testified as follows: The clerk: Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly
state that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?
The witness: I do. The clerk: Thank you, sir. You may have a seat. Sir, can you please state and spell
your first and last name for the record.
The witness: Gary Green, g-a-r-y g-r-e-e-n.
The clerk: Thank you.
Direct examination by Jessica Stebbins:
Q. Good morning, Dr. Green.
A. Good morning.
Q. I'm going to try to speak up today. I'm recovering from a little bit of a cold. If at any point you
can't hear me, please just let me know.
A. Okay.
Q. What kind of doctor are you?
A. I'm board certified in both internal medicine and primary care sports medicine.
Q. Where do you work?
A. I currently have a private practice at the pacific palisades medical group. That's a clinical affiliate
of UCLA.

Q. Any other jobs that you have?

A. Yes, I do. I am a team physician, head team physician for Pepperdine University. I'm also a student
health physician at Pepperdine University. I also am the medical director and consultant on
performance enhancing drugs for major league baseball, and I also work through the department of
pathology at the UCLA Olympic analytic laboratory.
Q. That's a lot of hats, Dr. Green.
A. Yes.
Q. Let's go through them one at a time. What are your responsibilities as the medical director for
major league baseball?
A. I have many responsibilities there, but the basic ones are to oversee the medical care of the
athletes and the players in both minor and major league baseball, to oversee -- including the team
physicians, the athletic trainers and basically any -- and to be a liaison to the office of the commissioner
on all medical aspects. That basically means that anyone from baseball can call me at any time
regarding any medical aspects of baseball.
Q. Is that a full-time position, Dr. Green, or is it part time?
A. It is part time.
Q. And can you give me an estimate of how much time you typically spend working for major league
baseball?
A. That's a hard question. It really depends on the season. During the season, it may be a higher
percentage than in the off season. It just depends. Probably about 30 to 35 percent of my time.
Q. You mentioned that you also worked at Pepperdine University. What are your responsibilities
there?
A. At Pepperdine University, I have several. I'm the head team physician, so responsible for the
athletes that participate in intercollegiate sports. I also spend, during the school year, a few hours a
week at the student health center seeing the general students there at Pepperdine, not just the athletes.
Q. And how much time -- how much of your time does that take up?
A. During the school year, it's about three hours a week.
Q. And so that's also a part-time position?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then you said you also have an affiliation with the department of pathology at UCLA?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what, if anything, do you do in connection with that?

A. I conduct research on behalf of major league baseball through the department of pathology at the
UCLA Olympic analytic lab.
Q. Are you also a clinical professor at UCLA?
A. I am. I'm a clinical professor in the school of medicine at UCLA and a member of the division of
sports medicine at UCLA.
Q. What are your responsibility as a clinical professor?
A. I'm involved -- UCLA has an accredited primary care sports medicine fellowship program, and I'm
responsible for teaching the fellows. I conduct lectures for the fellows at my office. I also attend
functions through the division of sports medicine, and I also advise the UCLA intercollegiate athletic
department on drug testing.
Q. How much -- what about your primary care practice? What do you do in that?
A. In that I'm a partner in our primary care group. I have three other partners, and I see primary care
patients. Although I do see a good percentage of sports patients, I also see general medical patients as
well.
Q. And about how much of your time is your primary care practice take up?
A. It varies a little bit throughout the year, but I would say approximately 16 hours a week.
Q. Now in addition to the institutions you're currently working with, have you worked with other
organizations in the field of sports medicine in the past?
A. Yes, I have.
Ms. Stebbins: Pam, could you please put up one, I guess, for counsel first.
Mr. Panish: It's okay.
Ms. Stebbins: Put that up.
Mr. Panish: Is there an exhibit number on there?
Ms. Stebbins: 13526.
Q. Dr. Green, can you tell us some of the other organizations you've worked with over the course of
your career?
A. Yes. This slide was some of the past and current organizations that I've been affiliated with over
the last several years during the course of my career in sports medicine.
Q. And we're not familiar with all those logos. Can you tell us what each of those are?

A. Sure. The first one to the left is the United States soccer federation, and I've been involved as a --
on their medical advisory board and as a team physician for U.S. Soccer since approximately 1990. I
was involved with the salt lake Olympics in 2002 in the drug testing lab. As we mentioned, I've been a
medical director and consultant on performance enhancing drugs with major league baseball since
2003. I've been the team physician with Pepperdine University, I believe, since 1997. The one at the
bottom left is UCLA, and I was a team physician for UCLA for approximately ten years. As we
mentioned, I'm still affiliated with UCLA in our clinical department, and I still advise UCLA on their
drug testing program. The NCAA, for those of you who don't follow sports, is the group that oversees
all 350,000 NCAA athletes who compete in colleges throughout the united states. I was on their
competitive safeguards committee for six years which oversees the health and safety of athletes. I also
chaired their committee on drug testing for five years.
I've been a volunteer physician in the past for the Special Olympics. Then the last one to the right is the
California interscholastic federation. That's the organization that oversees all of the high school athletes
that compete in the state of California. I've been on their medical advisory committee for several years
and, again, that is mainly devoted to the health and safety of the athletes. So the one thing that unifies
this in several things such as the NCAA and the CIF and MLB is that I've been very devoted to the
health and safety of athletes at all levels, not just professional but high school, college, and
professional.
Q. Are you a member of any professional organizations, Dr. Green?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Can you give me some examples.
A. I'm a fellow in the American college of sports medicine, also a fellow in the American College of
Physicians, and I'm a charter member of the American medical society for sports medicine.
Q. And what do you mean by a "charter member"?
A. I was there at the founding. I believe I'm member number 66.
Q. Are you a member of any other professional organizations or have we gotten through the majority
of them now?
A. No, those are my professional organizations at this time.
Q. What does the American college of sports medicine do?
A. The American college of sports medicine is probably the largest and oldest sports medicine
organization in the United States. It's not made up of just physicians. In fact, physicians are a small
minority of that group. It's actually devoted to exercise sciences and all of the things that go with sports
medicine such as biomechanics and exercise physiology as well.
Q. Now, Dr. Green, I know we've heard a bit about sports medicine in this case. Can you remind us
briefly what is sports medicine?
A. That's a great question. I get asked that a lot. Sports medicine is real any some ways not very

different from regular medicine. You still have to be a good doctor and understand injuries and illness.
What separates a sports medicine doctor is an understanding of the demands that the patient is placing
on their body. So it's a combination of that. The other part about sports medicine is that sometimes,
when you go to the regular doctor, they'll consider you're, quote, "cured" when you can go back to your
normal activities of daily life. In sports medicine, we sort of go the extra mile, and we don't consider a
patient cured until they can go back to the level of activity that they would like to get back to. That's
really the difference. We have an understanding of the demands that the sport has as well as demands of
the injuries and illness patterns that happen.
Q. Now going back a little bit further in time, I assume you went to college and medical school?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where did you go?
A. I went undergraduate University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Then I went to medical school at
the Hahnemann Medical College in Pennsylvania.
Q. When you graduated medical school, did you take any sort of oath?
A. Yes, I believe we did.
Q. And what oath about you take?
A. I believe we took -- it was a few years ago. I couldn't tell you exactly. I believe we took a
modification of the Hippocratic Oath.
Q. Is the Hippocratic Oath -- are there a number of modern versions sort of circulating?
A. Yes, there are.
Q. Do they all have the same basic principle?
A. Yes. Although there may be different versions, the underlying theme of it is that at all costs, the
doctor should do no harm, and the doctor should act in the best interest of their patient.
Q. Is that something you took seriously when you graduated from medical school?
A. Very seriously.
Q. Something that you still take seriously?
A. Every day that I see patients.
Q. Can you tell us briefly what you did after you graduated medical school?
A. Following my graduation from medical school, I did an internal medicine internship and residency
at the medical college of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Q. What year was that?

A. I believe I completed that in 1986.
Q. And was that the first time that you worked in sports medicine?
A. Actually, that residency was in basic internal medicine. Since I had an interest in sports medicine,
towards the end of my residency I created my own rotations in sports medicine to get more experience
in that field.
Q. You said now you work in an accredited sports medicine program. Did those exist back in 1985,
'86?
A. They were really just starting back there. I believe there were just two or three fellowships at the
time. At the time, they were all in departments of family medicine. I had -- none in internal medicine
where I'd graduated.

Q. You sort of created your own program?
A. I tried to do the best I could at the time.
Q. Where did you work after your residency?
A. Following my residency, I was able to secure a position as the head team physician for the
University of Delaware. I was the only physician there for 600 athletes in Delaware.
Q. And what did you do as a team physician?
A. Everything. I was by myself. So I did all of the pre-participation exams to make sure the athletes
were cleared to play. I covered all the games. I saw the athletes when they were either ill or injured and
was quite busy.
Q. How long did you serve as the head team physician for the University of Delaware?
A. I was there for two years.
Q. What did you do next?
A. After two years in Delaware, I really enjoyed my time, but I was feeling a little bit limited because
all of my patients were 18 to 22 years old and only had the medical problems 18 to 22 year olds. My
role model growing up from medicine was my family doctor who took care of patients throughout their
whole life. I really wanted to experience that. Although I enjoyed sports medicine and really enjoyed
the practice of doing that, I also wanted to expand my medical career, and I wanted to be someone's
family
Doctor and wanted to take care of families throughout their entire life. So I made a move in 1988 to
come to UCLA.
Q. At UCLA were you able to practice in both internal medicines treating patients at a variety of

points in their life as well as sports medicine?

A. Yes, I was. UCLA in addition to being a team physician and working in the sports medicine
program there, I was also able to join the department of family medicine. Although I was an internist
and not a family physician, they accepted me into that program, and I became a member of the faculty
there and practiced and began seeing patients there of all ages.
Q. Since 1988, when you went to UCLA, have you continued to have this divided practice in which
you had a focus on the one hand in sports medicine and on the other hand in internal medicine and a
long-term practice?
A. Yes, I do. In fact, I have patients that I've had since 1988 that have still followed me to my current
practice. That's very rewarding to see patients. I think there is a very important point of continuity of
care and being able to take care of people throughout the course of their life so you get to know them
really well.
Q. You said earlier you're also a clinical professor at UCLA?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can you tell us some of the subjects that you teach.
A. Currently I teach our sports medicine fellows in our program. We have anywhere from two to four
fellows every year, and I give them lectures about once a month on a variety of topics in sports
medicine.
Q. Do any of those topics relate to the issue of medical ethics?
A. Yes, they do. I give a talk every year to the fellows on ethics in sports medicine. I also talk to them
about research and institutional review boards and how to get your research approved and what are the
ethical responsibilities of the physicians for both research and with clinical care.
Q. Would you say something that medical ethics is part of both your personal practice and teaching
practice?
A. I think it's a part of every physician's practice. So, yes, it's part of my practice as well.
Q. You've given presentations to students relating to that topic?
A. I believe I've given at least one lecture on ethics in sports medicine.
Q. What about at hospitals and conferences? Have you ever spoken on topics that included medical
ethics there?
A. Again, ethics can come up in a variety of sources. Yes, I did give a talk at Santa Monica Hospital, I
believe, on ethics and drug use in athletes.
Q. You mentioned the idea of drug use. Is that something where medical ethics is kind of the forefront
of the issues that come into play?

A. I think ethics play a role in all parts. But, yes, in terms of athletes using performance-enhancing
drugs which have been a big focus of my career and research I believe that comes out.
Q. What about return to play decisions? Are you familiar with those?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And is that something that is included in your practice as well as your teaching experience?
A. Yes. I think -- especially in my sports medicine experience, return to play is an important one
because, when you take care of an athlete the first thing they say is, before they even know what's
wrong, the first thing they want to know is "when can I go back to play?" return to play is an important
aspect of that.
Q. Now the program you teach at UCLA, is that -- that is an accredited program?
A. Yes, that is accredited by the medical specialty field, and it's accredited in primary care sports
medicine.
Q. Are you familiar with Dr. Gordon Matheson who testified in this case on behalf of Plaintiffs?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Would you classify your own experience and knowledge -- are you familiar with his background
and accomplishments?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Would you classify your own experience and knowledge as similar to Dr. Matheson's?
A. I believe that my experience in sports medicine is certainly similar if not greater than Dr.
Matheson's. But in addition, I have a current primary care practice which, I believe, Dr. Matheson does
not.
Q. So you'd say your experience is broader?
A. I would say, at this point in my career, my experience is broader.
Q. Now let's move on to your involvement in this case. Is this your first time serving as an expert
witness, Dr. Green?
A. No, I've done it a few times before this.
Q. And by "a few" --
A. I believe I've been retained about six or seven times.
Q. Have you ever testified in court before?

A. I believe I have, approximately twice.

Q. Have you ever worked with my firm OMelveny and Myers before?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How many times?
A. Just once.
Q. When was that?
A. That was in 2012. I was working on a case with your firm.
Q. And just generally, without giving any details, can you tell us what that case was about?
A. Sure. I was approached by the firm. There was a case involving two boxers, Manny Pacquiao and
Floyd Mayweather, Jr. I was retained on behalf of the Pacquiao case which, I believe, your firm was
representing.
Q. And I understand there is a protective order in that case, so you can't talk about any of the work
you did specifically. Can you tell us did that have anything to do with conflicts of interest or ethics of
sports medicine?
Mr. Panish: Your honor, if we're going to get into this, they have raised it now. Protective order
doesn't apply. We can question about this.
Judge: I'm assuming --
Mr. Panish: They wouldn't let us question at the deposition about his role in anything. She's now
brought that up. I want to make sure it's open for cross-examination.
Judge: Only if it has to do with ethics.
Ms. Stebbins: It doesn't.
Mr. Panish: She brought it up.
Judge: Is the answer going to be no?
Mr. Panish: The role in what he did, I think. Then why bring it up?
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, they asked at the deposition. It was about prior work with the case -- prior
work with OMelveny. I'm asking clarifying about prior work with OMelveny but not the subject.
Judge: Overruled.

Mr. Panish: Well, I'm not objecting for asking but --

Mr. Putnam: Move to strike. It's not an objection.
Judge: Motion granted.
Q. Did that have anything to do with conflicts of interest or the ethics of sports medicine?
A. Not at all.
Q. Have you ever worked on any criminal cases, Mr. Green?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Were those in connection with my firm?
A. No, they were not.
Q. And what was your role generally when you've been involved in criminal cases?
A. One of my main roles in those cases was prosecuting doctors who were illegally prescribing
performance-enhancing drugs such as human growth hormone and anabolic steroids. In those cases, I
was working with prosecutors on prosecuting doctors for illegal activities.
Q. And you didn't actually serve as a prosecutor, right?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Were you giving medical advice and opinions that related to those prosecutions?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. When did you first become involved in this case?
A. I believe in late February, I received a call from I believe Alexandra Davies from your firm, asking
me if I'd be interested in another case with your firm.
Q. And were you familiar with the facts of the case before you were retained?
A. Only what I'd read in the media.
Q. Were you surprised when you were called about this case?
A. As a matter of fact, I was very surprised.
Q. Why was that?
A. Because most of my legal work has been in the field of sports medicine or in drug testing or
performance-enhancing drugs or anabolic steroids. From what I'd read in the papers, this case didn't

have any of that.

Q. So you were surprised because this wasn't clearly a sports medicine case?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you have any opinions about the case when we first contacted you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And were you ever asked by me or anyone at my firm to come up with any specific conclusions?
A. No, I was not.
Q. In preparation for your opinions in this case, did you review any testimony or documents?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you review materials both before your deposition and have you also reviewed trial
testimony since that time?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you recall offhand who you reviewed?
A. The depositions?
Q. Deposition or trial testimony.
A. It's -- you know this trial has been going on, as you all know, for quite some time. There has been
quite a bit of material here. We prepared a list of what I've reviewed, but I can give you offhand what I
recall.
Q. Well, why don't you give me offhand so we don't take too much time. If we need to get into the
list, we can.
A. I reviewed the depositions of Kenny Ortega, Randy Phillips, Paul Gongaware, Karen Faye, Alif
Sankey. I reviewed the deposition obviously of Dr. Gordon Matheson as well as his trial testimony. I
reviewed medical records from Dr. Murray. I reviewed medical records from Dr. Metzger, Dr. Slavit. I
reviewed depositions and trial testimony from Prince Jackson. I also mentioned Kai Chase. I reviewed
declarations from some of the experts such as Barry Nadell, Richard Barnett. Reviewed my own
deposition. I think that's a good start.
Q. Let me ask you about a couple other trial testimony. Did you review the trial testimony of
Plaintiff's expert David Berman?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What about Plaintiff's expert Dr. Wohlgelernter. Did you read his trial testimony?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Dr. Schnoll?
A. Yes.
Q. What about the trial testimony of Mr. Phillips, Mr. Ortega or Mr. Gongaware?
A. Yes. I reviewed all of them as well.
Q. And the trial testimony of Kathy Jorrie?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What about the trial testimony of Detective Martinez?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was it possible for you to review all of the documents and all of the depositions and all of the
testimony in this case?
A. No, it's not.
Q. And do you know how many hours you spent approximately working on this case so far?
A. To date, I've probably spent about 115 hours on this case, and that doesn't include a deposition
with the Plaintiffs' law firm.
Q. Are you being paid for your time on this case?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. At what rate?
A. I'm being paid $500 per hour.
Q. Do you have an estimate of the total amount you've billed so far in this case?
A. Approximately in this case approximately $20- to $25,000, I believe, to date.
Q. Is there more outstanding that you would be billing?
A. There will be at the end of this month.
Q. Any idea what the tab is at this point?
A. Approximately $25- to $30,000 in addition to that.

Q. So total about 50,000?

A. That would be about right.
Q. Do you consider your opinions that you're going to give in this case to be independent?
A. Yes, I do. I consider that I reviewed evidence in this case and came to an independent decision.
Q. And do you have any ethical obligations to do that?
A. Yes, I do. In fact, the AMA has a policy regarding how physicians testify as experts. It specifically
says that they should testify to the best of their expert opinion without regard to financial
compensation.
Q. Now have you reviewed Dr. Matheson's testimony and conclusions in this case?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And do you agree or disagree with his conclusions, especially as they relate to the conflict of
interest in this case?
A. I disagree with Dr. Matheson's conclusions.
Q. Have you are prepared any slides that would help us walk through your disagreements with Dr.
Matheson?
A. Yes, I have. I prepared slides to help the jury see where my disagreements are with Dr. Matheson.
Q. Let's go ahead and look at that now. Mr. Panish, do you me to show you these? I gave them to you
beforehand.
Mr. Panish: What's the number on this one?
Ms. Stebbins: 13527.
Mr. Panish: They don't have a number on them.
Ms. Stebbins: We'll put numbers on them after.
Mr. Panish: Is this the right one?
Ms. Stebbins: That is the right one, yes.
Mr. Panish: They don't all have numbers.
Ms. Stebbins: Sorry. Last time I printed them, they had numbers on them.
Mr. Panish: Go ahead. You can put that one up.

Q. Dr. Green, is this a slide you prepared to reflect your main points of disagreements with Dr.
Matheson?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Are these opinions that you hold to a reasonable degree of professional certainty?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Can you walk us briefly through each of these, and then we'll delve into them in some detail?
A. These are my four main differences with Dr. Matheson. The first is that his assertion that this is
analogous or similar to sports medicine is the wrong analogy. What I'll show in my opinion, when we
talk about this further, is this case is actually much closer to a traditional doctor/patient private practice
relationship. The second is that the facts simply don't support the alleged -- the conflict of interest that's
been alleged by Dr. Matheson. I'll talk in more detail about the facts that I considered that don't support
this conflict of interest. The third point is that any conflict of interest that's been alleged by Dr.
Matheson finally did not lead to the poor medical care in this case and the unfortunate death of Michael
Jackson. Lastly, not only do I disagree with Dr. Matheson's conclusions but I feel he used -- he ignored
or disregarded key principles of this case as well as key principles of medicine to reach his conclusions.
Q. Now before we go further, Dr. Green, we've heard a lot about the term conflict of interest. It's
something we'll be talking about more today. What is a conflict of interest?
A. A conflict of interest very simply is when at least two parties have differing interests or different
goals and desires. A good example of that is, one of the more common ones, is the conflict between a
doctor and a patient. For example, when I -- if I see a patient in my practice who smokes cigarettes. I
might feel it's really not in the patient's best interest for them to continue smoking, but the patient may
continue to smoke and want to continue to smoke. That's an example of where there is a conflict
between the doctor and the patient. Those come up all the time in medicine.
Q. Do they also come up with third parties when it's not just the doctor and the patient?
A. Yes. Any time you have more than two parties, you certainly can have -- you certainly can have a
conflict of interest in those cases.
Q. Now is patient care compromised every time a physician has a conflict of interest?
A. No. And in fact if that was the case, then every patient visit could be compromised.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Conflicts frequently come up between -- sometimes patients come in -- sometimes I'll have a
patient that comes in with a cold who wants the antibiotics, and they have a virus, and I don't think that
that's indicated. And so in that case, there is a conflict, and so the doctor has to resolve those
satisfactorily to the best interest of the patient. The bottom line is, regardless of the conflict, the doctor
is still bound by the Hippocratic Oath to offer ethical and do no harm to the patient.

Q. Now we heard testimony from Dr. Matheson about managing conflict of interest through
committees in the field of sports medicine and in colleges. In your experience, have you typically
managed conflicts of interest through a committee?
A. No. If that was the case, I'd never get through my day seeing patients if I had to go to a committee
every time I had a conflict.
Q. How do you manage them then?
A. Experience and doctors learn very quickly in practice of how to manage conflicts of interest to --
in an ethical way to make sure they always have the best interest of their patient at heart.
Q. Would you consider that a core part of a physician's practice to manage conflicts?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Let's go on then to your first opinion. Next slide. So, Dr. Green, your first opinion here is that
sports medicine is not a good analogy for this case, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And have you prepared a slide that outlines some of your reasons for that opinion?
A. I have.
Q. Shall we see that one?
A. Yes, please.
Mr. Panish: Is there a number on this?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes, 13528.
Mr. Panish: What number slide is this?
Ms. Stebbins: Three -- or four. Mr. Panish, there is a small little number right here on the slides.
Mr. Panish: Not on all of them.
Judge: I don't have any numbers on mine.
Ms. Stebbins: They are tiny, your honor. They are kind of in the lower right-hand corner.
Judge: Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm not sure how that happened. Last time I printed them, they were nice and visible.

Judge: Okay.
Ms. Stebbins: They should have a number on each of them in very tiny font in the lower right-hand
corner.
A. This slide outlines some of the main reasons where I feel that this case -- that sports medicine is
the wrong analogy for this case. The first one is the manner of who selects the doctor. If I look at my
experience in sports medicine and my colleagues, in a team or a school sports, it's the team or the
school who selects the doctor.
Q. So what do you mean by that? Does the team actually go out and seek out doctors?
A. Yes. The team or the -- as Dr. Matheson mentioned in his deposition in his testimony that he was
recruited to Stanford to be their team physician, not by the patients. He was recruited by the University
to be their team doctor.
Q. In your experience, do the patients, the team members have any role in selecting the team doctor?
A. No, they do not. They don't have any role in selecting the team doctor or in dismissing the team
doctor.
Q. Do they have to sign a contract approving the retention of a team doctor?
A. No, they don't.
Q. What about your primary care practice? How does it work there?
A. In my primary care practice, I'm selected by the patient. The patient decides they want to come in
and see me. That's just between myself and the patient.
Q. And what about in this case? Which do you view is more analogous here?
A. I view this as much more analogous to my primary care practice because the evidence shows
Michael Jackson brought Dr. Murray to the attention of AEG Live, and in fact Michael Jackson insisted
that he bring -- he be allowed to bring his personal physician with him on this tour.
Q. Have you seen any evidence that AEG Live selected and chose Dr. Murray outside of Mr. Jackson
requesting it?
A. No. In fact the evidence suggests the opposite that at one point AEG Live considered other options
but Mr. Jackson insisted he wanted his private physician.
Q. Is that -- you basically explained your first point here?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is this one about?
A. The second point is who does the doctor have to give treatment to? In my experience as a team

physician and as a practical matter, when you're a team physician, you have to treat all the players on
the team. Not just the stars but give the same treatment to the bench warmers, to those who don't play
or those who play a lot. The team physician is hired to treat all the players on that team.
Q. What about in primary practice? Do you get a group of patients at a time?
A. No. In a primary care practice, you treat one patient at a time. You might treat that family, but you
would still treat each one as an individual.
Q. Does it come as a package deal? If you treat the husband, do you have to treat the wife, too?
A. No, in my practice we have several families where I might treat the husband, one of my partners
would treat the wife, and the kids would see somebody else.
Q. What about in this case? Have you seen any evidence one way or the other as to who was going to
receive treatment?
A. In this case, it's very clear that Dr. Murray's only obligation was to Michael Jackson and perhaps
to his children as well as there is evidence that he was treating the children for health issues as well.
But -- there is no evidence to suggest that Dr. Murray was being asked to treat anyone else on the tour
except Michael Jackson.
Q. Let's look at the next one.
A. The next area is who has the right to information from the doctor? In the sports venue, in sports
medicine, it's the player, the coach, the team and the public. For those of you who like to watch
football, there is sideline reporters who, when someone goes down with an injury, there is immediately
a sideline reporter reporting what the injury is and if the athlete is expected back or not.
Q. Can you explain that to me. I thought medical information was private. How do these people all
have a right to the information from the doctor?
A. In sports, in team sports and these types of things, the team doctor -- sorry. The athletes all sign
releases that allow the team doctor to talk to the administrators, to talk to the coaches, to talk to the
athletic trainers because in the sports complex, you have to talk to all those people. You have to tell the
coach if somebody can play or not. You need to tell the athletic trainer what kind of treatment you'd
like for that particular athlete, and that's not the case in primary care.
Q. This release that the athletes sign, is that a precondition of them being allowed to participate?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What about in the primary care situation? Who has the right to information from the doctor?
A. In the primary care situation, the doctor is specifically not allowed to release any information
without the specific written authorization of the patient. So it's a very different situation.
Q. And what about in this case?

A. In this case, there was no -- Dr. Murray was not allowed to share any information with AEG Live
or with anybody else.
Q. You've seen no evidence that there was a release signed by Mr. Jackson?
A. No. There was no evidence of any release form that allowed Dr. Murray to share protected health
information with anybody else.
Q. Let's look at the last one here. I'm going to have some follow-up questions, but it's easier if we can
get them all out first.
A. The last one is who decides whether or not someone can participate. One of the responsibilities
that I have as a team physician is to -- who is allowed, who is medically cleared to participate. That's
very important in the sports medicine because it would be impossible for a sports medicine physician to
have responsibility without being able to be the one to say that someone can or cannot play. That's the
case in the sports medicine analogy.
Q. What about in private practice?
A. In private practice, I'm limited to giving advice. As we talked about before with somebody
smoking cigarettes, I can advise them it's not good for them, but ultimately it's up to the patient. The
same holds true when it comes to participation. It's ultimately I can offer advice, but ultimately it's up
to the patient.
Q. Now I want to understand these concepts a little better. I think you testified in addition to treating
student athletes on the team at Pepperdine, you also treat students who come to the student health
clinic. Did I get that right?
A. No, that's correct.
Q. And are the intermural athletes treated like team sports athletes or primary care patients?
A. They are treated like primary care patients.
Q. So in order to understand the differences here, can you talk us through -- let's say you have two
student athletes at Pepperdine. One is on the tennis team and one is on the intermural tennis team. They
both come for treatment for tennis elbow. Can you walk through what you would do for each of those
patients and how it would be similar and how it would be different?
A. The similarity is obviously my assessment and taking a history and examining them, and a
diagnosis would be the same. But that's where it changes. For the Pepperdine tennis player on the
tennis team, I'd have to make a determination whether it was safe for them to continue to play. And I, in
this situation, I might have to call the athletic trainer and say that this athlete can't play this weekend. If
it was an intermural player, I might advise the person. But if they decided to ignore my advice, they can
go and do that. I have no ability to call whoever the director would be of their tennis team and tell them
that this person can't play.
Q. So would the athlete on a team you can actually prevent them from playing?

A. Yes. I can tell the team that this person is not medically cleared to participate.
Q. And in the intermural case, you can advise them, but you can't call the team director?
A. Correct. It's the same as if I was taking care of a construction worker and I felt that he had a bad
back and shouldn't go to work. I certainly couldn't call up his employer and tell him that, you know,
"Joe can't go to work today."
Q. And in this case, have you seen any evidence that suggests that Dr. Murray was able to control as
opposed to advise as to whether Michael Jackson participated or not. By that, I mean call AEG Live
and say, Michael Jackson is not allowed to participate?
A. No, I've not seen any evidence that he was able to dictate that at all.
Q. And absent some kind of release or waiver, is that something that he could do?
A. No. In fact, he would not be allowed to do that based on release of private health information.
Q. We have seen some evidence in this case that Michael Jackson's assistant said he was taking a
doctor ordered sick day. Why isn't that evidence in your case -- evidence that, you know, he could
determine participation?
A. My understanding of --
Mr. Panish: Object as speculation, foundation for this witness on that issue.
Judge: May I hear the question again.
Ms. Stebbins: I said we've seen some evidence in this case that, you know, Michael Jackson's
assistant said he was taking a doctor ordered sick day. Why doesn't that support the idea that Dr.
Murray had the ability to pull Mr. Jackson out of his performance.
Judge: Overruled. You may answer.
The witness: Could you repeat the question. I'm sorry.
Ms. Stebbins: Sure. We've seen some evidence in this case that at one point, Michael Jackson took a
doctor ordered sick day, and it was variously described as his doctor kept him out of rehearsals, et
cetera. Why isn't that evidence that Dr. Murray had the ability to control Michael Jackson's
participation?
A. And my interpretation of that, there is no evidence of a conversation that occurred between
Michael Jackson and Dr. Murray where Dr. Murray specifically told him that he could not attend or
whether he called AEG Live and told them he couldn't attend. It's very possible that he advised Mr.
Jackson not to attend that.
Mr. Panish: Object. Move to strike. It's speculation. Absolutely no foundation.

Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Panish: Stricken.
Judge: Motion granted. The answer is stricken.
Ms. Stebbins: Let me ask you something different. You've reviewed the draft -- have you reviewed
the draft AEG Live and Dr. Murray contract in this case?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you seen anything in there that would give Dr. Murray the right to determine whether or not
Michael Jackson participated in the tour?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you also reviewed the contract between AEG Live and Michael Jackson in this case?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And have you seen anything in that that would allow anyone other than Michael Jackson to
determine whether or not he could participate in the tour?
A. No, I have not.
Q. And absent some kind of release from the patient, is that something that could happen?
A. Not legally.
Q. Now given all of this, what's the import of it? Why does it matter whether sports medicine is a
good analogy for this case or not?
A. Well, the reason Dr. Matheson was retained in this case was to provide that this was a sports
medicine analogy and that sports medicine would be the correct example to use for this case where in
sports medicine you have a team specifically hiring a doctor to make the determination that we looked
at on this slide.
Mr. Panish: Excuse me, your honor. Speculation, foundation as to his understanding of why we hired
Dr. Matheson.
Judge: Overruled. Overruled.
The witness: As I was saying, the sports medicine doctor who decides in that situation who receives
treatment, who has the right to information, and who determines participation is just not the correct
analogy in this case.
Ms. Stebbins: And let me ask you something a little bit different. Is sports ethical situation in terms
of return to play decision, something that in your view is analogous to other areas of medicine or is it
more unique?

A. No, I think it's unique. As proof of that, Dr. Matheson relied on several articles that he presented.
In fact, one of the articles is entitled "the unique aspects of sports medicine with respect to ethics."
Q. And but you have to be ethical in any aspect of medicine, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. But are the structures the same in sports medicine as they are in other contexts?
A. No, and that's what I was trying to demonstrate from the slide, that there are significant differences
that would affect how people are taken care of although you still have to keep the basic tenant of ethical
care for all patients regardless of the structure.
Q. Are we finished with the reasons why you believe that the sports medicine analogy is not the right
analogy for this case?
A. Yes, we have.
Q. Let's go on then to your next area of disagreement with Dr. Matheson.
A. Okay. My second area is the facts just simply don't support the conflict of interest that Dr.
Matheson alleges.
Q. Can you remind us what that conflict of interest is?
A. The conflict of interest is that there was a conflict between AEG Live and Dr. Murray that
influenced his care to provide the type of poor medical care that occurred in this case.
Q. And have you prepared a slide that outlines your opinion in some more detail?
A. Yes, I have.
Mr. Panish: Can we put a number on the last one.
Ms. Stebbins:
Did we put a number on the last one? Let's go ahead and do it. It's the same 15327.
Mr. Panish: This is yellowed out though.
Ms. Stebbins: 529. And then the next one, straight ahead to slide seven and label that 13530.
Q. Doctor, I think we've worked out the slide issue. Can you walk us through your first point here?
A. Yes. This slide indicates the five basic areas where I disagree with Dr. Matheson. On point two,
that the facts don't support the alleged conflict of interest. The first one is that in order to have a
conflict of interest, each party had to have different interests. Well in this case, as I reviewed the
evidence, the health interest of all the parties were the same.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Well, Michael Jackson clearly wanted to remain healthy. It was in his best interest to remain
healthy so that he could perform the tour. Dr. Murray clearly had several reasons of why he wanted --
why he wanted Michael Jackson to be healthy. He wanted Michael Jackson to be healthy because it's
his ethical obligation as a physician, and he wanted Michael Jackson to be healthy to be able to
continue his tour because that would benefit him as well. Finally, AEG Live had the interest in having a
healthy Michael Jackson being able to complete his tour. This was not a one-night show. This was an
anticipated long tour that was going to be demanding and needed a healthy performer in order to do
that. So to this regard, the facts are that actually all of the parties wanted Michael Jackson to be in good
health.
Q. Let's talk about that for a moment. You agree, Dr. Green, that the purpose of the draft agreement
between AEG Live and Dr. Murray was to enable Dr. Murray to go on tour with Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Panish: Leading and suggests the answer.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Could you repeat the question.
Ms. Stebbins: Was the purpose of the draft agreement between AEG Live and Dr. Murray to enable
Dr. Murray to go on tour with Michael Jackson?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And if the tour were canceled, it's likely then that Dr. Murray would not have this contractual
arrangement, not paid $150,000 a month that he was going to receive if the tour took place, right?
Mr. Panish: Speculation. No foundation and leading.
Judge: Sustained. Leading.
Mr. Panish: It's also beyond his opinions.
Judge: Overruled.
Q. Dr. Green, if there were no tour, do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Jackson -- or that Dr.
Murray would be paid $150,000 a month by AEG Live?
A. No, I do not.
Q. So why don't you agree with Dr. Matheson that this created a conflict of interest?
A. Again, because if doctor -- if Michael Jackson was not healthy and unable to do the tour, then it
would not be in Dr. Murray's interest. It was in Dr. Murray's interest to keep Michael Jackson healthy
so he could perform the entire tour. The longer he performed it, the better it would also be for Dr.
Murray.

Q. You'll agree he has a financial interest?

A. Yes, he does.
Q. You don't agree that that financial interest in itself would cause him to act adversely to Michael
Jackson's health? Is that what you're saying?
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. Sure. The financial interest in itself, you don't believe that that would cause him to act adversely to
Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Panish: Objection, foundation, speculation.
Ms. Stebbins: I thought that's what he said.
Judge: Not on those grounds.
Mr. Panish: What grounds?
Judge: Sustain it.
Mr. Panish: I'm sorry? I'm not understanding.
Judge: Restate your question.
Ms. Stebbins: I don't even remember what my question was.
Q. I thought you were saying, Dr. Green, and I want to make sure I understood you correctly, that the
point of disagreement is whether that financial interest would cause compromised health care in and of
itself.
A. That's correct.
Judge: That was a different question.
Ms. Stebbins: I don't remember what my original question was.
Judge: That's fine.
Ms. Stebbins: Let's go on to the next point. That's the next slide. 13531.
A. The second point is that there was no secret arrangement in this case in that Michael Jackson
requested Dr. Murray and set the key terms.
Q. What's the significance of that?
A. Well, one of the most insidious or one of the most dangerous things in a conflict of interest is

secrecy. When one party does not know what the other party's motivations are or what's guiding them,
that's the most dangerous types of conflict of interest. So, for example, if you go to your doctor and
they are taking money from a pharmaceutical company to prescribe a certain drug for you and you're
not aware of that, that's a big conflict of interest because of secrecy. Secrecy is something that creates a
major conflict of interest.
Q. What do you mean there wasn't a secret arrangement here?
A. In this situation, everything was out in the open. If you look at the proposed contract, it was to be
signed by Dr. Murray or his company, AEG Live, and Michael Jackson. And everyone in that -- all
those potential signatories were all aware of the arrangement. There was nothing hidden. Dr. Murray
knew that AEG Live was going to be advancing the money on behalf of Michael Jackson. Michael
Jackson knew that AEG Live was going to be advancing the money, and obviously AEG Live knew
what the arrangement was. In addition, the two meetings that took place all took place with all the
parties present.
Q. Now I'm going to ask about the payment issue again. Do you have an understanding as to how the
$150,000 per month was chosen or who chose that amount?
A. That was selected by Michael Jackson.
Q. And what significance, if any, do you assign to that?
A. Again, that there was no secrecy. Everyone was aware of the payment amount and who had
requested that amount and who had requested Dr. Murray to come on board. if there was -- there really
was no secrecy in terms of arrangement. If there was any secrecy, it was between Michael Jackson and
Dr. Murray.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, there is no evidence that AEG Live was aware that Dr. Murray was giving Michael Jackson
Propofol. There is no evidence --
Mr. Panish: Your honor, object to -- he hasn't reviewed the whole transcript, he's told us. How does
he know what the evidence is in the whole trial? He only knows what the lawyers gave him. It's also
way beyond what a medical expert is now trying to interpret all the evidence in the trial.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, Dr. Matheson talked extensively about the evidence in the case. His
opinions are of course limited by the evidence he reviewed, and Mr. Panish can point anything else out
on cross-examination.
Mr. Panish: No, no. He's making statements. There is no evidence in the case. He's admitted he
hasn't reviewed all the evidence. There is no foundation for him to argue the case for the Defendants.
Judge: Sustained. Maybe you can rephrase it.
Ms. Stebbins: Dr. Green, have you seen any evidence, out of the evidence that you've reviewed, to
suggest that AEG Live had any awareness that Michael Jackson was being administered Propofol by
Dr. Murray?

A. No, I have not.

Q. And is that part of the foundation of your opinion here?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's talk about the next one. What's the idea here?
A. Well, Dr. Matheson in his opinion, he felt that AEG was controlling Dr. Matheson (sic) and that
Dr. Matheson was not --
Q. AEG was controlling Dr. Matheson?
A. I'm sorry. Sorry. Was controlling Dr. Murray and that Dr. Murray was not acting in an independent
fashion. And my opinion is that that is not true.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, are we going to be taking a morning break or keep going?
Judge: Let's go until 11:15.
Q. This slide will be 13532. Dr. Green, have you created a slid that outlines this in more detail?
A. Yes, I created a slide that had more additional reasons for this. I listed four examples of
demonstrating Dr. Murray's independence from AEG Live.
Q. What's the first one here?
A. The first one was the time when Dr. Murray advised Michael Jackson not to go to rehearsal.
Q. What significance, if any, do you Draw from that?
A. Obviously from the emails we've all seen, we know that it was very important for AEG Live for
Michael Jackson to attend rehearsals. There were several emails commenting that they wanted him at
rehearsals. And yet at least in one instance, it's apparent that Dr. Murray advised Michael Jackson not
to attend rehearsals in an independent way.
Q. And does Dr. Matheson actually agree with you on that point?
A. This is an area where Dr. Matheson and I do agree. I prepared a slide for that if we go to the next
slide.
Q. What's that one?
A. This is a slide, and on the left-hand side --
Mr. Panish: What's the number?

Ms. Stebbins: 13534.

The witness: On the left-hand side, this is an email that I'm sure the jury is familiar with, and hi-
lighted in yellow it says "Were you aware that MJ's doctor didn't permit him to attend rehearsals
yesterday?" And then on the right side is from the testimony of Dr. Matheson in June where he was
asked, "So the decision by the physician to hold him out of practice, that, in and of itself, was" -- and
Dr. Matheson replied, "probably a good decision, possibly a good decision, but it was an independent
decision." So in this regard, I absolutely agree with Dr. Matheson that this was an independent decision
by Dr. Murray.
Q. But, Dr. Green, as I understood Dr. Matheson's testimony, he basically claimed that was the last
time this ever happened. Do you recall that?
A. I do.
Q. Do you agree with that?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Let's go back to the prior or slide which is 13533.
A. Yes. The second one is that there was an encounter where Dr. Murray verbally told tour personnel
to, quote, "stay in their lane."
Q. And when was that?
A. I believe that was in the June 20th meeting.
Q. What significance did you Draw from that?
A. The significance was that Dr. Murray was being presented with information about Michael
Jackson's health, and Dr. Murray responded to "Stay in your lane," that this was something that he was
handling, and that this was responsibility of the physician and not anybody else.
Q. How is that inconsistent, in your view, with the idea that Dr. Murray was only taking orders from
AEG Live?
A. Well, had he only been taking orders from AEG Live, he would not have told them to, quote,
"Stay in your lane."
Q. Now in retrospect, Dr. Green, knowing what we know about Dr. Murray's conduct in this time
period, this event takes on a bit of a different color, right?
A. Yeah. Hindsight is 20/20 in this case. Knowing now that Dr. Murray was unethically and illegally
providing Propofol in someone's bedroom, that changes how you would view that. But that obviously
was not the case at the time.
Q. And --

Mr. Panish: Move to strike that last sentence. He doesn't know what was going on then.
Ms. Stebbins: Based on his understanding and review of the record, your honor.
Mr. Panish: He hasn't reviewed all the records.
Judge: Overruled, based on what he's reviewed.
Ms. Stebbins: Yes.
Q. And, Dr. Green, in either event, whatever interpretation, either way, does it support the idea he was
acting only on behalf of AEG Live and taking orders from them?
A. No, it doesn't. In fact, it says that he was acting independently.
Q. You've got another one here. What is this about?
A. The third point is at one point Dr. Murray refused to provide medical records to the insurers.
Q. What are you referring to there?
A. I'm referring to an email exchange with Kathy Jorrie where AEG Live was trying to obtain
cancellation insurance for the tour. AEG Live asked Dr. Murray to provide medical records to assist
AEG Live in obtaining cancellation insurance.
Q. And what was the response?
A. Well, initially Dr. Murray said that he would provide that, but then he later came back and said
that he had asked Michael Jackson for permission to provide medical records and that it had been
refused so that he could not help AEG Live in that situation.
Q. Again, if he was simply taking orders from AEG Live, would there be any reason for him to not
hand over records?
A. No. Except that it would violate --
Mr. Panish: Objection. He didn't have any ability based on the law.
Judge: Jackson refused.
Mr. Panish: Right.
Ms. Stebbins: I think that's the point, your honor, is --
Mr. Panish: He didn't have the records.
Judge: Hold on.

Ms. Stebbins: Dr. Matheson basically testified that Dr. Murray broke the law as a result of the
conflict of interest with AEG Live. If he's willing to break the law and, you know, commit a crime in
Michael Jackson's bedroom on that basis, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't be willing to commit
other crimes on that. the point is, your honor, it's still evidence he's not doing what AEG requested.
Mr. Panish: It's foundation because what he said, he didn't have custody of all the other doctors'
records. So how is he going to get them?
Mr. Putnam: Your honor, he had his own records. They asked for his records that he refused to hand
over. He had three years of records.
Mr. Panish: They asked for five --
Judge: Murray had his own records.
The reporter: I can't get everybody at one time.
Ms. Stebbins: Again, your honor --
Judge: There was a refusal because Michael Jackson refused.
Mr. Putnam: They had records --
The reporter: Counsel.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, they asked for five years of all records from Ms. Jorrie. Dr. Murray had no
control of his other records. How is he going to turn them over?
Ms. Stebbins: Dr. Murray had his own records. Sorry, your honor.
Judge: What is your objection?
Mr. Panish: Objection is there is no foundation. Misstates the testimony in the case.
Judge: As to this particular element, refuse to provide medical records.
Mr. Panish: Well, no. He could say he didn't give Dr. Murray whatever record he had, fine. But the
rest he has no foundation to say anything about that.
Ms. Stebbins: I think that's all he was saying, your honor, was that Dr. Murray had been specifically
asked and said, "I can give my three years of medical records" and then came back and said, "no, I
can't." I think that's the entirety of the testimony. There is certainly foundation that that happened.
Mr. Panish: You can say that, but that wasn't the initial question.
Judge: Let's clarify the testimony then.
Ms. Stebbins: Dr. Green, guide us through that one again real quick.

A. That -- I guess I would amend that to say that Dr. Murray refused to provide his own medical
records to the insurers.
Q. And in your view, that was further evidence that he was acting independently?
A. That's correct.
Q. What's this last one here?
A. The last one is there were several instances where Dr. Murray requested contract changes that
would increase -- it would be designed to increase his own independence.
Q. Can you give us examples of this those?
A. Sure. One would be that he requested of Kathy Jorrie that the contract be changed so that, if the
tour was canceled or postponed in the middle of a month after June 15th -- I'm sorry. We're in June.
After the middle of the month, after the 15th of the month, that Dr. Murray would not be required to
return any money that he had received, and it would not be prorated, that he'd be able to keep the entire
month regardless as to what day it was canceled. And Dr. Murray stated he wanted that because this
would help him financially as well.
Q. And are there any others?
A. Yes. He also requested a major change in the contract where, in the first draft, it said to be doing
services as reasonably requested by the producer, and that was changed to say as reasonably requested
by the artist. So, again, to eliminate any conflict that he could -- would have to do things for the
producer, he was only limited to what the artist requested.
Q. If Dr. Murray was simply taking orders from AEG Live, is there any reason that you can think of
that he would have requested a change to be taking orders directly from the artist?
Mr. Panish: Speculation. Foundation.
Judge: Sustained.
Ms. Stebbins: In any event, Dr. Green, which way do you believe this fact cuts?
A. I believe that this further demonstrates that Dr. Murray demonstrating independence from AEG
Live.
Q. Let's go on to the next, 13535.
Mr. Panish: Which slide?
Ms. Stebbins: Slide 12.
Mr. Panish: 13535.
Ms. Stebbins: Yes.

Mr. Panish: Thank you.

Q. It looks like this next one says the evidence does not support claim that AEG Live directed
medical care. What do you mean by that?
A. That there is no evidence that I've reviewed that supports the fact that AEG Live was in any way
directing medical care for Michael Jackson.
Q. Now, Dr. Green, you have reviewed evidence, haven't you, about people from the tour including
Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware meeting with Dr. Murray?
Mr. Panish: Objection, leading and suggestive.
Judge: Sustained.
Q. Have you reviewed any evidence that he reviewed that?
A. Yes, I have.
Ms. Stebbins: Again, your honor, you're allowed to lead a little bit with an expert to get to the basis
of the opinion.
Mr. Panish: She's leading into the specifics.
Judge: Sustained. Try not to lead. If it looks like you're struggling with it, perhaps I'll let you lead.
Ms. Stebbins: Let's go all the way back. Dr. Green, have you reviewed any evidence that suggests
whether or not people from the tour ever met with Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is that?
A. There were multiple meetings. There were phone calls, and it is very clear that there was contact
and communication from AEG Live to Dr. Murray.
Q. Now why don't you believe that supports the claim that AEG Live directed the medical care?
A. My opinion is that the conversations that occurred were directed at providing Dr. Murray with
information on Michael Jackson's health at the time.
Q. And what is that based on?
A. That's based on the testimony of Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware and Kenny Ortega.
Q. And have you seen any testimony that suggests the contrary?
A. No, I have not.

Q. Is there anything wrong ethically with a physician talking to a third party about a patient?
A. Not at all. Again, in my practice, I frequently will have family members, relatives, and friends call
me about a patient before I see them to give me information that I might not ordinarily have. That's
very important in terms of my ability to take care of a patient. Sometimes those conversations go on for
20 or 30 minutes where they'll be very interested in the patient, and they'll want to tell me all the things
that I should know sometimes that the patient might not tell me himself or herself. So the family
member will tell me all these things.
Q. Now you mentioned meetings. Which meetings were you referring to specifically?
A. I was referring to the meeting on June 15th and June 20th.
Q. You say June 15. Are you sure June 15th is -- is that a date that definitely took place, or do you
have any idea for sure?
A. I've read -- in all the testimony, some cases some of the witnesses remember it differently. My
understanding is it was either June 15th or June 16th.
Q. You believe it took place around that time?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And those meetings, do you recall who attended them?
A. I do. At the first meeting, again, I believe that there was Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware,
Frank Dileo, Michael Jackson and Dr. Murray.
Q. And the second meeting?
A. Second meeting I believe Randy Phillips was away and was at a wedding.
Q. Randy Phillips?
A. Sorry. Paul Gongaware.
Mr. Panish: Leading.
The witness: Sorry.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Paul Gongaware was at a wedding back east.
Q. Who do you recall attending the second meeting?
A. Randy Phillips, Kenny Ortega, Dr. Murray and Michael Jackson.

Q. Michael Jackson attended both meetings?

A. Michael Jackson was attending both meetings.
Q. Did you assign any significance to that fact?
A. Yes. That goes to my original point about secrecy and lack of secrecy that in these meetings, all
the parties were present. So this goes back to support that there were -- that Michael Jackson was
present, and there was no secrecy.
Q. Let's go back to -- let's go to the next slide, 13536. Can you briefly explain this last point?
A. Yes. My last point in this part was that the timing of the contract drafts doesn't support Dr.
Matheson's claims.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Dr. Matheson put a great deal of weight on the terms of the contract, what Dr. Murray could be
terminated for. And that was -- in his opinion, that -- his opinion helped create the conflict of interest
and led to this situation.
Q. And what do you mean by the fact that the timing doesn't support that claim?
A. Well, if you look at the timing, the first draft of the contract was June 16th. That was the first time
that Dr. Murray had ever seen the contract. So Dr. Murray's behavior in this case and taking care of
Michael Jackson began well before that. That began much before that. We know -- and despite that,
how could Dr. Murray act on something that he wasn't even aware of until June 16th.
Mr. Panish: Object to that. Foundation. In terms of contract and what exists and all that. That's what
he's trying to say. He's trying to say that --
Judge: I'm not sure it's intelligible.
Mr. Panish: That's what he's going to try to say is that --
Judge: Don't put words in his mouth. Sustained. Why don't you clarify.
Ms. Stebbins: Were you confused by the answer?
Judge: I didn't understand the questioner.
Ms. Stebbins: Let me ask you something differently. When was the first draft of the contract sent to
Dr. Murray based on your review of the testimony?
A. From my review, it was sent on June 16th.
Q. Is that the first time, to your understanding, that the termination provisions referred to by Dr.
Matheson came into play?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. And do you have an understanding as to whether or not Dr. Murray's conduct in terms of
administering Propofol to Michael Jackson happened before or after that point?
Mr. Panish: Objection, no foundation for that.
Ms. Stebbins: There is a foundation. We're going to get into great detail in a few moments.
Judge: Before the termination clause was put in the contract?
Ms. Stebbins: The idea of whether or not Dr. Murray administered Propofol before June 16th, or
there is any evidence of that.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Can you ask the question again, please.
Ms. Stebbins: Do you have any evidence, have you seen any evidence suggesting that Dr. Murray
was administering Propofol to Michael Jackson before June 16th?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And why don't you believe that supports Dr. Matheson's conclusions?
A. Because it would be impossible for Dr. Murray to be influenced by something he didn't have any
knowledge of.
Q. What do you mean?
A. Well, if Dr. Matheson is correct and the terms of the contract influenced Dr. Murray's medical
behavior, that wasn't -- he started that well before the contract was even written.
Ms. Stebbins: Let's pause here, your honor, if this is good.
Judge: Okay. Pause here. I'll see you at 11:30. 15 minutes. See you in 15 minutes, too.
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury):
Mr. Putnam: If I may have one moment after the witness leaves.
Judge: Sure.
Mr. Putnam: Your honor, we went down this road once before. I'm sorry to have to bring it up again.
I am concerned about Plaintiffs' counsel's actions towards my witnesses when I call them. It's my duty

to protect them from the intimidation they are trying. We had this issue once before with Voir Dire
where he followed him down the street, and we talked about it. This was with Mr. Briggs where he
threatened him in the courtroom and, you know, about him bumping into him. Just now, before he took
the stand, he turned around and looked at him, and he goes "That's him? He's so wimpy," so everyone
could hear him including the witness. That is not okay.
Mr. Panish: I was not --
Mr. Putnam: He's not to do that, your honor.
Mr. Panish: I didn't do anything.
Judge: Mr. Panish, did you make such a statement?
Mr. Panish: No. I don't know what he's talking about. I don't --
Mr. Putnam: You didn't make that statement just now?
Mr. Panish: No. It was not referring to doctor -- no. I don't even know this guy. I've never seen him.
I've never talked to him. I sat here. I haven't addressed the witness for one second. I've been talking to
Mr. Bloss. I was talking about the objections. I didn't say anything about this witness. I don't know him.
I didn't address him. I'm looking straight ahead, made my objections, and that is it. I've not talked to a
single witness, okay. I haven't done anything. Mr. Putnam is the one that grabbed Ms. Rowe by the arm
and something happened yesterday. I didn't say anything to this witness.
Mr. Putnam: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Mr. Putnam: Once again, your honor, when I bring up something that he does, he tries to say
something else. I watched this just happen here. The one thing he says that is true is he didn't say it to
the witness. He said it to Mr. Bloss so the witness and the rest of us could hear it. He turned and said,
"That's him? He's so wimpy." That kind of bullying is not okay on the eighth grade playground. It's
certainly not okay in this courtroom. I want it to stop. I am bringing people to the stand, and they
shouldn't be intimidated by Plaintiff's counsel. It is below us to do that. I'd really like it to stop.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I was not referring -- first of all, I didn't say it the way he said it, number
one. Number two, I wasn't referring to anything about the witness.
Judge: What were you referring to?
Mr. Panish: I was talking to Mr. Bloss about an argument related to getting the evidence in that I
believe was improper. I have the transcript right here that I was talking about. I have never seen this
witness. I never spoke to him. All I've done is read the deposition and argued to keep out evidence. I
did not speak to the witness, your honor. I've never --
Judge: This comment by Mr. Putnam has occurred more than once. I don't think he would raise it
more than once if it wasn't a concern.

Mr. Panish: The only -- your honor, he's been raising all kinds of things about things that have never
occurred. I never spoke to this witness. I never spoke to this other thing he's trying to say. Mr. Briggs, I
made a comment to. I admitted to that. I stayed away from him. I have not done a single thing, okay.
It's constantly -- I've sat here, made my objections, haven't made any noise, done exactly what I thought
was appropriate, objected. I still think he was improper. I haven't said anything to this witness. I haven't
even looked at him. I'm looking straight ahead making my objections. That's all.
Judge: You can be looking one way and making a comment that's in earshot of the witness.
Mr. Panish: The witness hasn't even been near me at all.
Ms. Stebbins: He just walked by, your honor.
Mr. Panish: I didn't say anything to the witness. I didn't say a word. I sat here. I stood up. Didn't say
a word to the witness. He walked by me. I didn't do anything. I'm constantly --
Judge: When did this occur?
Mr. Putnam: When he was sitting here in the well -- not in the well, right here to come in. He turned
around and looked at him when you were announcing. He said to Mr. Bloss "that's him? He's so
wimpy." that's not okay, your honor. It's like the time we were brought into chambers, and he was
giving me the finger and sat there and said, "I never did that." I didn't tell your honor that. Someone
else had to have seen it. That's okay with me. He can do what he wants with me and my team, fine. But
with these witnesses, it's not okay because it's intimidation, and I want it to stop.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I have not intimidated any witness. I've not said anything to Mr. Green.
Judge: Ms. Bina was standing there.
Ms. Stebbins: I didn't hear it. I was sitting up front. But as to him not intimidating any witness, he
followed Mr. Fournier down the hall, accusing him of HIPAA violations and asking why he was siding
with Defendants and not Plaintiffs in front of children.
Mr. Panish: They weren't there. That didn't happen.
Ms. Stebbins: Whenever --
Mr. Panish: That didn't happen.
Judge: You know, Mr. --
Mr. Panish: I did not follow him down the hall.
The reporter: Counsel.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, all these allegations -- none of them were there. I was walking. I went up
the escalator on my own. I did not follow Mr. Fournier anywhere. He made a comment to me. I made a
comment to him. As we went outside, I said, "we'll see around," whatever. I did not -- this was after he
was finished. I didn't try to intimidate him when he was not finished. I didn't even question the witness.

Judge: Let's do this. In order to prevent any accusations in the future, when a witness is called to the
stand, Mr. Panish, you can stand right over there while the witness is coming up. When the witness is
on the stand, you can go right back to your seat. That way, the witness won't hear anything, and you
won't be accused of anything.
Mr. Panish: I'll walk over there. I'll stand by Mr. Putnam. I'll look at the calendar so I can't be
accused of anything. That's fine with me.
Judge: That way nobody can make any accusations against you.
Mr. Panish: I'm happy to do that to stop these accusations. Thank you.
Mr. Putnam: Thank you.
(Break)
Judge: Let's bring the jury in.
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury)
Judge: You may be seated. Continue with direct examination.
Ms. Stebbins: Dr. Green, where we left off, I think we were about to go to your next point of
disagreement with Dr. Matheson's opinions. This will be slide 13537. What is this opinion again, Dr.
Green?
A. This opinion is that the conflict of interest as alleged by Dr. Matheson is not what resulted in the
poor medical care.
Q. I think you told me that you didn't believe the facts supported the conflict of interest at all, is that
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. But even assuming there was one, as alleged by Dr. Matheson, is this a separate opinion?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And do you have an additional slide on this?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. Let's go quickly to the text none, 13538.

A. The next opinion that I put to support this was that there is no evidence that's linking Michael
Jackson's use of Propofol to his relationship with AEG Live.
Q. And I'd like to go through that in some detail if we can look at the next slide that you prepared
here.
A. Yes, what I --
Q. This will be 13539. Can you explain this opinion to me generally and then kind of walk through
some of the things on the slide?
A. Yes. I put this together because this was my understanding of the evidence in the case. I put some
key dates in there that I think help support my opinion. the first is that we know from Dr. Murray's
medical records that he began treating the Jackson family sometime in 2006, three years before this
incident. In January of 2009, again, relying on Dr. Murray's medical records, we know that Dr. Murray
was treating two of Michael Jackson's children here in Los Angeles.
Q. What's your basis for that?
A. My basis is that, when you look at the medical records, there were prescriptions called into
pharmacies, and those were all in the Los Angeles area.
Q. So they prescribed treatment for Mr. Jackson's children to a Los Angeles pharmacy?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. What's this next one?
A. Michael Jackson had a physical in 2009 with Dr. Slavit. Michael Jackson's own words in his
medical file at that time, Dr. Slavit asked who was your -- there was a question about your personal
physician. In that document, it says Michael Jackson lists Dr. Murray as his personal physician.
Q. What about the next point here? What's that based on?
A. Based on the testimony of Kai Chase that you all heard, she testified that Dr. Murray was
frequently at the Carolwood house in Los Angeles in March and April of 2009.
Q. And then what's the last one here?
A. April 6, 2009, we have records from applied pharmacy that Dr. Murray had Propofol shipped to
Los Angeles. So we know Dr. Murray ordered Propofol April 6th.
Q. What's the significance of that date to you?
A. All of the events on the slide were before AEG Live had any knowledge of Dr. Murray even
existing. There was no conversations at all to say that AEG Live had no evidence of Dr. Murray or his
relationship with Michael Jackson prior to this -- with all of these dates.

Q. Now do you have an understanding of, based on your review of the evidence, of when
negotiations between AEG Live and Dr. Murray began?
A. It's not exactly clear on the date. However, it seems like it was late April or early May of 2009.
Q. Do you recall there being one conversation or more than one conversation with Dr. Murray?
A. I believe there were several conversations with Dr. Murray where they were negotiating in terms
of what his compensation would be.
Q. Do you recall what the amount discussed during the first conversation was?
A. I believe in the first conversation, Dr. Murray asked for $5 million for the tour.
Q. And do you recall Mr. Gongaware's response?
A. He did not agree with that.
Q. Do you know when the second conversation took place?
A. I believe the second conversation took place around may 6.
Q. At that point, do you know what figure was discussed?
A. At that point, the figure of $150,000 a month was discussed as compensation for Dr. Murray.
Q. So $150,000 a month. Do you have an understanding of when the first time that was discussed?
A. My understanding is that was after May 6.
Q. On or about May 6?
A. Correct.
Q. You have here Dr. Murray ordered Propofol on April 6, 2009. Do you know whether he ordered
Propofol at any point after April 6, 2009 but prior to May 6, 2009?
A. Yes, he did. I believe on April 28th, he also ordered a shipment of Propofol.
Q. And what significance do these facts have for you?
A. It's very clear that the relationship between Michael Jackson and AEG -- sorry. Amend that. It's
very clear that the relationship between Michael Jackson and Dr. Murray predated any involvement
with AEG Live. Furthermore, it shows that the use of Propofol began well before AEG Live was
involved at all in this case.
Mr. Panish: Move to strike. No foundation for his statement before AEG was involved and the use of
it and such. There is no foundation for that.

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, if I can respond I think there is foundation. I can ask him to clarify.
Judge: Ask him to clarify.
Ms. Stebbins: What's your basis for believing -- when you say before AEG Live was involved, do
you mean before AEG Live and Michael Jackson had a contract or before AEG Live spoke with Dr.
Murray?
A. Before AEG Live ever spoke with Dr. Murray.
Q. And then what's your basis for believing that Dr. Murray had already made the decision to use
Propofol prior to communicating with AEG Live?
Mr. Panish: Again, speculation. No foundation. How does he know that?
Ms. Stebbins: I'm asking the foundation, your honor.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Could you ask the question again, please.
Q. What's your basis for believing that Dr. Murray had already made the decision to use Propofol
with Michael Jackson before AEG Live and Dr. Murray ever spoke?
A. The basis of that is that Dr. Murray ordered Propofol in April 6th, and then he reordered it in April
28th. My interpretation is that he used up the Propofol from April 6th --
Mr. Panish: Move to strike. There is foundation whatsoever for his alleged interpretation and such.
Judge: Overruled. It's --
Mr. Panish: He also --
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Panish: -- gave no opinions of any of this in his deposition.
Judge: Overruled.
Ms. Stebbins: It is your --
The reporter: I'm sorry, counsel. Question?
Judge: Do we have a fly? Is it distracting you? Who is our designated fly killer? Deputy Ruiz.
Ms. Stebbins: I guess we should keep going. But if the jury can't pay attention because of the fly, I
ask that someone let me know, and I'll pause. I recognize that can be extremely distracting. Dr. Green --
I can't remember where I was at. So in your view, the evidence suggests that Dr. Murray had used the

Propofol he purchased on April 6th?

A. That's correct.
Q. And in any event, he had ordered the Propofol by April 6th?
A. Yes, he had.
Q. And what, if anything, does that do to Dr. Matheson's idea that Dr. Murray chose to use this
dangerous method of inducing Michael Jackson to sleep because of a conflict of interest relationship
caused by AEG Live?
A. Well, it's hard for me to imagine how a conflict of interest could have been present when one of
the parties wasn't even present in the relationship. He had ordered the Propofol before he had any
relationship with AEG Live.
Q. To you that's significant?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Have you seen any evidence that Dr. Murray changed his Propofol ordering or anything in
relationship -- in response to negotiations relating to AEG Live?
A. No. In fact, he continued to order Propofol for the next month or two.
Q. So it started in April and just continued on?
A. Yes. He had an order in May and an order in June.
Q. Now have you told us all the reasons why you believe the idea that the Propofol use started as a
result of the three-way relationship with AEG Live doesn't make sense?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Let's go on to the next slide. 13540.
Mr. Panish: 13540.
Ms. Stebbins: Dr. Green, can you tell me about this point?
A. My last point on this is that not only do I disagree with Dr. Matheson's conclusions but I disagree
with the manner in which he came to make these conclusions, and I disagree that he -- and I believe
that he disregarded key principles to come to this conclusion.
Q. And have you prepared a slide that outline some of those principles?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Let's go to slide 18 which is 13541. The first point here, Dr. Green, adults have the right to choose

their own doctors. Can you explain what that is and how it relates to this case?
A. Yes. That's a fundamental principle of medicine that patients and competent adults have the right
to choose their own physician. That's everyone's right to be able to do that. They have the right to be
able to choose their physician. And in this case, Michael Jackson chose Dr. Murray as his physician and
wanted his own physician to be present on the tour.
Q. And is there any basis for overriding the decision of a competent adult on that point?
A. No, there is not.
Q. Now Dr. Matheson talked about maybe AEG Live making Michael Jackson see some other doctor.
Do you think that would be an inappropriate thing for AEG Live to do?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Why not?
A. In fact, AEG Live looked into other possibilities. They talked to Dr. Finkelstein. They suggested
contracting with a hospital in London. And the response from Michael Jackson, a competent adult was
"no, I want my own doctor."
Q. And do you know of any way that you can force a patient who is competent to see some other
doctor?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And you consider this to be a fundamental principle?
A. I do, along with continuity of care which is another very important principle that Dr. Matheson
ignored.
Q. Let me ask you about Dr. Matheson. Does he agree with you that a competent 50-year old man has
the right to choose his own physician?
A. Actually, he does.
Q. Is there a slide on that?
A. There is. The next slide.
Q. 13542.
A. This is from the trial testimony of Dr. Matheson, and he was asked the question. "and you would
agree that, in general, a competent 50-year old man is qualified to choose his own physician, right?"
and Dr. Matheson replied yes. And the follow up was, "and Mr. Jackson wanted Dr. Murray to come to
London with him, right?" and Dr. Matheson said yes. So in this regard, Dr. Matheson and I are in
complete agreement that competent adults have the right to choose their own physician and that was
honored in this case.

Q. And how do you believe that Dr. Matheson departed from that fundamental principle in reaching
his conclusions?
A. Dr. Matheson's opinion was that AEG Live should have gone outside of Michael Jackson and gone
to a committee or to another medical center and found their own doctors for Michael Jackson.
Q. And you don't believe that's consistent with this fundamental principle?
A. I do not.
Q. Let's go back to the prior slide 13541. You mentioned a moment ago the idea of continuity care.
Before we go on to the next point, what is continuity of care?
A. Continuity of care is the idea that a patient will remain with a physician. As I talked about this
morning and one of the reasons why I wanted to be in a primary care practice, so I could see patients
throughout the course of their life. It's very important, when I see a patient, I know what their history is,
and I know what their physical exam has been like and if there has been any change. Continuity of care
is a very important principle in medicine.
Q. I want you to assume a couple of facts for me. Assuming that you had a person who was very
famous and very private who had a complicated medical history, including some disfiguring illnesses,
including some surgeries, including a number of other conditions, and that person wanted to bring their
own personal long-term physician on tour, would that situation inherently raise any concerns for you,
or would you consider it inherently unreasonable?
A. No. Not only would that not be a red flag, that would be good medical care for someone to
continue with their doctor they have known for several years and had been taking care of them for
several years.
Q. So that, in and of itself, you don't view as problematic?
A. No. I view continuity of care as a good virtue in medicine, not a red flag.
Q. You've reviewed the testimony of Dr. Wohlgelernter in this case, right?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you recall -- that was one of Plaintiffs' experts?
A. I believe he was.
Q. Do you recall whether Dr. Wohlgelernter said anything about whether there is anything inherently
problematic with a physician treating just one family?
A. Yes. Dr. Wohlgelernter did comment on that.
Q. Do you recall what his testimony was?

A. His testimony was that he knew a physician who was talking care of a single family, and he
thought that they were providing -- that that physician was providing ethical and good care to that
family.
Q. Let's look at the next one. What is this principle?
A. The next principle that I listed is that the physician's duty to the patient is paramount. By
paramount, I mean that's the number one priority and that should be what the physician is always
concerned with.
Q. Now Dr. Matheson talked about something called primary and secondary interests. Don't those
have an impact on a physician's duty to his or her patients?
A. Ultimately, no.
Q. What do you mean by "ultimately no"?
A. Well, there may be other interests that the physicians are aware of. Ultimately, that does not take
away the physician's duty to his patient.
Q. Now you mentioned earlier the Hippocratic Oath. What part does that play in this?
A. That part that it plays is that the doctors paramount duty is to the best interest of his or her patient.
Q. Are there any other ethical guidelines that say something similar?
A. Yes, there are. The AMA and the American College of Physicians all have documents stating that
the physician has the obligation to his patient regardless of any other interests.
Q. What about financial interests? Are physicians ever allowed to put those ahead of their patients?
A. No, they are never allowed to do that even when doing expert testimony.
Q. We talked a little bit earlier about the draft contract between AEG Live and Dr. Murray, mentioned
paragraph 7.2 is some Dr. Matheson relied on, termination provision. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And that was the provision that said, if the tour were canceled or postponed, the contract could be
canceled?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there any other termination provisions that you considered significant to your opinions in
this case?
A. Yes. There is another provision, I believe, under scope of services, where it says that Dr. Murray
was specifically obligated to act in an ethical manner within the standard of care.

Q. Were there any provisions suggesting that the contract could be terminated if he did not do so?
A. Yes. That was a requirement that he had to maintain this ethical care and the medical standards.
Otherwise, the contract could be terminated.
Q. Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Dr. Murray was influenced by one termination
provision and not the other?
A. That would be hard for me to believe.
Q. Now let me ask you something about this idea of a doctor's duty to a patient as paramount. Did Dr.
Matheson agree with you on that?
A. Yes, he did. This was another area where Dr. Matheson's testimony and my testimony are very
similar.
Q. And do you have a slide on that?
A. I do.
Q. That will be 13543.
A. This slide that I prepared was from the trial testimony from Dr. Matheson where the question
asked of Dr. Matheson in June was, "but it is in fact the physician's responsibility and the physician's
duty to put their patient first regardless of the conflict of interest, right?" and Dr. Matheson replied, "it
is their duty." and in that regard, I am in complete agreement with Dr. Matheson.
Q. Now in your opinion, did Dr. Matheson disregard this fundamental principle in coming to his
conclusions in this case?
A. Dr. Matheson felt that these conflicts of interests made it impossible for Dr. Murray to do his job.
Q. You don't buy that?
A. I do not buy that. Physicians are under the obligation regardless of any interest whether it be
financial or other to put their patients first.
Q. Well, what about the idea that it's just too tempting to commit a crime if you need the money badly
enough?
A. I think we'd have a difficult society to live in if we allowed anybody that was in financial distress
to commit a crime, which is what happened in this case, I think that would be a bad society. I wouldn't
want to live in that society.
Q. Now you've been involved in criminal prosecutions for doctors who violated their oath, is that
right?
A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Is there any way that you know of to figure out which doctors are going to succumb to whatever
temptations they have and make that decision?
Mr. Panish: No foundation. Speculation.
Judge: That might be the point. Overruled.
The witness: Could you repeat the question.
Ms. Stebbins: Is there any way that you know of to figure out in advance which doctors are going to
succumb to whatever temptations may be in their lives and violate their professional oaths?
A. No, of course not.
Q. In your experience, have you seen doctors break the rules and commit crimes for more than one
reason?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Can you give us some examples?
A. Doctors can commit crimes unfortunately for financial reasons, for fame, for celebrity status. For a
variety of reasons, unfortunately that can happen. I've been involved several times in my career to
make sure those doctors no longer have licenses or are in jail.
Q. And that brings up a good point. In this situation, were there any countervailing interests that Dr.
Murray had to disregard in order to take the steps that he did?
A. Absolutely. He disregarded the scope of services in the contract. He disregarded his Hippocratic
Oath. He disregarded basic medical care, and he probably violated prescribing laws at the same time.
Q. And, again, I understand you don't believe that there was a conflict here created by AEG Live, but
is there any conflict of interest, in your view, that would justify Dr. Murray's conduct?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. And you believe that -- and do you believe there is anyone responsible for Dr. Murray's choice
other than Dr. Murray?
Mr. Panish: Objection.
Judge: Sustained.
Ms. Stebbins: Do you agree with Dr. Matheson that the conflict of interest, whatever they were, was
just so severe that Dr. Murray lost his power to say, no, I'm going to be an ethical, doctor?
A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you believe that's ever the case with a physician in your experience?
A. No. And in fact, reading through the multiple articles that Dr. Matheson relied on for his
testimony, I could not find any place where it said that anyone other than the physician is ultimately
responsible for the characterization.
Mr. Panish: Move to strike that.
Judge: Motion granted. Answer is stricken.
Ms. Stebbins: Can you answer the question without referring to any articles?
A. Can you ask that again, please?
Q. Sure.
Mr. Panish: Subject to objection.
Ms. Stebbins: Well --
Mr. Panish: It's sustained on this same area.
Ms. Stebbins: I don't think my question was objected to. May I have that read back.
Judge: What is it that you want read back?
Ms. Stebbins: My last question that he --
Judge: Well, if it was stricken...
Ms. Stebbins: It was stricken because the answer --
Mr. Panish: When it's stricken, it's supposed to be out of the record, isn't it?
Ms. Stebbins: I'm trying to wrap up here, your honor.
Judge: Then wrap up.
Q. I guess my question is, do you agree with Dr. Matheson that someone's will can be so overcome
by conflicts that they lose the ability to function as a physician?
A. No, I don't.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you. I have no further questions at this point.
Judge: Thank you. Let's break for lunch and be back at 1:30. Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury)

Judge: Thank you. See you at 1:30. Do we have any video we have to play?
Mr. Panish: Don't know that we'll be getting into any videos today.
Ms. Cahan: We have one video available to start.
Mr. Panish: We're not going to get to it.
Ms. Stebbins: I don't know how long Plaintiffs plan on being.
Mr. Panish: A while.
Judge: Thank you.
LUNCH..
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors):
Judge: Good afternoon, everybody. Cross-examination?
Mr. Bloss: Thank you. May it please the court, your honor.
Judge: Yes.
Cross-examination by Mr. Bloss:
Q. Dr. Green, can a conflict of interest decrease the likelihood that poor decisions will be made by a
doctor?
A. Conflicts of interest can certainly increase that likelihood, but they don't make it mandatory that
it's going to occur.

Q. Okay. My question was whether it could increase the likelihood. You understood that, right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And the answer to my question is yes, a conflict of interest can increase the risk of a bad decision
by a doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you agree that large incentives can create conflicts of interest?
A. I understand that financial incentives are certainly one aspect of conflicts of interest.
Q. And large financial incentives can create a conflict of interest?
A. Yes, that financial interests are one aspect of conflicts of interest, yes.
Q. And would you agree that large financial incentives can create conflicts of interest that can, in
turn, compromise clinical objectivity?
A. I believe that clinical objectivity can be clouded from a variety of sources, one of which is
financial incentives.
Q. Okay. So the answer to my question is yes?
A. That would be yes.
Q. All right. And while -- you would agree that while an obligation has been established on the part of
the medical community to resolve financial conflicts of interest for the benefit of patients, it is
important to recognize that sufficiently large financial incentives can create an untenable position for
physicians?
A. No. I would disagree with that.
Q. Okay. And what's your basis for disagreeing with that?
A. That regardless of the financial incentive, it does not take away the -- the physician's obligation to
his patient.
Q. Okay. So you disagree that a sufficiently large incentive can create an untenable position for
physicians?
A. Could you define "untenable"?
Q. What do you understand "untenable" to mean?
A. "untenable" would be something that would make it impossible for them to refuse.

Q. And when you answered my question a couple of minutes ago where I used "untenable" in the --
in the question, is that what you understood it to be?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. And so you disagree with what -- with the statement that sufficiently large incentives can
create an untenable position for physicians; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And you talked a little earlier, Dr. Green, about -- I think you mentioned some -- the
American Medical Association.
A. Can you be more specific?
Q. In your direct testimony, you talked -- you mentioned something about the American Medical
Association.
A. Yes, I did, one of their codes of ethics.
Q. Okay. And the codes -- what are the codes of ethics of the American Medical Association?
A. I believe the part I was referring to was that despite financial incentives, that physicians still had
the obligation to make sure that they have their patient's best interests at heart.
Q. Okay. And that's an ethical guideline of the American Medical Association?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the American Medical Association, from time to time, issues opinions on ethics relating to
rules, does it not?
A. I'm sure that it probably does.
Q. And those are considered authoritative within your filed, are they not?
A. I believe they're considered more what I would call standards of care.
Q. Okay. I want to show you exhibit 1096, if I can. Dr. Green, that's on your screen, is it not?
Ms. Stebbins: My copy is cut off on the right-hand side. Do you have one that's clear?
Mr. Panish: Take that one.
Ms. Stebbins: Same problem.
Mr. Panish: That's the way it is.
Ms. Stebbins: It's missing like four letters.

Mr. Panish: The same as this.

The witness: Mine is, too, on the right margin.
Ms. Stebbins: Yours is clear. There's still words missing on the far right, I believe, on my copy.
Mr. Bloss: I did give counsel a clean copy; and after counsel is done with it, I will show it to the
witness.
Ms. Stebbins: I don't know if he's going to ask about any of the cut-off words, but I don't have a
clean copy.
Judge: Do you have another hard copy for the witness?
Mr. Bloss: I do. If we can have a moment, your honor, I think we can agree what the --
Ms. Stebbins: Why don't we just make a copy of this one?
Mr. Bloss: That's fine. Your honor, is there a copy machine? (brief recess taken.)
Mr. Putnam: How many copies would you like to have?
Mr. Bloss: Three.
Mr. Putnam: Would you like us to also make you a demonstrative?
Mr. Bloss: I have it.
Mr. Putnam: You have one that fits all the words in? This one doesn't.
Mr. Bloss: Hang on.
Mr. Boyle: For the record, I think the witness will know that c-o-n-f-l finishes "conflicts." I don't
think this is a big issue here.
Ms. Stebbins: It's tricky, your honor, because there are letters missing on almost every line. It may be
that it's just a couple of letters --
Mr. Panish: He has one that's missing no letters.
Mr. Boyle: And the witness testified he's familiar with this, anyway; so he should know what it says.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm not sure he did testify --
Judge: Let's just get a full copy.
Mr. Bloss: May I approach, your honor? I'm sorry.

Judge: You may.

Mr. Bloss: Okay.
Q. Dr. Green, you've got in front of you an A.M.A. Ethics opinion, do you not?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Called "Financial Incentives and the Practice of Medicine"?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And this has to do, in part, with how doctors are supposed to handle financial conflicts of interest,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And is it true, Dr. Green, that according to the American Medical Association ethics committee,
monetary incentives may be judged, in part, on the basis of their size?
A. It says that in this document, that's correct.
Mr. Bloss: And it also says -- can we bring this document up, please?
Ms. Stebbins: It's hearsay. I'm not sure there's a reason to put it in front of the jury.
Mr. Panish: He said it's standard of practice in the A.M.A. and he's talked about A.M.A. standards in
his direct examination.
Ms. Stebbins: When this issue came up with cross-examination of our experts, we were not allowed
to put them on the screen.
Mr. Panish: They were allowed to show them to the jury. They may not be introduced into evidence,
but you're allowed to show the A.M.A. standard.
Judge: Okay. Overruled. You may.
Mr. Bloss: Okay.
Q. What's on the screen now, Dr. Green, is what you've got in front of you in paper form?
A. Yes, except for the one on the screen is missing some letters on the right-hand side of the margin.
Q. Right. You can figure out what it says, though, with the paper version in front of you, right?
A. I was saying that for the benefit of the jury, as well.
Q. I understand. And it is accurate, then, that the A.M.A. committee on ethics says monetary
incentives may be judged, in part, on the basis of their size; isn't that right?

A. Yes, this document does say that.

Q. And it also says large incentives may create conflicts of interest that can, in turn, compromise
clinical objectivity, right?
A. I believe it says that, yes.
Q. And it says that on the paper version in front of you, too, right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And then the next sentence is while an obligation has been established to resolve
financial conflicts of interest to the benefit of patients -- first of all, you agree with that, don't you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. It is important to recognize that sufficiently large incentives can create an untenable
position for physicians, right?
A. That's what the document says, that's correct.
Q. And that's what you told us before our unfortunate pause that you disagreed with?
A. Yes.
Q. And you disagree with the ethics committee of the American Medical Association financial
incentives and the practice of medicine?
A. What I said that I believe in is that the obligation has been established, and I believe that that
established -- that obligation outweighs any financial incentive regardless of the size.
Q. And you disagree with the American Medical Association committee on ethics that it is important
to recognize that sufficiently large incentives can create an untenable position for physicians?
A. And what the document actually says, it's important to recognize that it can. It does not in any way
that it does. It says that it can.
Q. Okay. My question that I read to you that you disagreed with before the pause was exactly these
words, was it not?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And regardless of whether it says "can" or "will," you disagree with it?
A. I -- my opinion is that financial rewards do not obligate a physician to change their medical
judgment.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, I'd ask the witness to answer the questions.

Mr. Bloss: I'm going to do that.

Q. Dr. Green, if you don't understand one of my questions, please let me know. Okay? My question
that I read to you a little while ago was it is important to recognize that sufficiently large incentives can
create an untenable position for physicians, right?
A. That's what the document says.
Q. And that's the question that I asked you some time back that you disagreed with that statement?
A. I believe that when you asked me the statement, you did not include the entire sentence in that.
You did not say the part "While an obligation has been established," and I was commenting just on the
last part that you said.
Q. Okay. And, Dr. Green, I actually broke up the question, didn't I? I asked you the first half of it, and
then I asked you the second half of it, right?
A. You did not ask it the way it's said in the document right here.
Q. I asked the same exact words, did I not?
A. I believe that it was not within that same context, that I did not understand that it was in -- the
same thing as it is in this current document.
Q. Okay. The language "It is important to recognize that sufficiently large incentives can create an
untenable position for physicians," do you disagree with that or do you agree with that?
A. I agree with the entire statement that while an obligation has been established, that that does not --
that the size of the financial incentive does not mean that -- the physician still has the obligation to care
for the patient, and that's the part I agree with.
Q. Do you understand my question?
A. Could you repeat it?
Q. Sure. Do you agree or do you disagree that large incentives can create an untenable position for
physicians?
A. I do not agree with that by itself. I agree with the statement and the opinion of the full sentence
that qualifies that with an obligation.
Q. Okay. And the obligation -- with the sentence as you understand it, it says while there is an
obligation to resolve conflicts of interest in the interest of patients, in fact, it is important to recognize
that sufficiently large incentives can create an untenable position for physicians, right?
A. The full sentence, that's correct, I would agree with that part.
Q. Is $150,000 a month a large incentive?

A. I would say that depends on the situation.

Q. Okay. Let's talk about a situation involving a doctor whose house is about to go into foreclosure,
and a doctor who has about $600,000 in unsecured debt on his home, and a doctor who has $400,000 in
judgments against him for unpaid student loans and for bills that his services -- that his practice had
that he got sued on and judgment had been entered. And let's say, also, a doctor who had multiple
claims for unpaid child support. Would that be a large incentive for a person in that situation?
A. I couldn't comment on that person's situation. I'm sure many doctors have a great deal of debt,
possibly more than that, and they still manage to practice in an ethical manner.
Q. Okay. So it's your testimony here to this jury that you do not consider $150,000 a month for a
doctor in that position to be a large incentive; is that right?
A. Again, I'm not -- with this situation, that's up to the physician. It does not -- I agree with the
A.M.A. opinion that it does not mean that the physician still doesn't have the obligation to their patient.
Q. Okay. But the A.M.A. opinion also says sufficiently large incentives can create an untenable
position for physicians, right?
A. Yes, it does; and I'm also aware that this opinion is actually targeted at physicians, not people who
are paying them.
Q. It's the American Medical Association, right?
A. If you look at the very first line, it says "the following statement is offered for the guidance of
physicians," not the person paying them.
Q. Dr. Green, can you just stick with my questions, please? It's the American Medical Association
who wrote this, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. It was the opinion of the American Medical Association's committee on ethics that sufficiently
large incentives can create an untenable position for physicians, right?
A. Yes, for physicians.
Q. Right. And you disagree with that?
A. I think we've talked about that I agree with the statement. I didn't agree with how you broke it out.
Q. You didn't agree with what -- the second half of this sentence that the ADA committee on ethics
wrote; is that correct?
A. Not when it's standing alone. I agree with the whole sentence the way it's written.

Q. Does the employing organization of a physician have any -- can it do anything to mitigate
conflicts of interest?
A. Can you restate the question, please?
Q. Sure. Let's take a hypothetical where an organization or company employs a physician. Can the
employing company, non-medical company, take steps to mitigate conflicts of interest on the part of a
physician?
A. I believe that third parties should act in the best interest, also, of creating the best patient situation.
Q. Okay. What's the answer to my question?
A. Could you repeat the question again?
Q. Can a company hypothetically, that employs a doctor, a non-medical company -- can that company
take steps to mitigate conflicts of interest?
A. I'm sure that they can take those steps if they felt that they were necessary, but that's not an
obligation.
Q. Okay. I didn't ask you whether it was an obligation, I asked whether it could be done.
A. And I was just making sure that I understood your question that you said can it be done.
Q. Right. And your answer -- do you remember answering at your deposition, "yes, absolutely," to
that question?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, Dr. Green, I want to ask you a couple of questions about some of the slides that we
saw this morning. You said, I think repeatedly, that you prepared those slides.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. You were the one that put them together?
A. I was responsible for the content of them.
Q. Okay. You were responsible for the information that was in the slides?
A. That's correct.
Q. You checked them to make sure they were accurate?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You knew that -- you knew that it was important to make sure that you presented accurate
information to the jury here today, right?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you'd agree with me that the -- the strength of your opinion is only as good as your
understanding of the facts underneath the opinion, fair?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, one of the slides that we looked at, Dr. Green, when we were talking about Propofol --
I think it was 13539, if I wrote it down correctly. Can we bring that up? Now, you didn't finish these --
when did you finish these slides?
A. My best recollection was late last night.
Q. And you know we didn't get these slides until this morning, right?
A. I'm not aware of that.
Q. We certainly wouldn't have had them before late last night?
A. That's true.
Q. How late last night, Dr. Green?
A. I don't know. Probably around 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock last night.
Q. Okay. You were with the lawyers until 8:00 or 9:00 -- later than 8:00 or 9:00?
A. Probably about 8:00 o'clock last night.
Q. Okay. And I want to ask you a little bit about this is your -- the facts that you say underscore your
opinion that there's no evidence linking Propofol use to AEG Live, right?
A. This was part of my opinion, that's correct.
Q. Right. And I want to ask you about the March/April 2009 listing. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What's your testimony there?
A. It was that there was evidence that Dr. Murray was at the Carolwood house frequently in March
and April of 2009; and that was based, in part, on the testimony of Kai Chase.
Q. And what else was it based on, sir? You only mentioned her testimony, right?
A. That -- that was what we relied on for this slide, that's correct.
Q. When you say "we," that's you and the lawyers?

A. That would be what my testimony would be.

Q. I'm sorry?
A. My testimony. Sorry. I misspoke then.
Q. So when you said "we" relied on, that -- you misspoke, it was just you, not the lawyers?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And so you referred to two pages of Kai Chase's trial testimony, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And who do you understand her to be?
A. She was the chef at the Carolwood house.
Q. All right. And you read her trial testimony?
A. I did.
Q. You didn't read her deposition testimony, did you?
A. I'd have to check my list of records as to whether or not I -- I did that.
Q. Certainly didn't before your deposition, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Now I want to first ask to bring up, please, page 7748, lines 13 to 18. That's the first
reference that you have on your slide there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Can we agree, Dr. Green, what that question and answer -- those two questions and answers
refer to are when Kai Chase started working, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it says "last week in March," right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can we agree there's nothing on that page, in the material that you cited, that says that Dr. Murray
was at the house in March? Correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Let's go to the next one, please, 7754. And you cited in your slide, Dr. Green, lines 3
through 21, correct?
A. I believe that's true.
Q. Okay. Now, Kai Chase is asked some questions here about Dr. Murray, right?
A. Yes.
Q. She says, "I didn't see Dr. Murray as much in April," right?
A. Yes.
Q. Sometimes he was there, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And it says, "Would you estimate he was there about three times a week in April?" answer,
"Something like that," right?
A. That's correct.
Q. "And that was starting from the beginning of April right after you started working," right?
A. That's correct.
Q. "and he introduced himself to you as Jackson's personal physician," right?
A. Yes.
Q. "And in April, you would see Dr. Murray at the house maybe three times a week?" answer, "Two,
three times, something like that," right?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Dr. Green, there's nothing in that reference, is there, about Dr. Murray being at the house
at Carolwood in March 2009, is there?
A. No. This was starting -- this was she -- the testimony was in April, but she started in March.
Q. Okay. The slide that you showed us had Dr. Murray at Carolwood in March, and referred to these
two pages, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And is it fair to say, Dr. Green, that, in fact, what you told the jury this morning that Kai Chase's
testimony established that Dr. Murray was at the Carolwood house in March is not true?

A. From Kai Chase's testimony, she began in March; but she said that she started seeing him in April.
Q. All right. And the slide didn't say when Kai Chase started working, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. If you can bring the slide back up. The slide said Dr. Murray at Carolwood two to three times a
week, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. In March and April 2009, right?
A. You know, apparently with some of these when the dates are in terms of when a month ended and
began, it's a little bit hard. But in this case, her testimony said in April.
Q. Right. And you told the jury this morning that her testimony said March and April, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That was not accurate, Dr. Green, was it?
A. It was accurate for April, it was not accurate for March.
Q. All right. And, in fact, are you aware that Kai Chase said she didn't even meet Dr. Murray until
April?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Bloss: Are you aware of that, Dr. Green?
A. Can you restate the question?
Q. Yes. Are you aware when Kai Chase said she met Dr. Green -- I'm sorry -- Dr. Murray? Dr. Green,
I didn't put you there on purpose
A. We met on April 1, just to refresh --
Q. We did meet on April 1st. You never saw me before the deposition on April 1st, right?
A. No, I did not.
Q. I was never at Carolwood, was I?
A. I don't believe either one of us were there.
Q. Let me try again, Dr. Green. You read Kai Chase's testimony, right?

A. Yes.
Q. When do you believe that Kai Chase even met Dr. Murray for the first time?
A. Well, she knew that he was coming there in April, so I was -- in April.
Q. Okay. And, in fact, if I ask you to look at page 7699, line 26, to the next page at line 7 -- I think
that's right, your honor. 7698. I'm sorry, your honor. Now, you read this testimony, right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. This is Kai Chase's trial testimony?
A. I believe it is.
Q. Right. And if you scroll down, if you look at lines 4 and 5 of page 7699, Dr. Green, when does she
say that she met Dr. Murray?
A. The first few weeks in April.
Q. All right. Is that what it says?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. First few weeks in April, not March?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. So I didn't misstate the evidence when I asked you the question whether Dr. -- whether
Kai Chase testified that she met Dr. Murray in April, did I?
Ms. Stebbins: And, again, I'm just going to object that it misstates the evidence because of some of
Ms. Chase's other testimony that he may have reviewed.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Could you restate the question?
Mr. Bloss: I didn't misstate the evidence when I asked you whether Kai Chase testified at trial that she
met Dr. Murray in April, did I?
A. I believe she did meet him in April.
Q. Right. And that's what it says, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So when you said in your slide that you showed the jury that Kai Chase testified that she

saw Dr. Murray at the Carolwood house in March, that was also -- that's also inconsistent with Kai
Chase's testimony about when she even met Dr. Murray, right?
A. Again, there are some other testimony; but yes, in this slide, we relied -- I just cited Kai Chase's
testimony from those days.
Q. And to the extent that you're saying that Kai Chase testified that she saw Dr. Murray in March,
you're wrong?
A. I may have misstated the testimony in that regard.
Q. Right. And, in fact, are you aware, Dr. Green, of any testimony at all concerning Michael Jackson
asking for medical assistance with Propofol from someone other than Dr. Murray in March 2009?
A. Could you repeat the question?
Q. Sure. I'll even broaden it. Are you familiar with any evidence at all whether on April 19, a
particular medical provider was in Mr. Jackson's bedroom?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. That's Cherilyn Lee, or somebody else?
A. I believe it was Dr. Metzger.
Q. Dr. Metzger was in Mr. Jackson's bedroom on April 19th?
A. I believe there's medical records to suggest that Dr. Metzger met with Michael Jackson. I'm not
sure where that occurred.
Q. Okay. Well, April 19th -- do you remember there being any meetings with any medical providers
with Mr. Jackson on April 19th at Carolwood?
A. I believe Dr. Metzger met with him.
Q. Okay. So your understanding is Metzger went -- Dr. Metzger went to Carolwood on April 19th to
talk to Mr. Jackson?
A. That is my understanding.
Q. And they had a discussion, and Mr. Jackson asked Dr. Metzger about Propofol?
A. I believe that in that testimony -- that misstates the testimony. I believe he asked him about
sleeping medication.
Q. Sleeping medication. Okay. April 19th at Carolwood?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And were you given the testimony of

A. -- of a nurse called Cherilyn Lee?
A. I'm not sure if she was a nurse or what her profession was, but I did see the testimony of Cherilyn
Lee.
Q. Her deposition testimony?
A. I believe her deposition, that's correct.
Q. And do you recall Cherilyn Lee saying that she was in Mr. Jackson's bedroom administering
herbal sleep aids on April 19th?
A. You know, I'm -- I reviewed quite a bit of testimony in this; and I'm -- while I'm familiar with it, I
don't have the specifics. If you could show it to me, I'd appreciate that.
Q. I'm just asking if, for the purposes of your opinion, you recall Cherilyn Lee saying that she was
asked by Mr. Jackson to give him a sleep aid on April 19th.
A. And, again, I reviewed a great number of a great amount of testimony in this. I would not like to
misstate my testimony; so if you have a copy of that and want to refresh me if you're taking a specific
date, I'd be very happy to review it right now.
Q. I really just would rather do it this way, if I can. It's not coming to mind; is that fair to say?
A. Again, I would not testify to the exact dates without a copy of that in front of me.
Q. Would you agree that if a -- if a nurse testified that she saw no medical equipment in Michael
Jackson's bedroom on April 19th, that would be inconsistent with your view that Dr. Murray was giving
him Propofol April 19th while he was in the bedroom?
A. Not at all.
Q. Not at all. Okay. Would it be inconsistent if Mr. Jackson asked Cherilyn Lee for helping finding a
doctor to give him Propofol on April 19?
A. Not at all.
Q. Okay. Why, even though Murray is already giving it to him according to you on April 19?
A. You're asking me to speculate as to why Michael Jackson would be seeking out Propofol despite
the fact that he had somebody supplying it. That -- I can only speculate on why that was occurring.
Q. So you have no information about Mr. Jackson seeking Propofol from anybody other than Dr.
Murray before -- during the April -- March, April, may -- March, April, may, June time frame; is that
correct?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; vague.

Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Could you repeat the question? Sorry.
Mr. Bloss: Do you have any information that Mr. Jackson was seeking Propofol from anyone other
than Dr. Murray during March, April, May and June 2009?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Who?
A. Dr. Metzger and in the notes of Cherilyn Lee.
Q. Okay. Then you're aware, then, that Cherilyn Lee was asked by Mr. Jackson on April 19th to find a
doctor who would give him Propofol?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; asked and answered multiple times. I think the issue here, your honor, is
the specificity of April 19. He's stated multiple times he doesn't recall if that's the exact date or not.
Judge: Overruled.
Q. Do you remember the question, doctor?
A. Yes, I do; and I would answer in a very similar way, that I'm not here to -- I'm not able to testify
that it was on April 19th; and if you showed me the document, I'm happy to verify that was the date. I
do understand that there was a conversation between Michael Jackson and Cherilyn Lee in which he
was asking for intravenous sleeping aids.
Q. Right. And would it be fair to say that -- withdrawn. And that's inconsistent with your testimony
that Dr. Murray was giving him Propofol at that same time period, is it not?
A. No, it is not.
Q. Wouldn't be much of a reason for him to be asking for intravenous sleeping aids on the same day
that you're saying that Dr. Murray is giving intravenous sleeping aids, is there?
A. That's not inconsistent at all. Frequently in my practice we see addicts or people who are drug
seeking and they go to multiple sources. I can only speculate why he was going to other sources. That
would just be pure speculation. But, certainly, it's not inconsistent that someone would be -- who was
seeking a certain drug would go to multiple sources to try and obtain it.
Q. That's the case where somebody is seeking, say, painkillers, right?
A. I think that has -- every kind of drug.
Q. Even the drug that -- even a drug that is used to put somebody under?
A. Particularly one like that that's very difficult to obtain.

Q. Well -- okay. It's your understanding that Dr. Murray didn't have any trouble obtaining it, right?
A. Again, finding -- I guess in that situation, he found a doctor willing to do it; but that doesn't mean
that it was easy to obtain.
Q. Is it your belief, Dr. Green, as you've testified, and for the purposes of your opinion, that Michael
Jackson was getting Propofol from Dr. Murray on April 19th?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And April 12th?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. At the Carolwood house?
A. Yes.
Q. At night?
A. I don't know all the times that he was giving it because Dr. Murray did not keep records of this. He
kept this very secretive, and there were no records of what time he gave it.
Q. Likely to be at night since Mr. Jackson had obligations for rehearsals with the tour during the day?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; calls for speculation.
Judge: Sustained.
The witness: That would be speculation.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. So you have no information about that one way or the other?
A. I know I have patients who have all sorts of sleep cycles, and they sleep at all different times.
Q. Okay. Just listen to my question. Okay. You have no information about that one way or the other?
A. Only from Dr. Murray's police interview in which he said that at times, it was given at night.
Q. And are you aware of Cherilyn Lee testifying that she spent the night, or a large part of the night,
with Mr. Jackson on April 12th, and Murray was not around?
A. Again, I'm familiar with the records from Cherilyn Lee; but I'd have to look -- review them. If you
have them in front of you, I'm happy to look at those.

Q. Do you have any recollection about that?

A. I have a recollection of Cherilyn Lee's records, I don't -- I'd have to specifically look at that date to
see if that was when it occurred.
Q. All right. Dr. Green, I want to ask you a question or two about how you were retained. You have
said you were first contacted by the firm -- law firm representing AEG in late February 2009 (sic); is
that right?
A. That's approximately my recollection.
Q. And you had a -- a phone call with an attorney from the defense firm around March 2nd, 2009; is
that right?
A. I would have to look at my records, but sometime around then.
Q. Do you have your records with you?
A. I don't have them in front of me, no.
Q. And you remember that you were -- you were -- the lawyers filed a piece of paper -- the lawyers
for AEG Live filed a piece of paper with the court on March 4th summarizing what your expert
opinions were going to be, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you understood that one of your opinions was going to be to oppose Dr. Matheson's opinions?
A. To review Dr. Matheson's opinions.
Q. Well, it was to rebut Dr. Matheson's opinion, wasn't it?
A. My charge was to review his opinions and see if I came up with the same opinion or not.
Q. At the time you agreed to testify as an expert witness on behalf of AEG Live, you had some
papers, did you not?
A. Can you be more specific.
Q. You had some documents? The lawyers sent you some documents, correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And one of the documents that they sent you was Dr. Murray's police statement?
A. That's correct.
Q. One of the documents they sent you was Dr. Murray's records for treatment of Michael Jackson?

A. For some of the records, I believe, in 2006 and -- in 2006, in that time.
Q. All right. And they sent you a copy of a court order, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And they sent you a copy of the tour agreement?
A. I believe that was part of it, as well.
Q. They sent you a copy of the unsigned independent contractor agreement between AEG Live and
Dr. Murray, right?
A. Yes, I believe that's correct.
Q. And did they give you anything else at that time?
A. I believe that they gave me a copy of some AEG employment policies, and I think you mentioned
the police interview and medical records.
Q. Anything else?
A. To the best of my recollection right now, those were the main things that I received.
Q. Okay. And you received those the same day that the lawyers filed papers with the court saying that
you had agreed to be an expert witness, right?
A. I believe I received them on March 2nd or 3rd, in that general time.
Q. And you reviewed them on March 4th, right?
A. The 3rd or the 4th, I'm not exactly sure which date, but in that general area.
Q. And you agreed to testify on behalf of AEG Live -- withdrawn. How many depositions did AEG
Live give you at that time?
A. I do not believe I received any depositions at that time.
Q. How many emails did AEG Live give you at that time?
A. I had not received any emails at that time.
Q. How many other documents that had been marked as exhibits at depositions in this case had you
been given at that time?
A. How many other depositions?
Q. How many other documents that were marked as exhibits at any of the depositions were you given

at that time?
A. I do not believe that I received any of those at that time.
Q. And had you received anything as to what Dr. Matheson was going to testify about?
A. No. Given that Dr. Matheson didn't testify for another month from that, no, I did not.
Q. You weren't even given any opinion in terms of what his opinion was expected to be?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Okay. And so based on those six pieces of paper, you agreed to testify on behalf of AEG Live in
this case?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you agreed to testify about opinions regarding the work and opinions of Dr. Matheson
without knowing what they were?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you agreed at that time, on March 2nd, approximately, that you were going to charge some
money for your services?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And, in fact, at the time you agreed to testify for AEG Live as an expert witness, how much time
had you spent working on the case before you agreed to be retained?
A. I would have to look at my records, but it was several hours.
Q. Like five?
A. I would have to look at my records to see exactly how many hours.
Q. In one day, correct?
A. It was over one or two days, correct.
Q. All right. Fair to say it's less than ten?
A. It may have been.
Q. Likely less than ten, doctor, wasn't it?
A. Again, without looking at my records -- but it probably was less than ten.
Q. Okay. And your fee is what?

A. $500 an hour to review documents.

Q. And more for testimony?
A. Yes, that's true.
Q. How much is it for testifying?
A. I was charging $3,000 for a half day and $6,000 for a full day of testimony.
Q. Okay. So today it's going to cost AEG lives $6,000?
A. If we go the full day, yes.
Mr. Putnam: I sure hope not.
Mr. Bloss: I think we'll do pretty good.
Q. Dr. Green, you charged them $500 an hour for getting prepared?
A. I charged them $500 an hour for reviewing the documents.
Q. Okay. And also meeting with them to prepare for your testimony, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You've also done that, right?
A. Done what?
Q. You've also met with them to prepare for your testimony here today, right?
A. Yes, I met with them in order to discuss my testimony, that's correct.
Q. Did they do a mock examination of you?
A. I don't know if it was a formal -- but we did practice that a little bit, yes.
Q. Kind of in their practice courtroom?
A. No, actually.
Q. It was a conference room?
Mr. Putnam: Objection; lacks foundation, your honor. I'd like to have one, it would be nice, but --
Mr. Bloss: A conference room, Dr. Green?

A. In a variety of places.
Q. Okay. They asked you questions just like they asked you here today?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. So you've been through this before with their side?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You were deposed on April 1st, I think you said?
A. I believe it was April 1st.
Q. And between April 1st and today, how many times have you met with the lawyers?
A. Again, I would have to look at my records. It was approximately four or five times.
Q. When was the last time, last night?
A. That's correct.
Q. When was the time before that?
A. I believe it was Monday.
Q. Dr. Green, I want to ask you some questions about some specific documents. You didn't mention
any emails this morning in your testimony, did you?
A. I believe we did have several emails in our -- in our slides, I think we did mention emails.
Q. Okay. Which emails?
A. We'd have to look at the slides.
Q. There was one where Mr. Ortega said "We need to get a nutritionist," the June 13th email. We'll
get to that. Anything else?
A. I would have to review that, but I mentioned I referred to several emails in my testimony, but
although I did not -- in my direct examination, but I don't think I cited them by name.
Q. Let me ask you -- we'll start with that email, since you used that on one of your slides. It would be,
I think, exhibit 13054. Maybe 13534. I'm sorry. I was thinking about the email that was under -- this is
the slide that you were talking about with the email June 14?
A. That's correct.
Q. There's some other emails as part of that email chain, are there not?

A. Yes, there are.

Q. And you didn't talk about those this morning?
A. No, I did not.
Q. All right. Can we bring up that email please? It's either 13054, or if you want to use my copy, it's
665, dash, 80. This is the email that you included a portion of in your slide this morning, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you thought this was important because Mr. Ortega is saying to Mr. Gongaware "We need to
make sure that Dr. Murray has everything he needs"; is that right?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge: Okay. Sustained. Where does it say that on this email?
Mr. Bloss: I think it's actually the next page, your honor.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Bloss: Do you -- what was the importance for you of this particular email?
A. I believe if you go up I think to the top, the part that we included, the fact that this was
demonstrating Dr. Murray's independence in terms of advising his patient not to attend rehearsals.
Q. And there's also -- there's also a statement in there -- withdrawn. When you were -- I asked you
about this email at your deposition. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember answering at your deposition that they appear to be making sure that Dr.
Murray has everything in place to keep -- make sure that he can do the best possible job with him?
A. I believe I said that; although if you'd like to refresh my memory, I'm happy to look at what I said
there.
Q. Okay. That's your best recollection, that you said that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And at the time you were disclosed as an expert witness in this case, Dr. Green, you'd never
seen this email, had you?
A. Do you mean as of March 2nd?
Q. Yes.

A. No, I had not seen that.

Q. The lawyer -- you relied on the lawyers from -- that were representing AEG Live to provide
documents to you?
A. At that time, yes.
Q. At any time.
A. During the course of my preparation following my deposition, there were many things that I asked
for that I requested from the lawyers for O'Melveny & Myers.
Q. All right. So up until the time of your deposition, you relied on them to provide documents to you;
is that fair?
A. Yes. I was trying to get up to speed as much as I could in this case, and all the documents. And
initially I was relying on that, yes, that's true.
Q. And whatever standards they used to provide documents to you, you have no idea?
A. We did not discuss how they chose those documents.
Q. Okay.
A. But I assume that they were documents that were going to be relevant to my testimony.
Q. Now, there is -- you'll see in this -- this email that there is a statement that "Michael Jackson's
doctor didn't permit him to attend rehearsals yesterday." Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, when I asked you about this email -- withdrawn. There's also, if we go up to the top -- the
next email -- you understood that this is Mr. Gongaware replying to Mr. Ortega, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you know Mr. Gongaware as an executive at AEG Live at the time?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And still is, right?
A. He may well be.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Gongaware wrote "We want to remind --" withdrawn. "Frank and I have
discussed it already and have requested a face-to-face meeting with the doctor, hopefully Monday."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. And he wrote "We want to remind him that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary." Do you
see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. "we want him to understand what is expected of him," right?
A. Yes.
Q. Who do you understand, for the purposes of your expert opinion in this case, the "he" is in those
last two sentences?
A. Where they're saying "he" is or "him"?
Q. Both. "him," "his" and "him."
A. Uh-huh. You know, regarding these emails, I would rely mostly -- the best way to review an email
is to either be the recipient or the writer. Since I was neither, I would just be speculating as to what the
intent was in this email.
Q. Okay. That wasn't my question, Dr. Green.
A. Can you repeat the question, then?
Q. Who did you understand "him" and "his" to be in these two sentences for the purposes of your
opinion, if anybody?
A. And, again, I would rely on what Mr. Gongaware meant in this case.
Q. Okay. Then, Dr. Green, is it your testimony for the purposes of your opinion that you cannot say
who "him" and "he" -- and "his" is in this email for the purposes of your opinion?
A. No. I would assume that that probably -- my speculation would be -- my assumption would be that
it's probably Dr. Murray.
Q. Okay. And for the purposes of your opinion, you assume that it's Dr. Murray; or you just can't tell?
A. I would assume that's probably Dr. Murray.
Q. Okay. And what did you do to find out?
A. I read Mr. Gongaware's and Mr. Ortega's testimony.
Q. And what did Mr. Gongaware say about this email?
A. I believe Mr. Gongaware can't recall this email.

Q. And what did Mr. Ortega say about this email?

A. Mr. Ortega didn't -- didn't understand part of the email, what that meant, I think, under
questioning, as to what -- the part that you've highlighted in that.
Q. Right. And you accept for the purposes of your opinion that Mr. Gongaware wrote to Mr. Ortega
on June 14th "We want to remind Dr. Murray that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying Dr. Murray's
salary"?
A. Yes, I -- I believe Mr. Gongaware has said that although he doesn't recall it, he does say that it
went to his email address.
Q. And that he was referring to Dr. Murray when he wrote those words?
A. It seems more than likely, yes.
Q. Right. You accept that for the purposes of your opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. Even though you can't tell for sure?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the sentence "We want him to understand what is expected of him," you accept for the
purposes of your opinion that that also refers to Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. What AEG expects of Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. And -- and when it's -- when it uses the word "we" in the middle sentence, you understand "we
want to remind him that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary," the "we" refers to AEG?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; assumes facts not in evidence, calls for speculation.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I would have to assume for purposes of speculation that he does mean AEG Live.
Mr. Bloss: Okay.
Q. Now, this particular email, Dr. Green -- is this email material in one way or the other to your
opinion?
A. Yes. I feel that it continues to support my opinion.

Q. Okay. And including the language "we want to remind him it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his
salary"?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And "we want him to understand what is expected of him," that supports your opinion?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Now, do you remember me asking you about that at your deposition?
A. I do.
Q. And you did not say that at your deposition, did you?
A. Could you -- I'd be happy to review that if you have something in front of you that I said.
Mr. Bloss: Why don't we play the deposition, page 171, line 25.
Mr. Putnam: He's supposed to refresh first, your honor.
Judge: He said he doesn't remember. Show him his depo.
Mr. Panish: It directly impeaches his testimony here today.
Mr. Bloss: Do you remember what you said?
A. I'd like to see what I said.
Judge: He's saying he can't remember. Maybe -- maybe to refresh will refresh. Show him the
testimony.
Mr. Bloss: May I approach?
Judge: You may.
Mr. Bloss: We start at the bottom of page 171, line 25.
The witness: Can you say the line again? Because I can't see the lines.
Mr. Panish: 25.
The witness: Okay.
Mr. Bloss: Through 173, line 20.
Q. Did you get the whole --
A. No. Can I have a minute?

Q. Absolutely. Of course.
A. And where did you want me to read until?
Q. 173, line 20.
A. Did you say line 20?
Q. I did.
A. Okay. I see that. Thank you.
Q. Okay. Now, you agree that you testified at your deposition that there was nothing in this email that
you believed supported your opinion?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And you just said here today that you think that it did support your opinion, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So can we agree that you testified differently at your deposition than you did here today?
A. That's correct.
Mr. Bloss: Okay. Now, your honor, may we play the deposition? That's fine, your honor. I'll
withdraw.
Judge: Go ahead. It's just --
Ms. Stebbins: Again, your honor, just for the record, it's not complete, and he testified at his
deposition that he had no context for the email.
Mr. Bloss: Your honor, speaking objection.
Mr. Panish: It's direct impeachment.
Ms. Stebbins: I guess my statement, then, would be I would ask that we play through 175, line --
Mr. Panish: It's direct impeachment of his testimony here.
Ms. Stebbins: It's not impeachment, your honor. He's acknowledged he testified differently.
Mr. Panish: He testified one way here, he testified another way under oath.
Judge: I'm trying to read.
Ms. Stebbins: Through 175, line 8. They've started at page 171, your honor, through 173; and I'm

asking that it be extended through 175, line 20.

Mr. Bloss: Ours was 171-25 to 172, line 20. Your honor, I'll withdraw the offer of playing the tape at
this time until I finish with some other questions about this particular email, if that will solve the
problem.
Mr. Panish: Just play it.
Judge: What do you want to do?
Mr. Panish: I'll ask another question, your honor. There's some other questions on this. If Dr. Green
-- depending on Dr. Green's answers, I'll either want to play it or not.
Judge: All right.
Mr. Bloss: I asked you also at your deposition do you think there's anything in this email that takes
away from your opinions, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you said "no, no, I don't"?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And I asked you about the sentence "We want to remind him," Dr. Murray, "That it is AEG,
not MJ, who is paying his salary." I asked you you don't think there's anything that's inconsistent with
your opinions, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And your answer was, "I don't, because it's hard to know from an email what is intended by this
without knowing the person. I think you would have to probably ask, you know, Mr. Gongaware
what he intended by that," right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then when I asked you -- I asked you you can't tell the -- withdrawn. I asked you whether the
sentence "We want to remind him that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary, we want him to
understand what is expected of him" -- I asked you whether that was important to your opinions in any
way, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said it did not influence your opinion one way or the other, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Didn't influence it at all?

A. Correct.
Q. And the reason it didn't influence at all is because you couldn't understand the context?
A. And just to clarify, that's why now when I'm -- when I responded differently, it's because I've had
additional information that I've had a chance to review.
Q. And what's that information?
A. Several things. One is Mr. Gongaware's testimony in this trial. The other is that I further reviewed
evidence that showed that -- sorry -- I further reviewed evidence that showed there was nothing that
was -- in this email that was testified that was communicated to anyone -- to Dr. Murray, so the fact that
it was never communicated to Dr. Murray would lead me to believe that this was not influential on me.
Q. Now, Dr. Green, you don't know whether it was never communicated to Dr. Murray, right?
A. There's no evidence that it was.
Q. What did Mr. Gongaware say he said at the meeting following this email? Tell me every word you
can remember Mr. Gongaware saying.
A. You know, I'm very familiar with that; but you'd have to show me the specific items that he said.
Q. Is fair to say, Dr. Green, that Mr. Gongaware could not remember the meeting at all?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Could you ask the question again, please?
Mr. Bloss: Didn't Mr. Gongaware say that he didn't remember the meeting?
A. Again, there were a lot of statements about that meeting. He remembered, you know, parts of it;
and if you had something specific, I'd be happy to look at that.
Q. Okay. Did you -- you considered Mr. Gongaware's deposition testimony in coming to your
opinions, correct?
A. Could you repeat that?
Q. Did you consider Mr. Gongaware's deposition testimony in coming to your opinions?
A. Yes, as well as his testimony in court.
Q. Well, you already had come to your opinions by the time Mr. Gongaware testified in court,
correct?
A. Yes, I had.

Q. And so you considered and relied on his deposition testimony?

A. Yes, I did; and then had the opportunity to review additional testimony since that time.
Q. Dr. Green, can you just stick with my question? I'll do it in the right way, if you can just answer
my question. You reviewed Mr. Gongaware's deposition testimony to come to your opinion?
A. Prior to my deposition, that's correct.
Q. And I'd like to bring up, please, from the trial testimony, page 5314, line 16 through 23, although
quoting a part of the deposition testimony of Mr. Gongaware, your honor. You reviewed this testimony
as part of Mr. Gongaware's trial testimony, right?
A. Yes, I reviewed his trial testimony.
Q. And you remember Mr. Gongaware's -- part of his deposition was played before the jury during
his testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember Mr. Gongaware testified at his deposition, "I don't remember what I was
referring to," correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And did you credit that at the time you came to your opinion?
A. From the trial testimony?
Q. What's up in front of you.
A. That's from the trial testimony, correct?
Q. Do you know what it's from?
A. I'm looking at a very tiny part of that. If you could tell me where it's from, I'd appreciate it.
Q. If this was from his deposition, Mr. Gongaware's deposition, does that affect your testimony?
A. You're asking me to assume this came from his deposition?
Q. Right.
A. Assuming that this said that it came from his deposition, then, again, that would be consistent with
my deposition in that Mr. Gongaware wasn't aware of what that meant.
Q. Okay. And then if I can ask you 5315, lines 3 through 10. It's still Gongaware's testimony.

Ms. Stebbins: This is still from the deposition?

Mr. Panish: Trial.
Mr. Boyle: His trial testimony, playing the deposition.
Mr. Panish: That's trial testimony. When you play the deposition at trial, it's trial testimony.
Judge: Let's be clear about what it is.
Ms. Stebbins: So is it deposition testimony being played at trial?
Mr. Panish: Yes, it is.
The witness: If you could just clarify that, that would make it easier for me. Thank you.
Mr. Bloss: I thought that's what I said. But this is deposition testimony played in open court here in
front of this jury when Mr. Gongaware testified.
The witness: Okay. Thank you.
Q. And you understood that Mr. Gongaware testified at his deposition, "I don't know what I was
referring to in this, I don't remember it," right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that -- that testimony, the deposition testimony, was a few months before he testified at trial?
A. I believe so.
Mr. Bloss: All right. And if I can go to 53-16, lines 2 through 12.
Ms. Stebbins: Just to be clear, is this the same thing?
Mr. Bloss: Same thing. I think if there are quotes around it, it's deposition testimony.
The witness: So this is deposition testimony at this trial?
Mr. Bloss: Right.
Q. So you considered in coming to your opinions, Dr. Green, that Mr. Gongaware testified at his
deposition under oath, "I have no idea why I would write that"? Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Did you credit that for your purposes of coming to your opinions when you testified at deposition
in April?
A. That's -- yes, I did.

Q. All right. Then let's -- you're aware, aren't you, that Mr. Gongaware testified differently about that
email at trial, right?
A. I would have to look at his trial testimony specifically to see if there was a difference.
Q. Let's bring up 5328, lines 2 to 18. Do you remember reading this?
A. Yes, I do. And this is now from his trial testimony?
Q. Right. Let me ask you a foundational question, Dr. Green. You understand that deposition
testimony is testimony under oath that can be used as evidence just like trial testimony?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And it's important to be accurate in deposition testimony?
A. That's correct.
Q. And to be truthful in deposition testimony?
A. That's my understanding, yes.
Q. You raise your right hand and you swear to tell your truth at a deposition the same way you do
here in open court?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you know that a jury is entitled to consider deposition testimony in coming to its decisions?
A. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding.
Q. You know it's important to be accurate in depositions, right?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; asked and answered.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Yes.
Mr. Bloss: Okay.
Q. Now, this is what Mr. Gongaware said at trial, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. This is -- he was asked differently -- he was asked the same question about the email that we've
been talking about, right?

Ms. Stebbins: Objection; misstates that he was asked the same question.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Bloss: There's a question, "You said we want to remind him that it's AEG, not MJ, who is paying
him," right?
A. Could you repeat the question?
Judge: Line 13.
The witness: Yes. It's not a question, you're just reading line 13?
Mr. Bloss: Well, that was a question.
The witness: What's the question?
Mr. Bloss: Mr. Gongaware was asked, "You said we want to remind him that it's AEG, not MJ Who is
paying him," right?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And Gongaware says, "That's what I wrote," right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he was asked, "Did you ever change that, sir, before today," right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And his answer was, "No, sir"?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you understand that Mr. Gongaware changed this testimony?
A. Let me have a chance to read this and look at the other one. I don't think it's inconsistent. He said,
"That's what I wrote," and the previous one, he said he didn't recall that he wrote it.
Q. Okay. You don't think that's inconsistent?
A. No; because later in the testimony, Mr. Gongaware does not deny the fact that it came from his
email account and that he must have written it.
Q. Do you think that there is, in the email that we've been talking about, the one where Gongaware
writes, "We want to remind him that it's AEG, not MJ Who is paying him" -- Do you think there's
anything in that email that takes away from your opinions?
A. No, I don't.

Q. And that's because you believe that Mr. Gongaware did not communicate that to Dr. Murray?
A. I believe that no one from AEG communicated that to Dr. Murray. In addition, I think you have to
look at the context. I don't think you can pull out a word here and there. You have to look at the context
in this email chain. This was an email chain about Michael Jackson's health. The email in between talks
about who was paying him; and then the final email in the chain talks about, again, his health. So all of
them talk about his health and their concerns about his health.
Q. All right. Well, the first one you mentioned was written by Kenny Ortega, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. He wasn't an AEG employee, was he?
A. I don't know whether he was an independent contractor or an AEG employee. He was being paid
by AEG
Q. Do you think he was an AEG employee?
A. That would be beyond my --
Ms. Stebbins: Calls for a legal conclusion, outside the scope of this expert's expertise.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Bloss: Do you think that he was on salary to AEG?
Ms. Stebbins: Same objection.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Bloss: Who do you think that Mr. Ortega was?
A. He was the tour director.
Q. Okay. And do you think that he had been hired by AEG Live?
Ms. Stebbins: Same objection, your honor.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Bloss: Your honor, if I may, I'm just trying to establish --
Q. Do you believe that Mr. Ortega had a job with AEG before the "This Is It" tour?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; vague.
The witness: I have no knowledge --

Judge: I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think it's irrelevant if he had some job before, like did
some other tour, or --
Mr. Bloss: I'm actually trying to get a very small point.
Q. And that is Mr. Ortega wrote the first email expressing concerns about Mr. Jackson's health, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Mr. Ortega wrote the last email expressing concerns about Mr. Jackson's health, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. The email in the middle talking about reminding him who he's working for, that was written by
Paul Gongaware?
A. That's correct.
Q. That wasn't written by Kenny Ortega?
A. To himself, no. That was written by Paul Gongaware in response.
Q. Right. And when I asked you about that question -- that line in his -- in your deposition, "We want
Dr. Murray to understand what is expected of him," you testified, "I don't feel that influenced my
opinion one way or the other," correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You still feel that way?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you testified -- I asked you, "Didn't influence it at all, correct?" Do you remember I asked
you that?
A. At the deposition?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And you've read your deposition to prepare for your testimony, right?
A. Yes. I don't remember every word; but yes, I read it.
Q. All right. And your answer to my question didn't influence at all was, "I don't think I completely
understood what they -- again, what the context of this was because I don't think you can take one
single email, I think you have to put it in context," right?

A. Which is what I just said a minute ago, as well; that you have to put this into context. That's right.
Q. That's still your opinion here today?
A. That's correct.
Q. Because you cannot tell the context of this email that you do not consider it important one way or
the other for the purposes of your opinions?
A. At my deposition, that's what I testified to.
Q. And that's still your opinion, isn't it?
A. My opinion since that time is I've had additional information to review and I still do not feel that
that influenced Dr. -- Dr. Matheson's conclusion that this created a conflict of interest.
Q. Okay. I'm asking you whether you believe that for the purposes of your opinion you don't -- you
do not consider it important one way or the other because you cannot tell the context.
A. Now that I've had the chance to read other emails and see that there's no evidence that that was
ever communicated, then, no, it would not sway my opinion in that regard.
Q. You didn't -- there are no other emails that talk -- what other emails did you just refer to?
A. I didn't refer to other emails.
Q. You just mentioned other emails that you had read relating to that answer that you gave at your
deposition.
A. I believe I said additional information.
Q. You didn't say emails?
A. If I did, then I misspoke. I intended to say additional information.
Q. Okay. Because you didn't read any additional emails that affected your opinion on that, right?
A. On that particular one?
Q. Right.
A. No.
Q. And did it cross your mind that what Mr. Gongaware meant when he wrote, "We want him to
understand what is expected of him" that Mr. Gongaware meant what he wrote?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; argumentative, vague as to "meant what he wrote."

Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Could you ask the question again?
Mr. Bloss: Yes.
Q. Did you consider whether Mr. Gongaware meant what he wrote when he said, "We want him to
understand what is expected of him"?
A. Yes, I considered that.
Q. Okay. And you understood, didn't you, that you had been retained by AEG Live in this case,
correct?
A. I understood that I was retained by the firm of O'Melveny & Myers.
Q. Did you ask to have any meetings with Mr. Gongaware --
A. No, I did not.
Q. -- to find out what he meant by that?
A. No, I did not.
Q. To get any more information from him?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask to meet with Mr. Phillips --
A. No.
Q. -- to try to get any more information from him?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. Now, you're aware, are you not, that a couple of days after Mr. Gongaware wrote "We want
to remind him who he's working for," Dr. Murray, that, in fact, there was a meeting at the Carolwood
house, correct?
A. Yes, I believe that was the meeting that -- in the email where it said "We want to request a
meeting with the physician."
Q. Right. And, in fact, there was a meeting that Mr. Phillips called an intervention?
A. I believe that Mr. Phillips did refer to it as an intervention.
Q. Right. And the first time you were given that particular email, exhibit 274, was when I gave it to
you at your deposition in April, correct?

A. That may be correct.

Q. That is correct, isn't it, sir?
A. Again, this was several months ago. I believe that was correct.
Q. Okay. The lawyers for AEG Live did not give you the email where Mr. Phillips wrote "We have
an intervention with Dr. Murray and Michael Jackson"?
A. I would have to review my deposition testimony, but that's to my recollection.
Q. Okay. And when you were reading Kai Chase's testimony -- you read her trial testimony, right?
A. I believe I did, yes.
Q. Did you read her trial testimony about a meeting at Carolwood where Randy Phillips and other
AEG Live executives met with Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you read her trial testimony that Mr. Gongaware was also there?
A. I believe, yes, there was some confusion as to which meeting that she was at; but yes, there was a
meeting where Mr. Gongaware was there.
Q. And Dr. Murray?
A. And Dr. Murray.
Q. And Mr. Phillips?
A. And Mr. Phillips, and I believe Frank Dileo and Michael Jackson.
Q. Okay. And do you remember Dr. -- do you remember Ms. Chase's trial testimony that Dr. Murray,
after that meeting, acted a little unusual? Do you remember that?
A. Can you be more specific?
Q. Do you remember Ms. Chase testifying that after the meeting with AEG Live executives in June
2009 at the Carolwood house, that Dr. Murray came into the kitchen and said something along the lines
of, "I can't take this shit"?
A. I read the testimony of Ms. Chase, who -- that's her account of the -- the version -- that's her
version of the meeting that happened. Yes, I did read that.
Q. Okay. And there were different versions of that meeting; is that right?
A. That's what I was trying to say. Thank you for clarifying that.

Q. Okay. And Mr. Gongaware offered a version of what happened at that meeting; is that your
understanding?
A. That's my understanding, as well.
Q. And he said what happened at the meeting?
A. My understanding is that Mr. Gongaware had a different description; that it was a much more
positive meeting than Kai Chase's -- than Kai Chase's, although Kai Chase was not at the entire
meeting, by her own testimony.
Q. There are differences between Kai Chase and Mr. Gongaware?
A. And, again, Kai Chase was not at the entire meeting, Mr. Phillips was.
Q. I understand. I'm just asking you -- my question was simply whether there were differences
between Kai Chase's testimony about the tone of the meeting and Mr. Gongaware's testimony about the
tone of the meeting.
A. Yes, that's true.
Q. Okay. Now, you, as a medical doctor, are faced with, then, competing -- withdrawn. Which of
those versions are you crediting for the purposes of your opinion?
A. Well, I read both of them, obviously. But I would have -- I probably would put a little more stock
in the person that was there and heard the entire context versus someone who just heard snippets of the
meeting.
Q. Would you agree that Dr. Murray's reaction from the meeting, if believed, if credited, as relayed by
Ms. Chase is consistent with being pressured at the meeting?
A. Assuming that Kai Chase's recollection of that is -- is correct. I think there are many different
interpretations as to Dr. Murray's supposed outbursts after the meeting.
Q. Is one of them being pressured?
A. Could you say pressured by whom?
Q. Participants of the meeting.
A. That's -- that's one explanation; but now -- at the time, that could be one explanation; however,
now, knowing the facts of what happened after that, it could be that Dr. Murray was feeling pressured
by the fact that he was giving illegal drugs to Michael Jackson.
Q. You don't know that, Dr. Green, do you?
A. You're asking me to speculate on what -- on what Dr. Murray found, and I'm speculating that Dr.
Murray was under increasing pressure knowing that he was violating his hippocratic oath, was giving

unethical and illegal drugs. That certainly could create pressure within Dr. Murray to come out with an
outburst like that.
Q. And he was also facing losing a $150,000-a-month gig while his house was about to be foreclosed
on, right?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; misstates testimony that he was losing the gig.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: There was nothing to suggest in the meeting that he was being threatened that he would
be terminated at this point.
Mr. Bloss: Assuming you credit Mr. Gongaware?
A. I don't know any testimony that -- either Kai Chase's or anyone that said that Dr. Murray was in
danger of losing the gig.
Q. Assuming you credit Mr. Gongaware's testimony about what he can recall happened at the
meeting, right?
A. Or Kenny Ortega's.
Q. Or Mr. Phillips'?
A. Or Mr. Phillips'.
Q. And Ortega was there, you say?
A. Which meeting were you referring to?
Q. June 16, the intervention meeting.
A. Yes, I believe Kenny Ortega was there. I'm sorry. You mean the early meeting or the second
meeting?
Q. The meeting that we call the intervention meeting.
A. I do not believe Mr. Ortega was there.
Q. Okay. So you would have to rely on Mr. Gongaware or Mr. Phillips, right?
A. Those are two of the people, yes.
Q. Or you know Mr. Dileo was there?
A. And I understand he's passed away.
Q. Correct. And you understand Dr. Murray was there and he's not available --

A. Correct.
Q. -- to testify, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Jackson was there, and he's passed away, right?
A. Unfortunately, yes.
Q. All right. So the only versions that you're getting from the intervention meeting are Mr.
Gongaware and Mr. Phillips?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Now, you were also shown some emails at your deposition that begin with the subject
line "Trouble at the Front." do you remember those?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You didn't testify about any of those this morning, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. In fact, those are not important to your opinion, correct?
A. I reviewed them. Everything that I reviewed is part of my opinion that I take in. But did I rely on
them in my slides today? No, I did not.
Q. Were they important to your opinion?
A. I don't know how I would rate that except to say that I considered everything in my opinion.
Q. Did you believe that it was material to support your opinions?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection.
The witness: I felt that it was important to review those materials and be aware of what was going on
at the time.
Judge: Dr. Green, if there's an objection you need to stop so I can rule on it. I heard Ms. Bina object.
Ms. Stebbins: I was just going to object to the term "material," your honor, as it's a legal term, I'm
not sure it's one the witness would be familiar with.
Judge: Overruled.
Q. By Mr. Bloss: Was there anything in the "Trouble at the Front" emails that you considered to be

material to your opinions?

A. Again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "material." if you meant did I consider them, yes, I
did.
Q. How about -- how about important to your opinions?
A. Again, everything that is part of this trial, I felt was important to review.
Q. I understand -- Dr. Green, you keep qualifying your answer with "review" and "consider." I'm
asking you whether you believe that the "Trouble at the Front" emails support your opinions.
A. I believe that they don't -- I believe that they do not contradict any of my opinions.
Q. Okay. My question was whether they support your opinions.
A. Yes, I would say they support my opinions.
Q. Okay. The "Trouble at the Front" email chain --
A. Yes.
Q. -- makes -- leads you to conclude that there is not evidence of a conflict of interest between
Murray and AEG Live and Mr. Jackson?
A. That's correct.
Q. And specifically what about that?
A. I would like to have -- to see the emails in order to point out the specific areas that you're referring
to.
Q. Okay. Well, we'll get to them. Can you remember any right now?
A. I'm sure you will get to them, but -- no. I would have to look at them in order to say what parts of
them I would rely on.
Q. Okay. So, Dr. Green, just sitting here right now, for the purposes of your opinion, you cannot say
anything specific about any of those emails that supports your opinion?
A. I'm not sure why you don't want me to look at those, but I'm happy to take a look at them.
Q. I'm just trying to start off foundationally, Dr. Green. I'm asking the questions; and if there's an
unfair question, I'm sure your counsel will object. Is the answer to my question that you cannot think of
anything right now without seeing the emails that you believe supports your opinion?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.

Now, do you know who Mr. Hougdahl is?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. Who is he?
A. I believe he was the production manager on the tour.
Q. Now, you didn't know who he was at the time of your deposition, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Because you hadn't been given Mr. Hougdahl's email, had you?
A. That's correct.
Q. So when you agreed to testify on behalf of AEG Live as an expert witness, you weren't aware of
the "Trouble at the Front" email chain at all, were you?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; misstates the evidence.
Judge: That he's not aware of the --
Ms. Stebbins: -- "Trouble at the Front" emails. He had all of them at his deposition.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, first of all, that's a speaking objection. Second of all, that wasn't my
question.
Judge: What was the question? Let's re-read it. (the question was read.)
Judge: Okay. So any objection is overruled. You may answer.
The witness: No, on March 2nd, when I agreed, I was not aware of that email.
Mr. Bloss: You weren't given those by AEG Live's lawyers?
A. Not initially, that's true.
Q. You weren't given those until much later?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, in fact, you saw them for the first time on -- at your deposition on April 1st, correct?
A. I believe that's true.
Q. Do you know who it was -- is it your understanding that somebody sent Mr. Jackson home from
rehearsal on June 19th?

A. I believe that's true.

Q. Who did that?
A. I'm not -- I believe it was Kenny Ortega, but I would have to look at the documents to refresh me.
But somebody did send him home on June 19th.
Q. Why don't we pull up one of those emails, exhibit 307, dash, 4. Now, you did consider this -- you
saw this email for the first time when I showed it to you at your deposition, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that was about a month after you had been retained as an expert in this case?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you understood that Bugz is John Hougdahl? Do you understand that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And he was reporting some information to Paul Gongaware and Randy Phillips, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And this -- this, you do not believe is material to your opinions one way or the other?
A. Only in the -- it is information that Michael Jackson was not in good health on June 19th.
Q. And how long -- withdrawn. The representation there, the statement by Mr. Hougdahl that he was
a basket case, do you have any information about that other than what's in this email.
A. Can you repeat the question? I'm not clear what you're asking me.
Q. Yes. Do you see the language in there that's just been highlighted, he was a basket case?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any information about Mr. Jackson's condition that night other than what's in this
email?
A. Yes. There were other emails around this time talking about Mr. Jackson's condition.
Q. Do you have any other information about when Mr. -- when Mr. Hougdahl wrote he would
embarrass himself onstage or, worse, get hurt? Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you have any information about that other than what's in this email?

A. Again, I believe there were other emails around that time expressing concern about Mr. Jackson.
Q. Now, if I go to 307-3, the next email, you understood that Mr. Phillips got that email from -- from
Mr. Hougdahl, correct?
A. It appears he was on the recipient list of that, that's true.
Q. And then Mr. Phillips sent an email to Mr. Leiweke, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Phillips wrote to Mr. Leiweke, "we have a real problem here," right?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And you understand Mr. Leiweke to be who?
A. I believe he was the president of AEG at the time.
Q. I'm sorry. Mr. Leiweke -- do you know his relationship to Randy Phillips?
A. Yeah. I believe he was the president of AEG at the time.
Q. Do you know Mr. Leiweke?
A. I do not.
Q. You see Mr. Phillips writes "we have a real problem here," correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And do you remember me asking you about that at your deposition?
A. I remember when you asked about it, I don't recall my specific response to that.
Q. Do you remember me asking you whether -- withdrawn. Is this "we have a real problem here"
important in any way to any of your opinions?
A. I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Phillips meant by that email, so it would be hard to comment on
that.
Q. Okay. My question was, is that statement, "we have a real problem here," important in any way to
any of your opinions?
A. Only in that I reviewed it.
Q. So is the answer no, it's not important to your opinions?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. That's what you testified to at your deposition, right?

A. You'd have to show it to me, but -- if that's what you -- I would take your word for it.
Q. Okay. Now, if you go up a little bit, do you remember there being language -- keep going, if we
may. It will probably have to go on to the next page, 307-2, to the top of 307-3. Do you understand a
little later that day, Mr. Ortega wrote back to Mr. Phillips? And it will be pulled up in a moment. Is that
your understanding, Dr. Green?
A. Can you repeat your question?
Q. Dr. Green, you understood that Mr. Ortega wrote to Mr. Phillips very early in the morning on June
20th, 2009, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Mr. Ortega wrote "my concern is now that we have brought the doctor into the fold and have
played the tough love now-or-never card is that the artist may be unable to rise to the occasion due to
real emotional stuff." do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And did you read that before April 1st at the time of your deposition?
A. I don't recall when I read that.
Q. Are you able to place that sentence in context?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Okay. Is this important to your opinion in any way?
A. Only in that it shows that on June 19th, there was concerns from people who observed Michael
Jackson that there were concerns about his health at that point, and there's reporting of symptoms at
that point.
Q. For the purposes of your opinion, did you place any weight on this email?
A. Again, I placed weight on it that it was a important in that it showed Michael Jackson's condition
as of June 19th.
Q. All right. When I asked you that question at your deposition, I asked you for the purposes of your
opinion in this case, you don't know what Mr. Ortega meant by that, so you don't place any weight on
it. Do you remember me asking you that question?
A. I remember you asking it, I don't recall my specific response. If you'd like to refresh my memory,
I'd be happy to look at it.

Q. Okay. Why don't you look at page 192, line 8.

A. Is that in this book?
Q. It is.
A. Can you repeat where it is?
Q. If you'll go to 192, line 5, that was my question. Do you remember that, Dr. Green?
A. I will in a minute.
Ms. Stebbins: Wait a minute. It's not clear what it's referring to. I'm going to object as vague.
Mr. Panish: It's refreshing his recollection, your honor.
The witness: Can you re-ask the question?
Mr. Bloss: I asked you for the purpose of your opinion in this case, you don't know what Mr. Ortega
meant by that, so you don't place any weight on it, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was your answer?
A. "yes, I would say that's true."
Q. That you placed no weight on it because you don't understand the context, right?
A. That was -- at the time, that's what I said, yes.
Q. Right. And that was a month after you'd been retained, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You had Mr. Ortega's deposition by that time?
A. That's true.
Q. Had you read it?
A. Yes, I had.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Ortega also writes in this June 20th email that Mr. Jackson was losing weight,
correct?
A. It says that in the email, yes.
Q. Right. And did you rely on that one way or the other for the purposes of any of your opinions?

A. Well, that's -- I relied on that as I would with all the information that I reviewed, but there's --
there's some discrepancy in different testimonies about his weight.
Q. Okay. Can you just stick with my question, Dr. Green?
A. I will try.
Q. Did you rely on Mr. Ortega's statement that Mr. Jackson was losing weight one way or the other
for the purposes of your opinion?
A. Not particularly.
Q. Because you didn't know whether it was true or not?
A. I just didn't know how much weight to put on that at the time.
Q. So you didn't put any on it?
A. Except for -- except for noticing that this was an email that was sent, and like I looked at all the
evidence, correct.
Q. And there's also a statement in that email, I believe, 307-2, that "as far as I can tell, there is no one
taking responsibility caring for him on a daily basis." do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And do you understand "him" in that to be Mr. Jackson?
A. Again, asking me to assume, I would assume that that's Mr. Jackson.
Q. For the purposes of your opinion, you believe that's Mr. Jackson?
A. For the purpose of my opinion, I would assume that that's Mr. Jackson.
Q. And was Dr. Murray caring for Mr. Jackson by this point?
A. Can you define "caring for"?
Q. Treating.
A. He was his personal physician at the time.
Q. Was he treating him, as you understand it?
A. My understanding, Dr. Murray did not keep any medical records during this time, so I can't say
whether he was treating him at that time; but he was certainly under his care.
Q. Okay. And at least Mr. Ortega wrote "there is no one taking responsibility caring for Mr. Jackson

on a daily basis," right?

A. That was Mr. Ortega's opinion, yes.
Q. Right. And the only thing that you believe is important to your opinions in this email is that Mr.
Ortega expressed concern about Mr. Jackson's health, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, if you go -- Mr. Phillips then writes back and wants to schedule a meeting with Mr. Murray,
right? Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, he does.
Judge: Are we going on to a new email?
Mr. Bloss: I am.
Judge: Let's take a 15-minute break and we'll return.
(Break)
(The following proceedings were heard in open court, outside the presence of the jury)
Judge: Counsel, just a reminder not to talk over each other. We're having a hard time with
Our court reporters. Half of them don't want to work in our courtroom because they can't keep track of
everybody. So please try not to talk over each other. Okay? Because it's really hard for them, and I don't
blame them.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors)
Mr. Bloss: Dr. Green, we were talking about exhibit 307-2, an email that Mr. Ortega sent to Mr.
Phillips early in the morning on June 20th.
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. There is also a statement in there "now we've brought the doctor into the fold and have played the
tough love now-or-never card." do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. "is that the artist may not be able to rise to the occasion due to real emotional stuff." do you see
that?
A. I do.
Q. For the purposes of your opinions, Dr. Green, what did you understand, if anything, Mr. Ortega
wrote -- meant when he wrote "now that we've brought the doctor into the fold"?
A. Again, this email shows that there's some concern by Kenny Ortega about Michael Jackson's
health and some real concern in that regard.
Q. And specifically what we've done -- withdrawn. Specifically do you have an understanding for the
purposes of your opinion what we did to bring the doctor into the fold?
A. Could you ask that question again?
Q. Sure. For the purpose of your opinion, what is it that you understand was done to bring the doctor
into the fold?
A. Again, I'm not sure what Kenny Ortega meant by that -- by that aspect, so -- you'd have to ask
him, and I believe he's had the chance to respond to that in this trial.
Q. Okay. Do you remember what he said?
A. I don't recall specifically what he said. If you'd like to, I'd be happy to look at it.
Q. Okay. I'm just asking -- you came here to testify as an expert witness, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You spent a lot of time getting ready for your testimony?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you read a lot of depositions?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You read a lot of trial testimony?
A. I did.
Q. I'm just asking you for the purposes of your opinions if you remember what Mr. Ortega said he
meant by that.
A. And, again, I read through thousands of pages and certainly do not have every single line
memorized. But, in general, my opinion is that I'm not sure what Mr. Ortega meant by what they've
done to bring him into the fold, to answer your question.

Q. So because of that, because you're not sure what Mr. Ortega meant, is it fair to say that you did not
rely on this one way or the other for the purposes of your opinion?
A. You know, you'd have to clarify this a little bit because you're asking me to pick out one specific
sentence out of an email that -- in an email chain, and I think are you asking me the specific line or the
entire email?
Q. The -- the sentence "now that we've brought the doctor into the fold and have played the tough
love now-or-never card" -- let me ask the question. You just don't know what Kenny Ortega meant by
that? Is that your testimony?
A. Again, I think you have to put this entire thing into context; and if I look at the context of this
email, the context was that he was concerned about Michael Jackson's health.
Q. What is it that you understood him to mean when he said "we have played the tough love now-or-
never card," if anything?
A. I'm not sure what Kenny Ortega meant by that.
Q. All right. If we go, then, up to Mr. Phillips' response to Mr. Ortega, early in the morning of June
20th at 7:00 in the morning, 6:58, do you see that?
A. I will in a minute. Yes.
Q. You looked at this for the first time at your deposition?
A. You know, I'm not certain of that. There were a lot of emails that I saw; and in my deposition, I
wasn't sure of the order that things were shown. And so I did see some exhibits with some emails, but
I'm not -- I can't tell you with 100 percent that I've seen this at the deposition, but I'd have to review my
deposition to let you know about that.
Q. Okay. But you did testify about this email at your deposition. You don't remember that?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Phillips wrote in the middle there "we will bring her," Brigitte, "back." do you
know who Brigitte is?
A. I believe that she was someone who was in London who was making arrangements in London for
the tour.
Q. Like housing?
A. That was my understanding.
Q. And your understanding is she was getting a house for Dr. Murray?
A. I understand that she had several different duties, and I understand that was part of it.

Q. Okay. And Mr. Phillips writes "I am stymied on who to bring in as a therapist and how they can
get through to him in such a short time." do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. For the purposes of your opinion, what kind of therapist did you understand Mr. Phillips was
writing about early in the morning on June 20?
A. I believe that Mr. Phillips' testimony is that there's some confusion as to what he meant about the
therapist.
Q. I didn't ask that. I'm asking for purposes of your opinion, Dr. Green, what do you understand Mr.
Phillips to have been referring to?
A. I think there's different ways you can interpret that. I think this could be a physical therapist, I
think it could be someone with a psychologic background. I think when one uses the term "therapist" it
can mean a great many things.
Q. Let me ask the question again. For the purpose of your opinion, what do you understand Mr.
Phillips to have meant by the word "therapist," if anything?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; asked and answered.
Judge: Physical therapist and psychologist, was that the only two options?
The witness: Yes.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, the question was what did he interpret, not what it could be. He didn't -- he
didn't answer -- if you look at the question and answer, he didn't answer the question.
Ms. Stebbins: I think he did, your honor. He first said what Mr. Phillips had testified to and then
clarified his own possible interpretations.
Mr. Bloss: The question, Dr. Green, is, for the purposes of your opinion, were you able to reconcile
those two alternatives and accept one versus the other for the purposes of your opinion?
A. No, I was not.
Q. All right. So as far as you're concerned, Mr. Phillips may have been referring to a physical
therapist, may have been referring to a psychologist or mental health therapist for the purposes of your
opinion?
A. Again -- he may have.
Q. And you just can't tell so you don't place any importance on that particular statement; is that
correct?
A. The importance that I -- that I place is that Randy Phillips at this time was considering ways that

he could help Michael Jackson, and this further goes back to my opinion that I stated earlier this
morning that AEG Live's interests were in keeping Michael Jackson healthy. So to that degree, I did
rely on this in my opinion.
Q. And part of what Mr. Phillips said -- "I'm stymied on who to bring in as a therapist," right?
A. As a layperson, yes, that's what he says.
Q. And you've told us that one of the possibilities what he was referring to use a physical therapist
and one possibility was a mental health therapist, right?
A. From a layperson's perspective, I don't think that he had an idea as to what he needed.
Q. What did he write?
A. Again, he wrote this as a layperson, not as a Physician.
Q. Okay. He wrote as a -- and he was getting advice from people, was he not, by this time?
A. I'm not sure what you mean by he was getting advice.
Q. Mr. Ortega said, "I think we need to get a psychiatrist to check him out," right?
A. He wrote an email in this chain, yes, and said that.
Q. And Mr. Hougdahl said, "I think we need to get a psychiatrist to check him out," right?
A. I would have to review Mr. Hougdahl's email.
Q. You don't remember that?
A. I remember it had been written about, a psychiatrist; but I don't -- I'd have to review it to see
specifically it was Mr. Hougdahl who said that.
Q. Somebody else said, "we should get a psychiatrist"?
A. I believe there were several emails that mentioned that.
Q. And Mr. Branca said, "I have a substance abuse counselor," right?
A. He -- you'd have to show me the email on that. I remember reading that, but you'd have to show
me that.
Q. You don't remember that?
A. I don't remember the exact words or if it was Mr. Branca who wrote that, but I'd be happy to
review it if you'd like me to look at it. If you think it would change my opinion I'd be happy to look at
it.

Q. I'm just asking for the purposes of your opinion, were you aware Mr. Phillips had multiple people
suggesting a mental health counselor?
A. And as I answered, my opinion was that all of these show AEG's concern for Michael Jackson's
health, and that supports my opinion.
Q. Dr. Green, my question was simply whether you were aware that there were multiple people
saying to Mr. Phillips that, "we need to get a psychiatrist in here."
A. I agree that there were -- I don't think they all say psychiatrist. I believe that there were emails that
said that "we're concerned about his mental wellbeing."
Q. And Mr. Phillips did not get a psychiatrist in, or any kind of a mental health counselor, did he?
A. I'm not aware that he did.
Q. And he relied solely on Dr. Murray to not call for a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Jackson; is that
your understanding?
A. Can you repeat that question?
Q. Sure. Is it your understanding for the purposes of your opinion that Mr. Phillips relied solely on
Dr. Murray to --
Ms. Stebbins: Objection -- withdrawn.
Mr. Bloss: I appreciate that I was pausing.
Q. But is it -- for the purpose of your opinion, is it your understanding that Mr. Phillips relied solely
on Dr. Murray for the decision not to have Mr. Jackson evaluated?
Ms. Stebbins: And I would just object, assumes facts not in evidence that Mr. Phillips had any power
to get Mr. Jackson psychological --
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, could I ask that counsel, instead of trying to keep coaching the witness --
Judge: Why don't we just
State the grounds.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm happy to state the grounds, your honor; but I'm not coaching the witness.
Mr. Panish: She is, absolutely. That's why --
Judge: Mr. Panish --
Mr. Bloss: Do you remember the question?

Q. For the purpose of your opinion, Dr. Green, is it your understanding that Mr. Phillips relied solely
on Dr. Murray for the decision not to have Michael Jackson evaluated psychiatrically?
A. I -- I agree -- it's kind of a long question that you asked. What I agree with is that it would be
appropriate for -- if you had concerns about somebody to go to his physician and express his concerns,
so I agree that it should have gone through Dr. Murray, and that should have been the appropriate
channel.
Q. And your understanding for your opinion is that it went to Dr. Murray, and then there was no
psychiatric evaluation, correct?
A. My understanding is there was no psychiatric evaluation.
Q. And do you have an understanding as to Dr. Murray's training in psychology?
A. He was an internist and cardiologist.
Q. My question was, do you have an understanding about Dr. Murray's training in psychiatry?
A. He did not have any specialized training in psychiatry.
Q. And he was not certified, licensed to act as a psychiatrist?
A. He was not.
Q. He may have had something in medical school maybe 20 years earlier, but he had never practiced
as a psychiatrist; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Are you board certified?
A. I am.
Q. And was Dr. Murray board certified?
A. He was board certified, but his certification had lapsed, and so at the time of this, he was not board
certified. But he had been board certified I believe up until 2008 or so.
Q. Your certifications have never lapsed, have they?
A. They have not.
Q. Now, a little higher in that email chain --
A. By "higher" you mean later?
Q. Correct. Reading from the bottom to the top.

A. Okay.
Q. So Mr. Ortega sends another email to Mr. Phillips at 1:20 on June 20th. Do you see that?
A. Could you highlight that? Okay.
Q. Sure. Bottom of 307-1, top of 307-2.
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. Mr. Ortega writes "I honestly don't think he is ready for this based on his continued physical
weakening and deepening emotional state." do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And do you understand that that is referring to Mr. Jackson?
A. I would assume that it is.
Q. You know that to be the case, don't you?
A. I would assume that's the case, yes.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Ortega wrote to Mr. Phillips "I don't think he's ready for this," correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. "strong signs of paranoia, anxiety and obsessive-like behavior." do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. "I think the very best thing we can do is get a top psychiatrist in to evaluate him A.S.A.P.," right?
A. Yes, that's what he wrote.
Q. What is it -- for your opinions, Dr. Green, what is your understanding of how long Mr. Ortega had
known Mr. Jackson?
A. I believe he had known him for many years.
Q. And he'd had a lot of contact with him?
A. Yes, he had.
Q. So he'd had a lot of contact with him preparing for the "This Is It" tour, had he not?
A. I believe he had.
Q. He was in a very good position to offer observations about Mr. Jackson's condition, was he not?

A. Yes, he was.
Q. You accept that for the purposes of your opinion?
A. I accept the fact that, yes, he was able to offer observations.
Q. And he was in a good position to offer those observations, right?
A. In the -- in the fact that he had contact with Michael Jackson, yes, that he was in a good position to
offer observations.
Q. Now, for the purposes of your opinion, did you rely on anything that Mr. -- withdrawn. There's
another sentence here about his weakened and troubled state. Do you see that?
A. Is that highlighted or is that --
Q. Not yet. Further down.
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. And for the purposes of your opinion, is this material in any way to any of your conclusions?
A. Do you mean just the weakened and troubled state or the entire part you've highlighted.
Q. The entire Mr. Ortega's email at 1:20.
A. Again, the email, I rely on it in that it's showing that Kenny Ortega is concerned about Michael
Jackson, that he has -- is reporting symptoms; and that it, again, shows that AEG Live and Kenny
Ortega were very concerned about Michael Jackson's health. My understanding, though, is that just like
-- my understanding is that Kenny Ortega was not a psychiatrist or had any psychiatric training.
Q. Now, the sentence "I think the very best thing we can do is get a top psychiatrist in to evaluate him
A.S.A.P.," do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And who do you understand, for the purposes of your opinion, the "we" is that can get a top
psychiatrist in?
A. I don't think I would have any opinion as to who the "we" is in that situation.
Q. So you have no -- you don't have a view one way or the other whether Mr. Ortega was talking
about he and Mr. Phillips; is that correct?
A. It's very hard to determine that without getting inside the person who wrote the email.
Q. And so for the purposes of your opinion, you do not -- you don't know who he's referring to, so
you don't put any weight on that; is that correct?

A. I don't put any -- I put weight on the email, I just don't put weight on that particular word.
Q. Okay. And in terms of who can get a top psychiatrist in?
A. Correct.
Q. You don't believe that "we" refers to he and Mr. Phillips?
A. I'm not sure who he refers to.
Q. So you don't put any weight on that particular sentence?
A. I put weight on the sentence that I think Kenny Ortega said that he thought they should get a top
psychiatrist; but if you're asking me who they meant by "we," I would be speculating.
Q. Then up at the top, Mr. Phillips responds to Mr. Ortega, correct?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. And you read that at your deposition, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you read it for the first time at your deposition, right?
A. I'm not aware if that was my first time at my deposition or I had seen that as part of my exhibits.
Q. Okay. By the way, Mr. Phillips, in exhibit 307.1 -- dash, 1, refers to a lengthy conversation with
Dr. Murray, correct?
A. Could you repeat the question?
Q. Yeah. He refers -- Mr. Phillips refers in this email to a lengthy conversation with Dr. Murray,
right?
A. Yes, he does, in this email.
Q. All right. And you're aware, are you not, that Mr. Phillips had a lengthy conversation with Dr.
Murray on June 20th?
A. It appears that's the case.
Q. All right. You've reviewed a couple of different versions of that -- what happened in that phone
call, haven't you?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Mr. Phillips first testified at his deposition that the phone call lasted two or three minutes, right?

A. You know, again, I read a lot of material. I would be happy to take a look at that if you want to
refresh my memory on that.
Q. Do you have any memory of that?
A. I remember there were different accounts; but if you -- to say the exact two or three minutes -- I'd
be happy to look at the deposition and see what it says.
Q. Let me try it this way. You are aware that Mr. Phillips first said he had a very short telephone call
with Dr. Murray just to schedule a meeting?
A. For the purposes of this, since I haven't seen that today, I'm happy to assume that that's the case if
that's what you'd like me to assume.
Q. I'm just asking what your recollection is, Dr. Green.
A. And what I'm saying is I'd like to review it and I could give you a better answer; but if you're
asking me to assume it, I'd be happy to assume that for the purposes of this question.
Q. I'm asking do you have any recollection about Mr. Phillips' testimony about a phone call with Dr.
Murray on June 20th.
A. My recollection in his deposition was that he said that it was a short call, but I do not -- but I do
not have that in front of me. Again, for the purposes of this, I'm happy to assume that it was a short
conversation.
Q. I'm really just asking what your recollection is, Dr. Green.
A. And I'm saying it's difficult to recall exactly what he said but I will be happy to assume for the
purposes of your question -- so you can ask your question, I'm happy to assume that.
Q. Do you understand Mr. Phillips was shown telephone records at his deposition that show that, in
fact, that phone call was about 25 minutes?
A. Again, I'd be happy to look at that; but I -- I assume that that's what it said.
Q. You assume it or you remember?
A. I don't remember it specifically as it was 25 minutes; but, again, I'm happy to assume that for the
purposes of this question.
Q. If there was a 25-minute telephone call between Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray on June 20th, is that
material in any way to any of your opinions?
A. Only in the manner that it showed that there was a conversation and that did occur and there was
conversations between Randy Phillips and Dr. Murray.
Q. And for the purposes of your opinions in this case, Dr. Green, what did Randy Phillips and Dr.

Murray talk about?

A. Again, you would have to rely on Mr. Phillips' conversation; but my understanding was that it was
a discussion about Michael Jackson's health.
Q. And who told you that?
A. I believe that was in the -- I believe that was in his deposition; and, again, if you would like to
show me something that changes that, I'd be happy to look at that.
Q. I'm just asking, Dr. Green, for the purposes of your opinion, what do you understand Mr. Phillips
and Dr. Murray talked about in that telephone call on June 20th?
A. My understanding is, again, from this email, that he had a lengthy conversation with Dr. Murray,
who he was gaining respect for, and that's what it said in the email.
Q. Okay. And the -- the -- what was causing Mr. Phillips to gain immense respect for Dr. Murray?
What was that? Do you have an understanding?
A. Only that he communicated -- it appears that he communicated with Dr. Murray about Michael
Jackson.
Q. Okay. I'm just asking for the purposes of your opinions, if anything, what is it that -- that Mr.
Phillips heard that caused him to gain immense respect for Dr. Murray?
A. Are you asking me -- sorry.
Q. Is that important to your opinions in any way?
A. Yes, yes; and that, again, supports my opinions, as I mentioned this morning. It's not unusual for
friends or family to call a doctor up and to talk to them about a patient and relay information. So that,
to me, continues to support my opinion.
Q. And did Mr. Phillips testify either in court or at his deposition that he relayed information about
Michael Jackson's health to Dr. Murray in that telephone call?
A. Not that I specifically recall.
Q. Right. So when you just testified that it's not unusual for somebody to call a doctor and relay
information about the patient's condition, you don't know if that's what Mr. Phillips was doing here at
all, do you, sir?
A. No. That was my assumption.
Q. Okay. There's no factual basis for that assumption, is there?
A. Only that in his email, he said that, again, he had a lengthy conversation with Dr. Murray.
Q. Right. And so the content of that conversation, you've got no idea what it is, do you?

A. That's true.
Q. And so when you're saying that Mr. Phillips was relaying health concerns, you're speculating about
that, right?
A. Based on my career as a doctor, yes, I'm -- I'm speculating on that.
Q. Based on your review of the evidence in this case?
A. And my experience as a doctor.
Q. Right. And when -- you know that Mr. Phillips testified he has no recollection of that -- what he
said in that conversation, right?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge: It may. I don't know. Let's ask him what he remembers.
Mr. Bloss: I withdraw it, your honor.
Q. What do you remember, for the purposes of your opinion, Mr. Phillips saying he told Dr. Murray
in that phone call?
A. You know, I'm familiar with that; but if you'd like to show it to me, I'd be happy to take a look at
his deposition.
Judge: Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish: I apologize, your honor. I'm sorry.
Judge: Let's have a sidebar, please.
(Sidebar):
Mr. Panish: I laughed. I apologize. I laughed that he keeps giving the same answer, he won't answer
the question, nonresponsive. I apologize. I will not laugh, I'll hold my mouth. I'm looking straight
down, trying not to laugh. I couldn't help it, I'm sorry. I haven't laughed any at all, and I apologize. I
will not laugh another second. I'll look down at the ground, I won't -- I'm trying not to even look at him.
Okay? I'm sorry. I laughed. I shouldn't have laughed. I laughed for however long I did. Not that long,
but I did laugh.
Judge: I'm going to make a suggestion. I'd like you to apologize to the witness when we go out there.
Mr. Panish: I'll do that. I did say on the record -- I'm happy to do that. I'm happy to do that right now.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors)
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I would like to apologize to Dr. Green. I'm so sorry that I laughed. I'm sorry.
The witness: Your apology is accepted, Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish: I won't do it again. I apologize sincerely.
The witness: No harm, no foul.
Judge: Thank you. Let's continue.
Mr. Bloss: Dr. Green, for the purposes of your opinion that you've offered here in court today, what do
you understand Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray talked about during that phone call on June 20th?
A. Can you say that again, please?
Q. For the purpose of your opinion, Dr. Green, what is it you understand Dr. Murray and Mr. Phillips
talked about in that lengthy conversation on June 20, if anything?
A. My recollection -- again, I'm happy to review it. If you feel that there's something that you'd like
to show me that would change my opinion, I'd be happy to look at it. My recollection is I'm not certain
at this time what they talked about.
Q. Okay. So for the purposes of your opinion, you don't know what Dr. Murray and Mr. Phillips
talked about in that phone call between only those two people on June 20th; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, there is also in this email some language about Murray saying -- withdrawn. The sentence
after the one that's been highlighted there in red, he said that Michael is not only physically equipped to
perform, and that discouraging him to will hasten his decline instead of stopping it. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And do you understand that "he" in that sentence is Dr. Murray?
A. That would be my assumption, yes.
Q. Regardless of whether it's your assumption, is that who you believe it was for the purposes of your
opinion?
A. Yes.

Q. And when it refers to "hasten his decline," who is it that you understand that to be referring to?
A. Again, I would think that would be Michael Jackson.
Q. All right. And the language "hasten his decline instead of stopping it," is that material in any way
to any of your opinions?
A. Again, it demonstrates that -- yes, it is.
Q. Okay. And is somebody who is declining -- what does it mean to be in declining health?
A. It depends on what the context is.
Q. Did you have an understanding about what the context was here?
A. I understood that it was a decline. I was not clear as to how long that decline was or how severe
that was.
Q. And at least as Mr. Phillips reported to Ortega, discouraging Jackson will hasten his decline. Do
you see that?
A. I do.
Q. In other words, make it worse?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you understand that Michael was -- Mr. Jackson was in decline at the time Mr. Phillips wrote
this email?
A. Again, this is according to -- according to this email, it says "will hasten his decline," but there's
no evidence as to how long or how severe that decline was.
Q. For the purposes of your opinion, you were not aware of how long Mr. Jackson was in declining
health, if at all; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, Mr. Phillips also writes in this that Murray said that Jackson was mentally able, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And we've talked earlier that Mr. -- Dr. Murray didn't have any psychiatric training, right?
A. Yes, we said that.
Q. And Mr. Ortega had written the day before there was signs of paranoia, right?

A. At that time, yes.

Q. Okay.
A. Again, Mr. Ortega was not a psychiatrist, either.
Q. Okay. When Mr. Phillips writes "this doctor is extremely successful, we check everyone out, and
does not need this gig, so he totally unbiased and ethical," do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. For the purposes of your opinion, what did Dr. -- what did Mr. Phillips do to check Dr. Murray
out?
A. My impression is that Mr. Phillips was referring to a conversation he had with kathy jorrie
regarding some checks that she had done on Dr. Murray.
Q. And you know that when I asked you that at your deposition, and you came to your conclusions
about that, you gave me a different answer, didn't you?
A. That's true.
Q. You told me at your deposition there's no evidence here to support or contradict what he did to
check to base this statement on, right?
A. At the time, that's what I said.
Q. Okay. So you were willing to testify at the time that that particular statement was not important to
you because you didn't have the context, right?
A. And since that time, I've read Kathy Jorrie's testimony and been able to change my opinion based
on new information.
Q. What's the answer to my question?
A. You'd have to re-ask the question.
Q. At the time of your -- you were retained and disclosed as an expert witness in March 2013, you
didn't know about this email, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. When you were deposed then as an expert witness, you offered your opinions on April 1st, 2013,
correct?
A. Yes, based on the evidence that I had had at the time.
Q. And the AEG lawyers hadn't given you this particular piece of evidence?

A. I had not seen this particular piece of evidence, that's correct.

Q. And so -- and I showed it to you, didn't I, at your deposition?
A. You showed me this email?
Q. Yes.
A. Again, I -- I don't recall whether this was one of many emails that were part of the exhibits or
whether I'd seen that before.
Q. Why don't you look at page 209 of your deposition, line 6, and see if that refreshes your
recollection.
A. Thank you. Page 209?
Q. Yes.
A. What line would you be referring to?
Mr. Bloss: 6.
Ms. Stebbins: Are you certain that's the right page and line?
Mr. Bloss: 209-6. I think so. No? It's the language from that email. If you go back a couple of pages,
you'll see the first time I showed it to you.
The witness: I think you want to go to the bottom of 208.
Mr. Bloss: My question was just whether I showed it to you at your deposition on April 1st.
The witness: I'm sorry. I thought you said was that the first time I'd seen it. Yes, you did show it to
me on April 1st.
Q. That was the first time you saw it?
A. I can't say with certainty. I don't remember if that was the first time or I'd seen it before as part of
an email chain.
Q. When I asked you about this email at your deposition, you said there's no evidence here --
withdrawn. When I asked you about that language, "We check everyone out," you said there's no
evidence to support or contradict what he did to check to based this statement on, right?
A. Yes, I said that, based on the information I had at the time.
Q. And you were willing to offer an opinion based on the information you had at that time, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. Now, Ms. Jorrie had been deposed before April 1st, 2013, had she not?
A. I'm not sure when she was deposed.
Q. You didn't read her deposition before you testified on April 1st, correct?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You did read Mr. Phillips' testimony, though, right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. At his deposition, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he didn't say anything about that, did he?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; misstates the deposition.
Mr. Bloss: What do you recall him saying about it, Dr. Green?
A. Again, I don't recall. I believe Mr. Phillips did not mention about whether he hadn't done any
background information at the time.
Q. Right. And I asked you whether AEG -- for the purposes of your opinion, did you understand
whether AEG did or did not check out Dr. Murray, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember what you answered?
A. I have it in front of me, yes.
Q. Right. What did you say?
A. Which line, would you say?
Q. 3, on page 209.
A. "I don't have any -- I don't have anything to add why Mr. Phillips would make the statement. I
don't know what he based this on."
Q. Because at the time you came to your opinions, that's all the information you had?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I asked you about the language "he does not need this gig so he totally unbiased and ethical,"
right?

A. Are you referring to the email now?

Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And I asked if that was important in any way to your opinion, didn't I?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. And you said what?
A. Can I see what line you're pointing to?
Q. Withdrawn. Let me just ask you a different question, Dr. Green. Is that representation in Mr.
Phillips' email to Ortega important to your opinion sitting here today?
A. Only in that my opinion is based on conflicts of interest, and I did not see anything to change my
opinion regarding conflicts of interest in this case.
Q. Okay. My question is simply whether that representation from Phillips to Ortega that he is totally
unbiased and we check everyone out -- is that important in any way to your opinions?
A. No.
Q. All right. And I asked you at your deposition whether Mr. Phillips' statement about checking
everyone out and does not need this gig, so he's totally unbiased -- I asked you whether that was true or
not, didn't I?
A. You asked who?
Q. You.
A. Okay. When did you say that?
Q. At your deposition.
A. Okay. Can you point to the line that you're saying that?
Q. Do you remember me saying it?
A. I do.
Q. And if you looked at page 283, line 24 --
A. Okay. At the bottom of the page?
Q. Bottom of the page, and then carrying over to 284, line 11.

A. Yes, I see that.

Q. I referred to Mr. Phillips' statement "We check everyone out and does not need this gig so he
totally unbiased and ethical"?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I asked you you know that's not true, right, Dr. Green?
A. You asked me that, that's true.
Q. And on April 1st, four months ago, what was your answer?
A. "I think you have to define extremely successful; but based on some of the things I've seen, it
certainly seems that Dr. Murray was not extremely successful."
Q. And my next question was it's also true that AEG did not check him out. What was your answer,
Dr. Green?
A. "that part is true, as well."
Q. And you reviewed -- withdrawn. You reviewed Mr. Phillips' trial testimony, right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you relied, in part, on that for your opinions?
A. Yes, I read that, yes.
Q. If I can ask to have page 6563, lines 18 through 28, brought up. And also 6564, 22 to 24. Do you
recognize this as Mr. Phillips' trial testimony?
A. Yes, I believe it is.
Q. Okay. First of all, he said, "I can't answer yes or no" as to whether he had any basis to say Murray
was totally unbiased and ethical, right?
A. I don't see that on the screen.
Q. The bottom.
A. Oh, at the bottom. Okay. Yes, it says "I can't answer yes or no."
Q. Okay. And then if I can ask to have brought up 6564, lines 22 to 24. And Mr. Phillips was asked
when he wrote that statement, he had no knowledge that it was true, right?
A. That's what it says.

Q. And what did Mr. Phillips answer?

A. "That's correct."
Q. And so for the purpose of your opinion, do you credit that Mr. Phillips had no knowledge that it
was true when he wrote it?
A. Apparently that's what Mr. Phillips' testimony is.
Q. Do you credit that?
A. What do you mean by "credit" it?
Q. Do you agree with it? Do you accept that as true for the purposes of your opinions?
A. Yes, I assume that Mr. Phillips was testifying truthfully.
Q. Okay. And you said at your deposition, I believe, that you did not believe that it was important that
Mr. Phillips wrote to Mr. Ortega on June 20th Murray was totally unbiased and we check everyone out.
A. No.
Q. "No" what?
A. Could you repeat the question to make sure I'm answering --
Q. For the purposes of your opinion, you do not consider it important that Phillips wrote this to
Ortega on June 20th?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Now, did you at all consider Mr. Ortega's trial testimony in coming to your opinions that you
offered here this morning?
A. I read it, yes.
Q. And did you consider Mr. Ortega's testimony here in court that as far as he could see, he did not
think that Murray was providing good care to Michael Jackson?
A. Could you show me that, his testimony?
Q. Do you remember that?
A. I remember he testified to something about that, but --
Q. I'll bring it up.
A. -- I want to make sure we get the language exactly right so I answer your questions correctly.

Q. Okay. 10084, lines 17 through 20. You recognize this as Mr. Ortega's trial testimony?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you looked at this, right?
A. I did.
Q. And you understand that the "he" was providing good care to Michael referred to Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, I would assume that is true.
Q. You accept that testimony as true for the purposes of your opinions?
A. Yes, I do.
Mr. Bloss: Now I want to go to another email, if I can, Dr. Green. Exhibit 318, dash, 1, I think. And
I'll start down at the bottom. This is another -- I'm sorry, your honor.
Mr. Panish: We'll get it to them.
Mr. Bloss: May I approach, your honor?
Judge: Yes.
Mr. Bloss: All right.
Q. Dr. Green, exhibit 318 is another chain in the "Trouble at the Front" -- withdrawn -- another
branch in the "Trouble at the Front" email chain, right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And you saw this for the first time about a month after you were disclosed and agreed to testify as
an expert witness in this case, right?
A. Again, I don't know the exact day that I saw this.
Q. Certainly after papers were filed with the court saying that you had agreed to testify, correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. All right. And if we start at the bottom again, there's more information from Mr. Hougdahl that
starts at the same place, does it not, with the original "Trouble at the Front" email on page 318-2, and
then Mr. Hougdahl writes to Mr. Phillips with some more information about a half an hour later that's
up in front on the screen right now, correct?
A. That's the one from 22:48?

Q. Correct.
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. Okay. This is just more -- as you understand it, Mr. Hougdahl offering more information?
A. That's correct.
Q. And he sent that to Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And Mr. Phillips then responds "tim and I are going to see him tomorrow; however, I am not sure
what the problem is. Chemical or physiological?" do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And is that sentence in any way material to any of your opinions?
A. Only that it continues to express that AEG Live had concern for Michael Jackson's health and
appeared to be taking action to deal with it.
Q. Did you think that was important in what Mr. Phillips wrote here?
A. Yes, in terms of that they were going to discuss it and that they were concerned about it. And to the
extent that it supports my opinion that AEG Live was concerned about Michael Jackson's health, then
the answer would be yes.
Q. Okay. Do you remember me asking you that question at your deposition?
A. I do.
Q. And do you remember you answered, "no, it's not important to my opinion"?
A. Yes.
Q. What I said is correct? You testified at your deposition --
A. Can we --
Q. Let me finish, please, doctor. You testified at your deposition that this particular statement by Mr.
Phillips was not important to your opinion, correct?
A. Can I review the page? Do you have the page number?
Q. I do.
A. Can you point me to it?

Q. Can you answer it without looking at your deposition?

A. I'd like to give you a more accurate answer.
Q. What do you think your answer is?
A. I would like to look at my response and I can tell you my answer from --
Q. So without looking at your deposition from four months ago, you can't tell?
A. This is a deposition that's hundreds of pages. I don't think I could remember every single word.
Q. I didn't ask if you could remember every single word. I'd be surprised if you could. I'm asking if
you remember answering that question, do you think that statement by Mr. Phillips was important to
your opinions?
A. And I'd like to see what my response was.
Q. Because you don't know sitting here right now?
A. I cannot give you with 100 percent accuracy, and I want to be accurate in my response to you.
Q. Your testimony here today is that it is important, correct?
A. My testimony is that this did -- that I did rely on this to the extent that it showed that there was
concern on the part of AEG Live for Mr. Jackson's health, yes, that's correct.
Q. Okay. Stick to my question. Your testimony here today is that it is important to your opinions?
A. Again, I'm not trying to be evasive, Mr. Bloss. I'm trying to help you to say that it's difficult to say
what's important. I take everything into account with this; and to the extent that it did show that -- but
to the extent that it had anything to do with my opinions regarding conflict of interest, no, it was not
important to that.
Q. First of all, let's go to what you testified -- as I understood it, you testified today that it is important
to your opinions. Is that not accurate?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained. He just said no.
Mr. Bloss: I think about three minutes ago, your honor, he said yes.
Ms. Stebbins: I think, your honor, he said it's important in one area but not in the others.
Judge: I thought I heard him say no.
Mr. Panish: He didn't say that. He said yes.

Judge: Why don't you tell us. Are you confused?

The witness: No. I'm sorry, your honor. It is -- as I said, everything is important in terms of I
reviewed all the information. It's not important to my core opinions in this case that there was conflict
of interest that created the bad medical outcome in this case.
Mr. Bloss: Okay.
Q. When I asked you just a few minutes ago do you think this was important, What Mr. Phillips wrote
here, you answered, "yes, in terms of that they were going to discuss it and they were concerned about
it, and to the extent it supports my opinion that AEG Live was concerned about Michael Jackson's
health, then the answer would be yes."
The witness: Right.
Mr. Bloss: And then at your deposition, if you look at page 215 -- I'm sorry -- 216, line 1, is the
answer; and page 215, line 24, is the question.
Q. I asked you then whether it was important, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And your answer was no?
A. It says "No, I don't think it's -- it's important." it continues to say, "and this is from Randy
Phillips, that there's a problem, but it's not more defined than that, so I can't really speculate what they
were thinking in terms of what was the problem."
Q. So when Mr. Phillips writes "I don't know what the problem is, chemical or physiological," you
don't know what he was talking about?
A. Correct, I don't -- correct.
Q. And because you don't know what Mr. Phillips meant when he referred to a chemical or
physiological problem, you don't view this as an important email; is that correct?
A. I don't know what you mean by an "important" email. It's certainly part of the evidence in this
case; and all the evidence in this case is certainly important, and I considered all of it.
Q. Whether it supports your opinions in any way.
A. Correct, it does not change my opinion in any way.
Q. I didn't ask that.
A. I'm sorry.
Q. Whether it supports your opinion in any way.

A. No, correct.
Q. And for the purposes of your opinion, what did you understand Mr. Phillips was referring to when
he wrote "chemical," if anything?
A. I was not sure what he meant. "chemical" can mean a great many things, and so I would have to
only speculate at what Mr. Phillips meant.
Q. Okay. So for the purposes of your opinion, you did not assume it meant anything in particular?
A. I was not sure what it meant.
Q. Did you ever ask him?
A. Did I ever ask who?
Q. Mr. Phillips.
A. No, I did not.
Q. Can chemical mean a drug dependence?
A. It can mean a great many things. Chemical dependency can be one of them.
Q. Drug dependency was my question.
A. Drug dependence can sometimes be referred to as chemical, that's true.
Q. Illegal drugs?
A. Any kind of drugs.
Q. Recreational drugs?
A. Can be.
Q. Prescription drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. Drugs given to him by a doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Now I want to go back, then, to exhibit 318-1 up at the top.
A. Is that the same email chain?
Q. Yes, it is, sir. Now, this is an email that you understand Mr. Phillips sent to Mr. Gongaware and

others on June 20th, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Now, you understand that about 12 or 13 minutes earlier, Mr. Phillips had sent that email to Ortega
saying Murray -- he's got immense respect for Murray, right?
A. That's not on this email chain, though.
Q. I know that. It's the last exhibit we were looking at.
A. I would have to check the times on these.
Q. Go ahead.
A. It looks like the other one was 1:48, and this one was 2:01, so that's correct.
Q. So about 13 minutes after Mr. Phillips writes to Ortega and says "I have tremendous respect" --
Dr. Green, 13 minutes after Mr. Phillips wrote to Mr. Ortega "I have immense respect for Dr. Murray
--"
Ms. Stebbins: Just for the record, exhibit 318 is the one that had time stamp problems before.
Remember there was an email sent at 1022 and the response at 1248 and the response again at 10:00
something? I remember the last time this came up that there was some confusion as to whether these
time stamps were accurate. I don't recall what the outcome was, so I wanted to flag that for the record.
Mr. Panish: Is that a legal objection?
Ms. Stebbins: It's just a clarification.
Mr. Bloss: The document says 2:01.
The witness: For the purposes of this, I will assume this is correct.
Mr. Bloss: And you're aware that Mr. Phillips wrote to Mr. Ortega 13 minutes before this, according to
the documents, with some statements about Dr. Murray, right?
A. From the previous email, yes.
Q. That he has immense respect for Dr. Murray?
A. That's what it says.
Q. That Dr. Murray told Phillips that Michael was capable mentally of performing in the shows?
A. Yes.
Q. And that he didn't need the gig and he was totally unbiased, right?

A. Yes.
Q. Now, fair to say that for the purposes of your opinion, you accept that Mr. Phillips then sent an
email shortly thereafter to Gongaware and Hougdahl?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Phillips wrote "He is not a psychiatrist so I am not sure how effective he can be at this
point," right?
A. That's what it says, yes.
Q. Okay. And "he" is not a psychiatrist, does that refer to Dr. Murray?
A. Again, I would assume that that is Dr. Murray.
Q. For the purposes of your opinion, do you assume that he's talking about Dr. Murray here, or you
don't have any way to know and so you haven't taken that into account in coming to your conclusions?
A. Again, this is -- I would not -- I assume that this is Dr. Murray, yes.
Q. Now, is -- did you put any weight on this email for the purposes of your opinions?
A. Only, again, showing concern from AEG Live; but does not influence my overall opinion in this
case.
Q. Do you think it's material either in support of or contrary to any of your opinions?
A. No. I think it, again, just shows the concern at this point; but other than that, I don't assign a lot of
weight to it.
Q. Now, do you remember testifying about this particular email at your deposition?
A. I may have.
Q. Do you remember testifying about this particular email at your deposition that you did not put any
weight on it relating to your opinions -- withdrawn -- that you did not give very much weight to this in
your opinions, and that it was not material either in support of or contrary to your opinions? Do you
remember me asking you those questions?
Ms. Stebbins: I would object to improper impeachment, your honor. He just testified to the exact
same thing.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Bloss: Do you remember me asking you -- withdrawn. Is there material either in support of or
contrary to any of your opinions in this email?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; asked and answered.

Judge: Overruled.
The witness: No, there's not.
Q. And is that because it's unclear who the "he" is in this statement, that it's not clear that it's Dr.
Murray?
A. No. You're -- my opinions in this case really have to do with I was asked to look at this from is this
a sports medicine case looking at Dr. Matheson's testimony, and whether or not there was any conflict
of interest that led to this care, his poor care. And to that extent, I'm not -- I don't think that this email
added to that.
Q. Do you remember me asking you that very question at your deposition?
A. I believe you did.
Q. And do you remember what you -- at the deposition you said that you did not consider this in
support of or contrary to any of your opinions?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; asked and answered; and, again, improper impeachment. He's now said
three times he doesn't consider it in his opinions.
Judge: He did say that. Sustained.
Mr. Bloss: Your honor, the next question, he's got a different reason why.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Bloss: Did you say at your deposition that the reason that you didn't consider this material either in
support of or contrary to your opinions is because it was unclear to you who the "he" was in this email?
A. I may have.
Q. You did, didn't you, Dr. Green?
A. I may have, yes.
Q. And that it did not support or contradict any of your opinions because you cannot tell that the "he"
is not a psychiatrist or was referring to Dr. Murray?
A. I may have said that, yes.
Q. That is what you said, isn't it, Dr. Green?
A. We can look it up, but I will be happy to assume that for the purposes of this question.
Q. No. I want to make sure that it's clear. Why don't you go to page 231, line 24, to 232, line 10. Line

11. I'm sorry.

A. 231?
Q. 231, line 24, to 232, line 11.
A. Okay. I said no because it's unclear as to who the "he" is in the statement. It does not change my
opinion, it does not -- sorry. I want to answer your question. It does not support or contradict any of my
opinions.
Q. What was my next question?
A. Because you can't tell who the "he" is when Phillips writes "he" is not a psychiatrist?
Q. And what did you tell us in your deposition four months ago?
A. "Correct." I said that was correct.
Mr. Bloss: Would this be a good place, your honor? I'm about to start a new theme.
Judge: Okay. Let's adjourn. Okay. Monday, 1:30 p.m. Attorneys, I need you here at 10:45. And I will
remind you about not discussing the case with anybody, not to read anything about the case or listen to
anything about the case over the weekend. All right? So I'll see you at 1:30 on Monday. Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors)
Judge: I need you to stay just to tell me what you're doing.
Mr. Panish: Is he ordered back for Monday at 1:30?
Judge: Yeah, but not at the moment. I want to know what we're doing. Are we continuing with him?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes, your honor. My understanding is that Dr. Green can come back on Monday; but
then for the rest of the week, he will not be able to attend because his colleagues are out of town. I'm
expecting that he'll be finished on Monday.
Mr. Putnam: Can we get some idea of how much longer?
Mr. Bloss: I just talked to Ms. Stebbins about that. She wants to know whether to line up another
witness for Monday; and in the tradition of everybody saying let me go home and look at my notes, I'm
going to say I'm going to go home and look at my notes and get back to them very early tomorrow as to
where I think we will be.
Judge: I suspect you should have another witness available.
Mr. Bloss: Not a long witness, if the court please.

Ms. Stebbins: We can always get somebody started.

Ms. Cahan: Or play video.
Ms. Stebbins: That's the question, your honor. We want to get a sense of how long Mr. Bloss is going
to be on Monday, and then we'll tell them accordingly what we're going to do.
Judge: And then just -- all right. So 1:30, you'll return. You're excused until 1:30 on Monday.
The witness: Thank you, your honor.
Judge: And then just generally, how many more depos are we playing?
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, on that note there was one thing I forgot to put on the record yesterday,
briefly; that Dr. Slavit -- he's an insurance doctor, he's not really a treating or consulting doctor, so we
would object to his deposition being played under the treating or consulting doctor provision. I just
wanted to put that on the record. But he lives out of state, so I don't know what provision they were
playing it under. But I wanted to put it on the record that we object to him as a treating or consulting
doctor.
Ms. Cahan: We have a different interpretation of what the statute means or is intended for. In terms
of what we have left --
Mr. Boyle: I just want to make a record on this because we did have a debate about this and then we
didn't put it on the record. So our position is he wasn't a treating or consulting doctor. They apparently
have a different position on that statute. I'd like that articulated.
Judge: You have a record, but you never asked me to do anything about it.
Ms. Stebbins: There's a record that you waived it and it's totally moot because he's out of state.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, for the purposes of future desig- -- because we have a disagreement, I'd like
to understand Ms. Cahan's position because she's told us how she's researched legislative history and
show knows everything about this, she's told us. So I'd like to understand the position that they're
taking on the treating doctor because there's other ones that may not be doctors and such. I just wanted
to know -- she's going to tell us what her position is.
Ms. Cahan: I've already told Mr. Panish what my position is, and I don't think there's any other
depositions that have been designated or in the pipeline that this could possibly be an issue with
because all the other are treating physicians of Mr. Jackson. In any event, in response to your question,
your honor, we are intending to argue Dr. Adams, Mr. Adams, and Dr. Van Valin on Monday, because
those are the three that we've had rulings from your honor and haven't yet finalized. You have the
motion on Dr. Shimelman pending. And then I believe we're submitting Dr. Metzger's transcript on
Monday, which will be another fairly lengthy one. I don't have the full chart in front of me. But I think
that should be it, so we're getting to the end of the process. And, your honor, I just want to thank you, as
well, for getting through the Van Valin one. I know that was a lengthy one. With Shimelman, again, I
think we talked about this a little bit yesterday. Once there's a ruling, we haven't been provided
counters. Assuming it's allowable, we'll need counters quickly to get that done.

Mr. Boyle: Ms. Cahan and I addressed this yesterday, she told me her position is the purpose of that
statute is to prevent a treating physician who has patients from being called away from their patients to
come testify in court. That's fine. Dr. Quinn, for example, is a dentist. I don't know if she's a treating
doctor, but she has patients. So I just want to get this position on what that statute means, that's all.
Ms. Cahan: She is a dental anesthesiologist who works for UCLA who has a current practice treating
patients, and she was a treating anesthesiologist for Mr. Jackson for many years. I don't see how there's
any issue.
Mr. Panish: Is she an M.D.?
Ms. Cahan: She is an M.D.
Judge: Anesthesiology, I assume she would be.
Ms. Cahan: She's an M.D., an anesthesiologist who specializes in dental anesthesia. She treated Mr.
Jackson, she currently has a practice where she treats a lot of people. I don't think she would fall under
this concept they're advancing. If they wanted to raise an issue, I'm always happy to discuss it; but I
don't see how that would apply here.
Judge: Is that the only one --
Mr. Boyle: There's also Cherilyn Lee. She has patients, but she's not an M.D.
Ms. Cahan: Plaintiffs have indicated in their case that they wanted to designate Ms. Lee's testimony.
We said that she wasn't a treating physician because she's not a physician, and so we indicated that to
the extent that we're presenting her testimony, if at any point in this case, it would have to be live
because that's how we interpret the rule.
Mr. Boyle: So it's someone who is an M.D. And they get taken away from their patients to testify at
trial, then that can be played. That's fine. I just wanted to know.
Ms. Stebbins: The other thing I wanted to know is were there any other motions you were planning
on taking up on Monday morning? I know there's the designations at 10:45. I know the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend had been briefed. There's the doctor Shimelman motion. I wasn't sure what all you
wanted to consider on Monday.
Judge: The Shimelman motion, I kind of wanted to hear argument today, but it's Friday afternoon.
I'm not ready to --
Ms. Cahan: So we will be prepared to address Dr. Adams, Mr. Adams, Dr. Van Valin, and the
Shimelman motion on Monday.
Ms. Stebbins: Anything else, your honor? I'm trying to figure out if I need to be here Monday at
10:45 --
Ms. Cahan: She's trying to ditch me.
Ms. Stebbins: -- as to whether there's any other motions you planning on taking up.

Judge: There was an opposition to the motion to amend but not a reply.
Mr. Panish: I think we're filing a reply.
Ms. Cahan: And there is the one other pending motion about medical evidence at trial, and I believe
Plaintiffs, last I heard --
Judge: That wasn't a motion, it was just a brief.
Ms. Cahan: Right. It was a brief. I don't know whether Plaintiffs are planning to oppose. They've
been assessing their position for a couple of weeks now, and we want to get that squared away because
it relates to a lot of evidence coming down the pike.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, Mr. Koskoff was traveling the last week. I've sent that to him. He's going to
look at that.
Judge: How many other live witness do you have? These are the depos. Do you know how many live
witness?
Mr. Putnam: I honestly don't, but several. We're trying to go fast. Our problem at the moment, as
you know, is starting next week, we start losing dates. I wanted to ask the court about this. At the time
it occurred, we had asked if there was any possibility that -- I think it was the next weeks where there's
a juror who has three days in a row, and another one with two, and I know someone from Plaintiffs'
counsel wants to go back east. And we asked if there's any way that any of those can be reconsidered or
were they set in stone. And the reason I asked the question is for the obvious, which is that I have two
days next week, two days the week after. I think I have one day the week after that, and it makes it -- I
don't know if all of those are still a given.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I already made plans for next Thursday, Friday and the next week. Other
than that, any day, I'm fine to cancel. I don't care. But I did.
Mr. Putnam: You mentioned some of yours were to go back east. Are those still happening?
Mr. Panish: I have two things that I have to go to that I made the reservation. That's the 22nd, 23rd.
And the 29th, I have to leave at 9:00. I made plans for meetings. And then I have to go to three states
then. So those days. Any other time, it would be fine to go.
Mr. Putnam: I thought yours were also ones in September? No?
Mr. Panish: I don't know. I don't have my calendar. I gave it to my secretary and I made a lot of
arrangements. But back to your initial question, which was how many more witnesses, we still don't --
it doesn't matter how many days there are.
Mr. Putnam: It does because how many days we have, how many can go two in a row -- there are
people I'm not going to bring for a day one week, a day -- it actually does matter when I'm going to
have them and how. And you had set up that you want to go back east to see your daughter on the 6th
and the 13th. I'm wondering if that's still set.

Mr. Panish: I have to look. I'm going somewhere -- not back east on the 13th, another state for a
hearing. I don't know about the 6th.
Mr. Putnam: If we could know --
Judge: Well, just assume that all those dates are set in stone at this point. What we can do, too, is run
the calendar by the jurors again. Let's run the calendar by the jurors again and just say we're just going
to confirm there's some half days here, we just want to make sure that -- you know, are these still set in
stone for you. The clerk: In September?
Judge: This month and next month. Because they may change.
Mr. Panish: Well, I already made the plans for this month.
Judge: I'm not talking about your days, I'm talking about the jurors days.
Mr. Panish: But they picked the date so I already made arrangements to do something.
Judge: Based on their days off?
Mr. Panish: Yeah. But back to the questions.
Mr. Putnam: I can say to you again I don't know the answer.
Mr. Panish: Is it like 10 witnesses? 50 witnesses? 20?
Mr. Putnam: We will still be done by the middle of September. That's what we said before. We still
will be.
Mr. Panish: So then I should have rebuttal witnesses ready for the 16th of September? Because I
have some that have scheduling conflicts already, and I've asked for a letter for them so I could show it
to the court. Are you going to be finished by the 13th of September?
Mr. Putnam: I certainly intend to be done by then if not before then.
Mr. Panish: I just need to know because--
Mr. Putnam: I had the same issue with you, if you recall; and I kept going.
Mr. Panish: Should I -- should I line up witnesses for the 16th?
Judge: I think you probably should.
Mr. Panish: Well, if they're not available, then I may have to call them earlier. So I'll tell them they
can come the week of the 16th; and if they're not available, I'll get something in writing and show it to
the court.
Mr. Putnam: That is a month away, and I am trying to end earlier than that. We have been put in the
position that I mentioned before. This jury was told this would be over, and I'm in a position where I

have to shorten, shorten. I'm trying to desperately. I am trying to get out of here. And I'm going to try to
get out earlier than the 16th.
Mr. Panish: Just tell me the day so I can get these witnesses. That's all I'm asking.
Mr. Putnam: I'd try to get them the week before if I can.
Mr. Panish: Some of them are busy.
Mr. Putnam: Okay. Sorry.
Mr. Panish: I'll just show the court. That's fine.
(Court adjourned to Monday, August 19, 2013, at 10:45 AM)