JACKSON V AEGLive May 23

rd
Trial Transcripts
PLEASE HELP US TO CONTINUE THIS EFFORT FOR MICHAE L! <<CLICK
Shawn Trell
(General Counsel for AEG Live and Designated in 24 plus areas as the person most
knowledgeable in AEG affairs RE: MJ TII Tours)
Redirect examination by Mr. Panish
Q. Good morning, Mr. Trell.
A. Good morning.
Q. You spent A. lot of time talking about Mr. Jackson and his physical condition over A-month
period. You remember that yesterday you had some testimony about that?
A. As communicated to me by people who observed him, yes.
Q. Is that A. yesonce again, Mr. Trell, if you don't understand any question, please don't
answer it, and let me know. I'm trying to get through this as quickly as possible. I don't want to
argue with you today. So if it's not clear, just don't answer and just say, please repeat it, and Ill
be happy to do so. Can we agree on that?
A. We do.

Q. Ok, so we've now established you met Mr. Jackson on January 28th; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time you told us that he was upbeat; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was A. lot of positive energy about him; correct?
A. Definitely, yes.
Q. Ok and within five months, he was dead; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Ok, when you met him, Sir he wasn't in pain, was he?
AEG Objection: lacks foundation; overruled.
A. I have no idea
Q. He didn't appear to you to be in pain, did he...?
A. No.
Q. Based on what you observed?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Didn't appear to be stressed out to you at all at that time; correct?
A. No, he did not.

Q. And you knew he had not been on A. world tour in over years; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So what Id like to do now is look at what occurred in those next five months; Ok?
A. yes.
Q. Like we talked about yesterday. Now, you told Ms. Stebbins yesterday that AEG Live served
two purposes: promoter and producer; correct?
A. On this tour, yes.
Q. Well, in fact, Sir most of all the experience that AEG Live had ever had was as Apromoter;
you told us yesterday, correct
A. The substantial majority is as promoter only on Atour, yes.
Q. Well, Sir you told us yesterday how many tours there were, 100 or more?
A. I approximated the number of tours Ive been involved with at around 100, yes.
Q. And this tour, This Is It, was the only one where they had served as Aproducer for Aworld
tour; correct?
A. No, I didn't testify to that. I didn't say that, and that's not true.
Q. I'm sorry. This is the second one that they've ever done, to your knowledge, as both promoter
and producer; correct?
A. I believe I testified on A. scale such as this, yes. We have done other production work where
we've been the producer and promoter, smaller-scale things, like the dancing with the stars that I
referenced.
Q. Have you ever done anywhere...
Judge: wait. Let him finish.

Q. I'm sorry. Are you done have you ever 30 shows where you were the promoter and
producer other than this and one other?
A. I don't recall specifically how many events the dancing with the stars tour had, but I believe it
was in excess of or 30.
Q. Was there one star singing at any of those events?
A. No.
Q. Ok, have you ever put on A. concert, other than on two occasions, where somebody was
singing, putting on the concert, and A. singer of all those 100-plus tours other than two?
A. We promoted and produced Prince's '88 tour, as I testified yesterday.
Q. That's two; right?
A. Right.
Q. You never made it to This Is It, so, really, its out of 100 where you on this scale had served as
producer and promoter; correct?
A. On this scale, correct, yes.
Q. And if my math is right, thats A. percent or less of the time that AEG was experienced at that
level; correct?
A. Well, I don't think I agree with that statement, noI don't.
Q. Well, let's break it down.
A. Ok,
Q. Out of 100 or more; right?
A. That's right.

Q. None where you've ever ... Other than Prince Rogers Nelson, similar to the This Is It tour that
was planned; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Ok, so you'd never done it ... Strike the question. Percent or less of the time you'd ever
engaged as A. promoter and A. producer on the scale of what was planned for This Is It, and
what you'd done for Prince Rogers Nelson; correct?
A. That's correct. Previously you referenced experience, Sir and the people involved on this
tour project have plenty of experience producing tours.
Mr. Panish: Im going to move to strike the answer, your honor.
Judge: motion denied.
Mr. Panish: Ok,
Q. Could you try to answer my question, Sir is that Ayes one time on this level that you did
it before as promoter and producer?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. Now, Sir you would agree with me, would you not, that that experience, the
Prince experience, was not Avery favorable experience, was it?
A. No, I wouldn't agree with that statement.
Q. Have you spoken to Prince Rogers Nelson, about how he felt AEG treated him on that
experience?
AEG objection: irrelevant; overruled.
A. I have never spoken to Prince ever.
Q. Have you ever spoken to Randy Phillips about how his conversations went with Prince
Rogers Nelson about AEG's treatment of him?

A. No.
Q. Did you ever have ... Did you ever attempt or begin ... Strike the question. Did you ever agree
to retain the services of A. doctor for 150,000 A. month for Prince Rogers Nelson?
A. No.
Q. And Mr. Nelson is still alive today; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So as A. producer, AEG Live has never agreed to retain A. doctor for an artist before this
situation; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And in the tours you've mentioned, the rolling stones and Celine Dion, those physicians were
retained by the artist for fully-delivered tours; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you hired Kathy Jorrie in this case to draft A. special agreement with tours that never
before ... Strike that. You hired Kathy Jorrie to draft an agreement; correct?
A. Which agreement are you referring to?
Q. With Conrad Murray.
A. Ok, yes. She was engaged to draft that agreement.
Q. And did you pay her?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever not pay any of her bill?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. Did you have A. written agreement with herIm guessing we have an engagement letter.
Sir... Did you have A. written agreement, fully executed by everyone from AEG and Ms. Jorrie,
for her to work on the Conrad Murray contract?
A. I don't know.
Q. And Ms. Jorrie, you didn't deduct anything from her payment for any mistakes she made in
the work she did for you, did you?
A. No.
Q. And it was contemplated that Ms. Jorrie was drafting A. contract that AEG Live had never
done before; correct?
A. No, that's not true.
Q. Ok, tell me the last contract that Ms. Jorrie drafted for A. physician to go on A. tour.
A. Ok, put that way, she had not done that.
Q. And, Sir... Isn't it true that as the general counsel of AEG Live, you're familiar with the
concept of conflicts of interests?
A. Yes.
Q. And AEG would never want to hire someone as an independent contractor if there is A.
potential conflict of interest; correct?
AEG Objection: beyond the scope of redirect, and also asked and answered on direct
examination; overruled.
A. Correct.
Q. And when Michael Jackson asked you to retain Dr. Murray for 150,000 A. month, AEG could
have said, no, couldn't they?
A. Theoretically, yes.

Q. No. You could have said no. Nothing stopped AEG Live to say, Michael, we're not going to do
that; correct?
A. We could have done that, yes.
Q. And nothing stopped AEG from saying, Mr. Jackson that would create A. conflict of interest
in that any doctor that we retain could be torn between your best interests and our best interests?
You could have said that, couldn't you, Sir?
A. I don't agree with your conflict of interest analogy here.
Mr. Panish: could I ask the question be read back, and you listen to the question, Mr. Trell; Ok?
Judge: you may read it back.
*Question is read back*
A. No, I don't think we could have or would have said that, no.
Q. So the answer is, you could never have told Mr. John- ... The answer is you could not have
told Mr. Jackson, we're not going to do that because there's A. potential conflict of interest;
correct?
A. I think Mr. Jackson asked us to engage his services for him and his family to accompany him
on the tour. I don't think conflict of interest is something that pops into mind there.
Q. Sir... Could you please answer my question, which is: you don't believe you could have told
Mr. Jackson, we're not going to do it because there's A. potential conflict of interest; correct?
A. Weren't aware of one, Sir weren't aware of A. conflict of interest.
Q. But as A. lawyer, you know that you need to look out for conflicts of interest all the time,
don't you, Sir?
A. I think conflicts of interest, if they exist, are something that being aware of is better than not
being aware of.

Q. Well, as A. lawyer, Sir... You have to take an examination, for whatever state you're in, where
you're questioned on legal ethics and conflicts of interest; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you have rules of professional responsibility that deal with conflicts of interest, don't
you, Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know whether doctors are supposed to follow rules that pertain to conflicts of
interest?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you know if anyone from AEG Live knew that?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you believe the threat of losing 150,000 A. month would exert pressure on anyone?
A. I can't speak to that.
Q. Ok, do you believe that the threat of losing 150,000 A. month could exert pressure on
someone whose house was being foreclosed on and had A. substantial amount of debt?
A. I don't know how that person would look at that situation.
Q. Well, as A. lawyer, you look at conflicts of interest in an objective standard, don't you, Sir?
A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Q. Do you know what objective standard is, Sir?
A. I do. I don't understand your question, is what I said.

Q. Thank you. Tell us what an objective standard is.

A. An objective standard is one measured by concrete, finite elements.
Q. Right, what A. person would do under the same or similar circumstances; correct?
A. No, I think that's A. subjective standard.
AEG objection: to all these questions, calling for legal conclusions; overruled.
Q. Now, Sir... You could have said, Mr. Jackson, we believe for something like A. doctor, you
should hire your own doctor with your own money; right?
A. Again, could you ask the question again?
Q. Absolutelyyou could have said ... You, AEG Live, speaking through you ... Could have
said, Mr. Jackson, we believe something that personal, as you say, of hiring A. doctor, you should
hire your own doctor with your own money; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you could have even advanced money to Mr. Jackson to hire Conrad Murray and to have
his own contract with Conrad Murray, couldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you advanced money to Mr. Jackson, he had his own contract with Dr. Murray, AEG
wouldn't be part of that relationship, would they, Sir?
A. No.
Q. And if you had done any of those ... You never considered doing that, though, did you, Sir?
A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Ok, but you did give Mr. Jackson cash for other reasons, didn't you, Sir?
A. As spelled out in the tour agreement, yes.
Q. And there's nothing that stopped you from having Mr. Jackson get his own contract with Dr.
Murray and advancing whatever money he wanted to pay Dr. Murray; correct?
A. No.
Q. That's correct; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Ok, now, Sir... We were talking ... Or you were talking about Dr. Murray's final version of the
contract prepared by Ms. Jorrie yesterday extensively, so Id just like to ask A. few questions
about that; Ok?
A. Ok
Q. Lets take A. look at this exhibit. This is the contract. And I want to give you this so there's no
mistakes. This is the contract that was entitled, final version that was signed and sent back by
facsimile by Dr. Murray; Ok just so you can familiarize yourself with that, Sir
A. Thank you.
Q. When you're ready, let me know. Do you accept my representation that that's the contract
signed by Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. And through ... AEG, through you as the general counsel, had this document prepared;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And no attorney retained by Mr. Jackson drafted any portion of this document, did they?
No. Is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And that document was never even shown to any attorney or representative of Mr. Jackson,
was it, Sir?
A. No.
Q. Is that Ayes, it was not shown?
A. It was not shown.
Q. My questions probably aren't good. It's not your fault. You're answering. Well, Sir... Mr.
Hawk, did you ever send him that contract?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Branca, did you ever send him that contract?
A. No.
Q. And how many drafts did you tell us that there were; four?
A. I don't recall that I testified as to A. specific number of drafts.
Q. Well, tell us how many drafts of that agreement before we got to the final version, as Ms.
Jorrie called it, were there.
A. I believe there were three or four.
Q. Ok, so of any of those one, two, three or four drafts, did you send it to Mr. Jackson, or any of
his representatives?
A. No.
Q. How about this gentleman you said, Mr. Joel Katzdid you send it to him?
A. No.

Q. Did you tell us that Mr. Katz was an attorney for Mr. Jackson, Sir?
A. That was my understanding.
Q. Sir... Mr. Katz was on retainer for AEG at this time, wasn't he?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Would you agree with me there was conflict of interest for an attorney to be hired and on
retainer for one person and then represent another person that's in an adverse business
relationship?
A. Yes.
Q. Ok, let's look at an exhibit. Ill give A. copy to you, Mr. Trell
AEG objection: to lack of foundation with this document.
Q. Sir... You were the person most knowledgeable for AEG about the relationship between
Michael Jackson and AEG Live; correct?
A. I don't recall being the PMK for the relationship between Michael Jackson and AEG Live.
Q. Didn't you testify about everything that Dr. Murray understood, and Mr. Woolley understood,
about the relationship between Dr. Murray and AEG Live?
A. That, yes.
Q. Ok, and didn't you talk about ... This is an email from Randy Phillips to Richard Nanula;
correct?
A. Well, I haven't seen this before, so I need an opportunity to read it here.
Q. Go ahead. Take your time.

Judge: let's not read the substance of the email.

Ms. Stebbins: this may be something we need to go to sidebar quickly. Judge: all right.
Lets go to
Sidebar.
Q. Now, Sir... Have you read that A. few times as we've been back there?
A. I just read through it once, yes.
Q. Ok, does that refresh your recollection that Mr. Katz was an old friend of Mr. Phillips?
A. It makes reference to that, yes.
Q. But does that refresh your recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. And does it refresh your recollection that Mr. Katz, all the way back to 2008, was under
retainer by AEG?
A. Mr. Phillips represents that here, yes.
AEG objection: as to the use of the document that's not in evidence; overruled.
Q. Now, Sir... No attorney by Dr. Murray ever drafted any of those documents that you and Ms.
Jorrie were drafting that turned into the final contract; correct?
A. Well, Im not sure what you mean by drafted, Sir.

Q. Ok, made changes. Dr. Murray never sent it back and said, change this, change that you
didn't show us any of those emails yesterday, did you?
A. You're speaking just about the Murray independent-contractor agreement?
Q. I'm talking about the final version that he signed and faxed back to you.
A. Ok, could you repeat that question, please?
Q. Sure, by the way, the paragraph could you look at that, Sir. What is the paragraphs title,
Sir?
A. Confidential information.
Q. So you're familiar with that paragraph; right, Sir?
A. Sure.
Q. That's standard in all your agreements; right?
A. It's pretty typical, yes.
Q. It says, this agreement may be executed in counterparts and delivered by facsimile or emailed
in Apdf form. Now, Ms. Jorrie sent this to Dr. Murray in Apdf form, final version, didn't she?
A. Yes.
Q. And it said that you could sign it and then fax it back; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And did Dr. Murray sign it and fax it back, the pdf format that was sent by Ms. Jorrie?
A. Yes, he did.

Q. Now, you retained Ms. Jorrie, but you, Sir... Have the ultimate responsibility for this
agreement as general counsel; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. The buck stops with you; right?
A. Right.
Q. And you understand in drafting contracts, any mistakes or ambiguity are held against the
person that drafts the contract; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you know that as A. lawyer in these 100s of contracts you've drafted, you've got to read
them very carefully if you're drafting them; right?
A. Right.
Q. Because whatever you put in that contract, if someone signs it, and there's an issue about it,
it's held against you; right?
AEG Objection: misstates the law and is collapsing about different conditions into one;
sustained.
Mr. Panish: Well, he already answered. Judge: the answer is stricken.
Q. Let's look at another exhibit, the demonstrative, Sir. There were A. lot of mistakes made by
your legal department; right, Sir?
A. There are A. few mistakes in this agreement, yes.

Q. Well, you told us about all the common and custom and practice. Is it the custom and practice
of AEG Live's attorney, when drafting contracts for $150,000 A. month, to make A. lot of
mistakes?
A. No.
Q. Ok, you've been doing ... Your lawyer called you the master of contracts; right, Sir?
A. I don't know.
Q. You didn't hear that yesterday when she said, you, the master of contracts?
A. Ok, no, I didn't recall that, but
Q. Ok, now, let's look at this exhibit
A. Ok
Q. Ok, here's some more mistakes. This one you say, Dr. Murray that's Amistake; right?
A. Right.
Q. Ok, and then in the production agreement with Mr. Tohme, where it says, change, is that A.
mistake?
A. Yes.
Q. And again on this AEG Live and Michael Jackson contract, agrees to negotiate the definitive
agreement expeditiously in good faith, that's another mistake you and your legal department and
Ms. Jorrie, who you paid, made on it; right?
A. That's right.
Q. And on the Mr. Michael Jackson agreement, how many shows did he agree to do?
A. On the tour agreement, 31.

Q. 31 and then you sold tickets for 50 shows; right?

A. The tour agreement contemplates shows in excess of 31, subject to artist approval, Sir.
Q. Sir... You don't have any writing where Mr. Jackson approved in writing, pursuant to the
contract, 50 shows, do you, Sir?
AEG Objection: misstates the contract; overruled.
A. No, I don't have anything in writing of his approval for 50.
Q. But you always want to get fully-executed writings; right, Sir?
A. Depends on what's required by the contract. If it specifies written approval, that's one thing; if
it doesn't, that's another thing.
Q. Well, we're going to get to that.
A. Ok
Q. Let's go back to this exhibit, and let's look at this paragraph. This is the one Dr. Murray signed
that he was to perform the services reasonably requested by the producer; correct?
A. That's what it says, yes.
Q. That's what he was to do, according to the signed agreement that he faxed back to you that
you drafted; right?
A. As I testified yesterday, no. This is inconsistent with another provision in the document.
Q. Sir... You reviewed all these documents and told us for A. long time yesterday about all these
documents; right?
A. In fact, I think I testified yesterday, I hadn't reviewed this final version of the document, Sir.

Q. But in the three other versions that you reviewed, it said exactly what it said in the final
version that
Dr. Murray signed; isn't that true, Sir?
A. I also don't think I testified that I reviewed the other versions; Ok. So an agreement was in the
process of being negotiated. Once finalized, I would have reviewed it before somebody from our
company signed it.
Q. So, then, when you kept talking about all the draft changes, you had never reviewed any of
those documents as the general counsel; right?
A. I had not reviewed the documents. I had discussed the matters with Ms. Jorrie.
Q. But yesterday you testified all about the changes of documents you never reviewed; right, Sir?
A. Ok, it was A. negotiation being handled by somebody else.
Q. That's fine, but you didn't even review it as general counsel. Is that custom and practice at
your job for AEG Live, for these contracts for 150,000, you don't review any of the drafts?
A. I testified yesterday, I would have reviewed the final version before it was signed by our
company.
Q. You never reviewed A. single draft in writing before Dr. Murray signed the final revision that
Ms. Jorrie sent to him; isn't that true, Sir?
A. Yes, because she was handling the negotiation.
Q. Is that Ayes?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Sir... Let's go to this paragraph Ok, you see that, Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the producer ... That's AEG Live; right?
A. Correct.

Q. Was to pay for A. qualified medical person selected by Dr. Murray; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And who was going to approve that selection producer and who is the producer?
A. We are.
Q. Is that A. mistake?
A. No.
Q. Next paragraph this is where we talked yesterday ... You talked about how they could
immediately terminate Dr. Murray if the concert was canceled or postponed; right?
A. Right.
Q. For any reason; right?
AEG Objection: misstates the document and testimony; sustained.
Q. Ok, does it say ... Let's look at the bottom, does it say, at any time for any reason anywhere on
there, Sir?
A. If the concert series is canceled or postponed at any time or for any reason.
Q. Just like I said; right ok, yesterday you said that Michael Jackson would be free to hire Dr.
Murray if the concert was canceled; right?
A. Sure. That would be his prerogative.
Q. And you don't know if Michael Jackson would have hired Dr. Murray and paid him 150,000
A. month, do you, Sir?
A. I have no ideA. what the arrangements between Conrad Murray and Michael Jackson were
before or what would have been after.

Q. Well, do you have any evidence that he paid him $150,000 A. month to get him ready for A.
tour other than this instance that was being drafted and revised by you and Ms. Jorrie?
A. I just said, I have no ideA. what the arrangements were between those two parties.
Q. Ok, let's look at paragraph it says, following any termination of this agreement, all the
equipment and medical supplies purchased in connection with this agreement shall immediately
be returned to the producer. Who is the producer?
A. We are.
Q. So you insisted that whatever you bought of medical equipment, he, Dr. Murray, had to give it
back to AEG; right?
A. Right. We bought it. You just used the words.
Q. And you wanted it back. You might need it for the next doctor; right?
A. Not necessarily. But it was paid for by us.
Q. And you don't want to lose the money. Anything you put out money on, you want to get back;
right?
A. That's not what this is about.
Q. Sir... Does it say all the equipment or medical supplies ... And he was buying syringes,
needles, tape ... All that's specified out, isn't it, Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wanted every syringe back that wasn't used, every needle back that wasn't used,
every piece of tape that wasn't used, every machine that was bought you wanted all of those
things back, didn't you, Sir?
A. No. I don't think that that's what this is contemplating.
Q. Does it say, all equipment or medical supplies?

A. That's what it says.

Q. Does it exclude Band-Aids?
A. No.
Q. Does it exclude needles?
A. No.
Q. Does it exclude CPR machines?
A. No.
Q. Was that A. mistake?
A. No.
Q. Let's go to the next paragraph. Let's talk about you as the general counsel and the person most
qualified. You talked to Mr. Phillips, you told us; right?
A. I've talked to Mr. Phillips, yes.
Q. In the role of you as the person most knowledgeable to testify, you talked to Mr. Phillips;
right?
A. Yes.
Q. About Dr. Murray; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Phillips ever tell you that he spoke on the telephone, just him and Dr. Murray, on
several occasions?
A. Could you ask that again, please?
Q. Sure, did Randy Phillips ever tell you that he talked on the phone several times, just him and
Conrad Murray?

A. No, he didn't tell me that.

Q. Did Randy Phillips ever tell you that he had A. call with Dr. Murray that lasted for over
minutes?
A. I'm aware that he had spoken with him. I was not aware of duration or frequency.
Q. Sir... My question was, did Mr. Phillips tell you that he spoke on the phone one time for over
20 minutes to Conrad Murray?
A. No.
Q. Now, you've told us all about these meetings that took place that you weren't present at; right?
A. There were two meetings, yes.
Q. Well, that's what Mr. Phillips told you. You don't know how many meetings there were,
because you weren't at any of them, were you?
A. That's what Mr. Phillips told me, correct.
Q. Do you know if Michael Jackson ever signed A. release or authorization to allow Mr. Phillips
to call his doctor and discuss matters for 20 minutes?
A. I'm not aware of one, no.
Q. And you told us yesterday that you'd need an authorization to speak to someone's doctor about
their condition, didn't you, Sir?
A. I don't recall testifying about that yesterday, no, I don't.
Q. As A. lawyer, is that your understanding, Sir?
A. Could you repeat, the understanding that you're asking for now, please?
Q. Sure, you need to have written authorization from A. patient to discuss that patient with their
doctor.

A. I don't think you need A. written authorization to have A. conversation with somebody's
doctor. It would depend on the substance of the conversation.
Q. About their physical condition.
A. That, I don't know.
Q. You don't know that as the head ... Most knowledgeable person of human resources of your
company, whether or not you need A. written authorization to speak to one of your people's
physicians about their medical condition?
A. I think it would depend on the nature and substance of the conversation. If they're speaking in
generalities, I don't think A. written authorization, such as the one you're asking me about, is
necessary. If they're talking about ... If the doctor is talking about specific conditions or
aprognosis or records certainly related to his patient, then you would need that kind of
authorization, yes.
Q. Are you telling us here under oath, you know what the rules are for medical authorizations in
the state of California, Sir?
A. No, Im saying...
Q. You don't know?
A. Im saying ...my answer was I think for the third time, that it would depend on the nature
and substance of those conversations.
Q. Tell us what law you're referring to about that, Sir.
A. I'm not referring to any particular law there.
Q. Do you know what HIPAA. is, Sir?
A. I'm generally familiar with HIPAA
Q. What does HIPAA. stand for, Sir?

A. I don't know what the acronym stands for.

Q. Is that A. federal law that governs physician/patient relationships, Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what the federal law is governing patient/doctor relationships?
A. No.
Q. You have no basis to say what Mr. Phillips is allowed under the law to talk to Dr. Murray
about, do you, Sir?
A. I don't think I said that. All I said was I don't know the nature of their conversation, and
whatever the nature and substance of it was would be the answer to your question.
Q. All right, Sir. So the bottom line is, Sir... You have no ideA. what the law allows A. physician
to discuss, or somebody else to ask, about A. patient; isn't that true?
A. That's true.
Q. And you don't know what Mr. Phillips ... Strike that. Do you think Mr. Phillips was calling Dr.
Murray for 20 minutes to ask him how his BMW was driving?
A. I have no ideA. what they talked about, Sir. You'd have to take that up with Mr. Phillips.
Q. Well, but you were interpreting yesterday about what Mr. Phillips meant, and what Mr.
Woolley meant, and what Mr. Gongaware meant in their emails. You remember that, Sir?
A. Right, in written emails is one thing; A. phone conversation to which Im not A. party is
something different.

Q. Ok, well, let me ask you this, Sir does it seem reasonable to you as A. lawyer, that when
Michael Jackson was having A. problem, and Dr. Murray called the doctor for 20 minutes, that
they might have been talking about Michael Jackson's physical condition?
AEG Objection: calls for speculation; overruled.
A. I think that's reasonable.
Q. And as far as you know, you see no written authorization to allow that; right?
A. I'm not aware of any, no.
Q. Ok, now...
BREAK.
Q. Did you go out and meet with your lawyer, Mr. Trell?
A. I just took A. walk down the hall, yes.
Q. With your lawyer?
A. With Ms. Stebbins, yes.
Q. Ok, now Sir... You don't know whether or not meetings took place between Randy Phillips
and Dr. Conrad Murray when Mr. Jackson wasn't present, do you, Sir?
A. No, I do not.
Q. That wouldn't be appropriate either, would it Sir?
A. I don't know. Again, I think it would depend on the nature and substance of whatever it is they
were meeting about.
Q. Well, do you know if Mr. Phillips ever threatened Dr. Murray?

AEG Objection: lacks foundation; overruled.

A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know if Dr. Murray was pressured on the night of June 24th to do things?
A. No, I don't.
AEG Objection: lacks foundation; sustained
Q. Let's look at this exhibit, June 14th email, you've seen this; right, Sir?
A. Yes. I've seen this email.
Q. Ok, and this is where Mr. Gongaware says, we want him ... Conrad Murray ... We want to
remind him Conrad Murray ... That it's AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary. We want him to
understand what's expected of him. Did I read that right, Sir?
A. You read it correctly.
Q. And, Sir... This is Mr. Gongaware telling them to relay to him that they're the ones paying
him, not Mr. Jackson; right?
A. That's what Mr. Gongaware says in this email.
Q. Thats A. conflict of interest, isn't it, Sir?
A. That being what?
Q. That AEG is telling him what to do, and what's expected of him, and saying we're paying you
and do what we tell you?

AEG Objection: lacks foundation; sustained.

Q. Is it A. conflict of interest to tell A. doctor who is treating A. patient that he needs to
understand what's expected of him, as expected by the person that's paying him, other than the
patient?
A. I don't know if that would rise to A. conflict of interest.
Q. You don't know?
A. No. Again, I think there are facts and circumstances relevant to it that would bear on the
answer to that question.
Q. Right, and you don't know all those facts and circumstances, do you Sir?
A. No.
Q. So we should ask Mr. Gongaware about that; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Well, did you ask Mr. Gongaware what he meant when he was telling Dr. Murray ... Or he
was telling them to tell Dr. Murray what's expected of him?
A. No, I didn't talk to Paul about that, no.
Q. But didn't you go interview everyone to determine about Michael Jackson's condition?
A. Yes. I don't think this has anything to do with his condition.
Q. Really?
A. I don't think this statement that you're asking me about in his email.
Q. Well, let's see. It says, frank and I discussed it already. We have requested A. face to face
meeting with the doctor. Is that dealing with the doctor, Sir?

A. Yes.
Q. Hopefully Monday. We want to remind the doctor that it's AEG, not MJ, who's paying his
salary. That's Mr. Gongaware saying in the meeting, tell that to the doctor; right?
A. Right.
Q. And you say that doesn't represent A. potential conflict of interest; correct?
A. I think it depends on the nature and circumstances, the facts related to that discussion or
meeting.
Q. Ok, so you don't know one way or the other; is that A. fair statement?
A. I think Ive said that. I don't know what was discussed. I've said that many times, Sir.
Q. Well, Sir... Let's talk about background checks and supervising independent contractors. Now,
you would agree, as general counsel of AEG Live that A. producer has A. high level of oversight
of the services of its independent contractors; correct?
A. No. I wouldn't agree with that statement.
Q. Ok, let's go to your deposition, Sir. March 22
nd
, to what you said under oath on that day, Sir.
A. Ok
(video clip was played with the following testimony being said:)
What does AEG Live do to supervise independent contractors who work on tours?
Well, they engage the independent contractors to perform certain services, so to the extent
those parties are or are not providing those services in a manner meeting with the satisfaction
of tour director, tour manager, et cetera, I guess to that extent, there's some level of oversight
of the services that they're rendering. I mean, somebody is making note of whether or not
what independent contractor is doing and whether or not that's meeting with the expectation.

Q. : now, Sir... You told us yesterday that you make all these independent contractors sign
indemnity agreements for their negligence; correct?
A. That provision is typically in our independent-contractor agreement, yes.
Q. And that's for the protection of AEG; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Because you know that if A. Contractor does something wrong, and somebody is
injured, you could be sued; right? AEG Objection:. Calls for speculation and a legal conclusion.
The Judge: overruled.
A. Correct.
Q. By Mr. Panish: just like if the lighting person, that you hired as an independent
contractor, does something wrong, and there's a fire, and someone gets hurt, you could be a
defendant and be in a lawsuit; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And your job is to protect the financial interests of the company; right?
A. Partly my job is to do that, yes.
Q. Ok, i'll accept that. Part of your job. And part of your job, when you're protecting them, is
to get this indemnity provision, because you want to protect the company, knowing they could be
sued; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you want to make sure there's insurance to protect the company, again, if an
independent contractor makes a mistake; right?
A. Correct. They go hand in hand, I would say.
Q. And there's no law that says you don't have to check out independent contractors, is there,
Sir?
AEG Objection: vague.

A. Yeah, could you ask that again?

The Judge: overruled.
A. Could you ask it again?
Q. By Mr. Panish: sure. There's no law that states that an employer, such as yourself, that
hires an independent contractor, has no obligation to check them out; correct?
A. No law that states ... No, there's no law that states that, that I'm aware of.
Q. It's just your decision. You decide we're not checking them out. That's our decision, based
on your process you talked about yesterday; right?
A. Right.
Q. And if things don't go well, then you could get sued; right?
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. Well, for example, Sir... Yesterday ... Let's take
A. Look at your little process exhibit with all the checks.
Q. I made my own little chart; Ok? This is what you said is your process to check out
people, and i've put what you said and what Mr. Phillips said.
The Judge: so are you introducing the defense demonstrative now as 710?
Mr. Panish: well, I have my own.
Ms. Stebbins: this is a completely different demonstrative.
The Judge: A. Different demonstrative? Ok,
Q. Let me show you this now, this is your position on the left. It says: we don't do
background checks on independent contractors. AEG Live does not check the background of
anyone working on 'This Is It.' that's your position; right?
A. Correct.

Q. And I cited where you said it to us yesterday; OK

A. Yes.
Q. And that's just a decision that your company that doesn't protect you, that's just a decision
You made not to check anyone out; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Ok, now, and you told us all about, on the left side about when you hire people. Do
you have a written document or procedure manual that sets forth the criteria you said when you
hire independent contractors yesterday, Sir?
A. No. We developed practices and procedures over
Time, at my direction.
Q. Sir... Do you have a written policy and procedure setting forth all those things you told us
about yesterday for hiring independent contractors?
A. Not ...
AEG Objection: asked and answered.
The Judge: overruled.
A. Not a written policy, no.
Q. By Mr. Panish: and in fact, the only time it was ever written and shown was yesterday in
trial; isn't that right, Sir?
A. I think what was written and shown yesterday in trial is reflective of the processes and
procedures that have been developed and utilized over time.
Q. Sir... As the person most qualified for Human Resources, isn't it important to put things in
writing?
A. Not necessarily. I don't think you can put every single thing in writing germane to the
business of the company, Sir.
Q. You don't want to have procedures in writing to protect the company if an independent
contractor does something wrong, and you get sued? You don't want to have that to protect the
financial interests of the company? AEG Objection:.

A. The writing is the independent-contractor agreement itself, Sir.

Q. . Panish: no. Does the independent- contractor agreement say the procedures that you
follo for hiring and background checks or not checking backgrounds?
A. It reflects our processes and procedures.
Q. Tell me where it says in Dr. Murray's contract that you don't check the background of any
independent contractor. What paragraph is that, Sir?
A. That's not in there.
Q. Ok, tell us where it says, if somebody knew them, or they've worked with you before,
then you can hire them. Where does it say that in Dr. Murray's contract?
A. It does not.
Q. Now, Sir... The C.E.O is who you report to; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Phillips says in writing, we check everyone out; right?
A. That's what he said, yes.
Q. He doesn't say, we check everyone out except independent contractors, does he?
A. No, he doesn't say that.
Q. And would you expect the C.E.O of your company to know what the company does?
A. I would not necessarily expect the C.E.O of the company to know every single thing that
the company does.
Q. But you're hiring thousands of independent contractors, you told us.
A. Correct.

Q. Wouldn't you expect him to know what the policies and procedures are?
A. I think, as I testified maybe two days ago, maybe longer, you'd have to take up with Mr.
Phillips what he meant by that parenthetical.
Q. The bottom line is this, Sir: your company, AEG Live, chose to take the risk of not
checking out the backgrounds of independent contractors; correct? AEG Objection:. Calls for a
legal conclusion as to risk.
The Judge: overruled.
A. Could you ask the question again, please?
Q. Sure. Your company chose to accept the risk of not checking out the backgrounds of
independent contractors; correct?
A. I don't think I look at it the way that you're asking that question, but ...
Q. Can you answer the question, Sir? Did you choose to not check anyone out?
A. Yes, for the reasons that I gave previously.
Q. And you chose that if something bad happens, and if somebody comes in and complains
that you didn't check them out, you chose to run that risk, didn't you, Sir?
A. Ok, yes.
Q. Ok, and, Sir... Isn't it true, did you tell us yesterday that you never checked out the
references or background or authenticity of the credentials of anyone who worked on the This Is
It tour?
A. I don't understand the question you're asking me.
Q. Ok, fair enough. Did you tell us yesterday, you didn't check out the credentials or
authenticity of anyone that was involved in the This Is It tour as an independent contractor?

A. I don't recall using those words yesterday. Authenticity of someone? I'm not even sure I
understand what that means. I mean ...
Q. Tell us about the credentials. Did you check out the credentials of anyone that worked on
the This Is It tour?
A. Again, they were either known to the artist, we've known and worked with them in the
past, or they're known in the industry for their expertise.
Q. I'm going to ask my question again, Sir. Ok, did you or AEG Live check out the
credentials of anyone that you signed to an independent contractor agreement for This Is It? Yes
or no?
A. I don't know what you mean by credentials. Check out, they have expertise and a
reputation within the industry, or they've worked with us directly. So we checked them out, to
that extent. I don't know what you mean by credentials.
Q. Sir... Did you check up on anyone's credentials? Yes or no?
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, asked and answered. The witness has tried to answer the question.
The Judge: Ok, sustained.
Q. Ok, let's look at exhibit 697-, Sir.
Mr. Panish: do we have A. Copy for the witness?
Ms. Chang: yes.
Q. By Mr. Panish: this is an email dated January , 2009. I'm going to bring it up to you, Mr.
Trell
A. Ok,
Q. Is your name on this email, Mr. Trell?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. You received that email, Mr. Trell?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Ok, let's put it up, Sir. This is Ms. Jorrie and you communicating; is that right,
Sir?
A. It's an email from Kathy to Randy Phillips, myself, john Meglen and Paul Gongaware.
Q. And it says ... And it's also forwarded to peter Lopez; right?
A. I don't see that on the screen here.
Q. You see on the top, peter...
A. Randy forwards to Peter. Yes, I see that.
Q. Let's look at this, Sir. This is written by Ms. Jorrie. This is a person that's working and
authorized to work for you; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Ms. Jorrie is saying to you: while I understand you have checked up on the
credentials and authenticity of Dr. Tohme through personal sources ... Did I read that right, Sir?
A. You read that correctly, yes.
Q. So Mr. Phillips went out and checked ... Or you. Was it you or Mr. Phillips that checked
out Dr. Tohme through personal sources, credentials and authenticity? Was that you or Mr.
Phillips that did that, Sir?
A. It was not me. I don't know to whom she's referring.
Q. Ok, this is an independent contractor that's going to sign an agreement; right?
A. Dr. Tohme?
Q. Yes.
A. An independent contractor?
Q. Yes.
A. No. We don't have an independent-contractor agreement with Dr. Tohme.

Q. Ok, do you have an agreement with Dr. Tohme, Sir?

A. There's an agreement with Dr. Tohme called a management production agreement,
correct.
Q. Ok, is that an agreement, Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Ok, is he working for AEG Live?
A. It was an agreement between us and Tohme related to services he was going to render on
the tour, yes.
Q. So was he an employee, then, of AEG Live, Sir? Dr. Tohme?
A. No, he wasn't an employee. Was he an independent contractor? No, I wouldn't
characterize him as an independent contractor. This was a fee for whatever services it was
Michael wanted him to be performing, as specified in that particular agreement.
Q. Yesterday you told us there's either employees or independent contractors. You didn't
mention anything else, did you, Sir?
A. That's how we were characterizing it yesterday, yes.
Q. So is he an employee of AEG Live?
A. No, he's not an employee.
Q. Is he an independent contractor?
A. Well, if he's ... He's a party to a contract. I wouldn't characterize him in the same vein as
somebody else involved in mounting the tour.
Q. Sir... You told us yesterday under oath that that's only two ways you look at people:
they're either employees, or they're independent contractors. Do you remember that testimony,
Sir... Under oath yesterday?
AEG Objection:. Misstates the testimony.
The Judge: overruled.

A. Well, people working on the tour were either employees or independent contractors, yes.
Q. And what was Dr. Tohme?
A. It's difficult for me to characterize him. He's certainly not an employee, but he's not an
independent contractor in the same way or context. That agreement was a you know, an
agreement related to his management services of Michael Jackson.
Q. Ok, well, let's go on and see what else Ms. Jorrie was telling you, Sir... As the general
counsel. Ms. Jorrie, you said, is a very fine lawyer; right? One of the best, you told us; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Despite any errors she might have made; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you highly respect her opinion; right?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Ok, so let's see what she told you about this Mr. ... Dr. Tohme. Let's look at the next
sentence. I nonetheless have reservations about whether or not he is the real mccoy. Have you
ever heard that, the real mccoy? You ever heard of that saying?
A. I've heard it, yes.
Q. That means whether someone is legit, not a fraud or a fake; right?
A. Right. The real thing.
Q. Ok, she was seriously concerned, this lawyer that you highly respected and paid
money to; right?
A. I don't know that she was seriously concerned,no.
Q. Reservations ... Ok, that's not serious, then. Let's look at the next sentence: when I
checked a couple online search engines for Dr. Tohme to see if I could find references to him, the
only thing I found were recent quotes from Dr. Tohme of Michael Jackson's, quote, unquote,
publicist, and some reference to him in various blogs by people who referred to him as a
mystery man who claims to represent Michael Jackson. Did I read that right, Sir?

A. You read it right.

Q. You received this email; right?
A. I did.
Q. And then it says: I found nothing else on him, almost like he never existed until he met
Michael Jackson. It's possible there are references to him on the internet in Arabic rather than
English, which I didn't check because I don't read Arabic
Q. Did I read that right? Correct. Nonetheless, I recommend that a background check be
performed through a private investigator or, at a minimum, that someone at AEG Live meet with
Michael Jackson to make sure he understands that we are entering into q tour agreement with
him that will require him to perform a worldwide tour. Did I read that right, Sir? That's what it
says. So she was telling you one thing to do is get a private investigator; right?
A. She says that, yes.
Q. You didn't do that, did you?
A. No.
Q. Because you don't do background checks; right?
A. Because as of January 22nd, we had had meetings, numerous discussions, drafts of
numerous documents exchanged on the tour agreement. Dr. Tohme I had seen personally
speaking with Michael Jackson on the telephone. There was no reason to believe he wasn't acting
in the capacity that he was representing himself to be acting in.
Q. So is the answer to that question no, Sir?
A. What was the question?
Q. Did you perform a background check on Dr. Tohme? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. And, Sir... This ... As of January 22nd, Ms. Jorrie, who you have all the respect in the
world, despite everything you knew, was seriously ... Excuse me had reservations about Dr.
Tohme and recommended to you, as your lawyer, to do a background check with a private
investigator; correct?

A. I don't know what she meant when she says reservations about whether or not he is the
real mccoy. I don't know if that's reservations about whether he's a citizen, whether or not he's
Michael Jacksons manager, what his qualifications are. I don't know what she's referring to, Sir.
Q. Well, yesterday you could tell us your understanding of all kinds of things that
people wrote that you never talked to about; right?
A. I don't know specifically to what youre referring.
Q. Well, you kept talking about, well, this is what Mr. Woolley meant, and this is what Dr.
Murray meant. You remember all that?
A. No, I don't, Sir. I don't.
Q. Ok, bottom line is, six days ... Excuse me. Six days before the contract was ever signed,
your lawyer said to you that she had ... Don't want to misquote her now ... Reservations about
whether Dr. Tohme was the real mccoy; right?
A. That's what she says, yes.
Q. And you did nothing in response to this email with respect to hiring a private investigator,
or doing any further background checks, despite what your lawyer told you; correct?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A. That ...correct. For the reasons that I gave, right.
Q. Is that a yes, Sir?
Q. Correct.
A. All right. Thank you. Now, I want to now ask you about the rehearsals you can take that down
that you talked about yesterday. You said that AEG Live could not make Michael Jackson go to
rehearsals; right?
A. Yeah. I said that generally with respect to any artist; that an artist rehearses when an artist
desires to rehearse.
Q. Is that
A. Yes, Sir?
A. Yes.

Q. And Sir... Isn't it true ... First of all, Mr. Woolley, he was working on the insurance with
you, wasn't he, Sir?
A. He was working on it, yeah, in a different manner. But, yes, he was involved.
Q. You authorized him, as the general counsel, to communicate with Mr. Taylor and
others regarding securing the insurance; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you authorized Mr. Woolley to speak on behalf of AEG Live when dealing with the
insurance people about what AEG Live was looking for, and what was involved; correct?
A. Yes. Mr. Woolley and Mr. Taylor have a long relationship, so there was no issue in
having him those two speak to one another.
Q. Ok, so whatever Mr. Woolley was saying, you knew that he would be representing what
the company was doing truthfully; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Ok, let's look at exhibit 336. It's a --09 email.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm going to object to lack of foundation with this witness.
Mr. Panish: it's an authorized admission of a party opponent, which he's just said the
witness was authorized to do all of this. And he also interpreted many of Mr. Woolley's
emails that he wasn't on yesterday, and I objected, and they said, oh, no, they can do that.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, yesterday the only emails that I introduced with Mr. Woolley
were correspondence related to those that Mr. Panish had already put in.
SIDEBAR..
Q. All right, Sir. Now, have you read the email enough times? You know it now?
A. Which one are we talking about now, Sir?
Q. The one they just objected to.
A. It wasn't on the screen while you were in there, so, no.
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. You don't have a copy? You need a copy to help you read it?

A. I can see it on the screen if that's the entirety of the chain.

Q. Let's put that up, Sir. Now, we just talked about rehearsals, and let's see what Mr.
Woolley, your authorized representative, was telling to the person trying to secure the insurance
from Lloyds of London. And could you read for us, Sir... Because I can't see that far? Could you
read for us ... Ok, this is from ... Mr. Woolley, you said he's a long-time friend of
Mr. Taylor's; right?
A. It's my understanding.
Q. Well, didn't you tell us that?
A. Yes. I said that's my understanding, they have
A. Long relationship.
Q. Ok, and he wouldn't lie or misrepresent to Mr. Taylor, would he?
A. No.
Q. Ok, so why don't you read us what he said through the yellow?
A. Ok, am I reading the yellow or through the yellow?
Q. Just start at the beginning, and go to the end of the yellow, and then i'll ask you a
question.
A. Bob, nice of PG to be so chatty and expansive, as always.
Q. Stop. PG is Paul Gongaware; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Ok, next?
A. Changes are structural only. Kenny Ortega has responsibility only for the show content
and structure, in consultation with MJ. Randy Phillips and Dr. Murray are responsible for MJ
rehearsal and
Attendance schedule.
Q. So Mr. Woolley is telling the insurance man that it's Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray that are
going to be responsible for making sure MJ is at rehearsal and his attendance schedule;
correct?

AEG Objection:. Misstates the document.

The Judge: overruled.
A. Can I have the question again,
Q. Let me ... I'll ask it again. Mr. Woolley, who is your authorized representative, formerly the
C.F.O. of your company; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Telling the insurance man, who is a long-time friend of his; right?
A. Correct.
Q. That Mr. Ortega has responsibility for the show only; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And that Randy Phillips and Dr. Murray are responsible for rehearsal and attendance
schedule for Michael Jackson; correct?
A. That's what timm Woolley says, yes.
Q. Ok, and did Mr. Woolley ever tell you that,
A. No.
Q. When you were investigating the relationship between Dr. Murray and AEG Live, did
you ask Mr. Murray about Mr. Phillips or Dr. Murray being responsible to get MJ to rehearsal?
A. There was no need to. Mr. Woolley's statement is inaccurate.
Q. Can you answer the question, please?
A. There was no need to.
The Judge: Mr. Panish, don't argue with him and don't take that tone with him.
Q. Sir... The question is simple. Did you ever ask Mr. Woolley about that statement? Yes or
no?
A. No.

Q. That would be another mistake by AEG; right?

A. Timm Woolley's statement, in my opinion, is not accurate, Sir.
Q. But you never talked to him about it; right?
A. Right.
Q. And you never went to any rehearsals, did you?
A. I was not at any rehearsals, no.
Q. Ok, let's read the next sentence. And, by the way, what day is this?
A. June 23rd.
Q. Two days before Michael Jackson died; right?
A. Right.
Q. Would it be fair to say that this email would reasonably be your understanding that there's
discussion about rehearsals with ... Between Mr. Taylor and
Mr. Woolley?
A. I'd have to see the bottom email to have more context about what the ...
Q. All right. Why don't you ... There you go
A. Yes.
Q. Timm Woolley wrote: Paul ... That's Mr. Gongaware any show rescheduling going on
that Bob Taylor needs to be aware of? In other words, is the show going to be postponed?
They're asking Mr. Gongaware two days before Mr. Jackson dies; right?
A. That's right. They're talking about shows, not rehearsals. And Mr. Gongaware's response
was no. So the schedule was remaining as it was.
Q. And Mr. Gongaware had said before, we need to move forward; right?
A. I'm sorry?

Q. We need to move forward. Anything else would be disastrous for us. Did you recall
reading that from Mr. Gongaware?
A. No. I don't recall. You'd have to show me that again.
Q. Let's go to the next sentence. Let me read that for you, Sir: looks like there might have
been issue of KO. That's Kenny Ortega; right?
A. That's Kenny Ortega, yes.
Q. Not being demanding enough of MJ's attendance or causing concern with the schedule he
was imposing. Did I read it right; Sir?
A. Right. He being Kenny Ortega was imposing.
Q. Right. And he wasn't being demanding enough on MJ; right?
A. Meaning MJ showed up whenever MJ wanted to show up.
Q. Sir. You've never seen this before, have you, Sir?
A. This email?
Q. Yeah.
A. No. I just testified that I had never seen it before.
Q. Right. And you never talked to Mr. Woolley or Mr. Taylor about what they were talking
about; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then it says: either way, there are others designated to ensure MJ is front and center
for rehearsal. And those others, according to Mr. Woolley, were Randy Phillips, the C.E.O, and
Dr. Conrad Murray; correct?
A. I don't know who he's referring to by the use of the word others. It would seem odd to be
using it there, when the people are referenced in that incorrect statement in the preceding
sentence, so ...
Q. Well, Sir... He refers to Kenny Ortega being Limited, because he's not doing enough
demanding; right? And either way, others ... And the only others mentioned in that email
are Phillips and Murray; right?

A. You're asking me what I think he means by that. It would read awkwardly that he would
be referring to the same people he's referring to in the preceding sentence, so I don't think that's
who he is referring to by that reference.
Q. Ok, fine.
A. Ok,
Q. Let's look at the next email. Is it true, Sir... That Mr. Gongaware was trying to
misrepresent to Mr. Jackson the amount and scope of the rehearsals and shows that he was going
to do?
A. I have no idea.
Q. You didn't discuss that with Mr. Gongaware?
A. No, I did not discuss that with Mr. Gongaware.
Q. All right. Now, i'll ask him that. How is that?
A. I think it would be better to go to the source.
The Judge: can we have a sidebar for a minute?
Mr. Panish: your honor, I'm sorry. I withdraw that comment.
SIDEBAR..
The Judge: you may continue.
Q. Mr. Trell, would it be fair to say that as of June 2009, AEG's advances and production costs
had exceeded 32 million?
A. I'd have to see a budget to be able to confirm that.
Q. How about just an estimate? Would it be fair to say it's in excess of 30 million?
A. As of June 30? I don't know where you're talking about.
Q. June.
A. June? I have no idea where it was at June .
Q. How about June 24th?

A. I also don't know that I know where it was at as of that date.

Q. Didn't you tell us you reviewed all those documents that were sent ... That had all the
expenses and, actually, it says, expenses incurred and costs paid?
AEG Objection:. Misstates the testimony.
The Judge: overruled. You're talking about the documents sent to the estate?
Mr. Panish: yes.
The Judge: overruled. You may answer.
A. Ok, and that was as of July 15th, if I remember correctly, that report. So I would say yes is
the answer to your question for that report, which was as of July 15th.
Q. By Mr. Panish: well, let's put it this way: Sir. In June there is no question that you had
exceeded the . Insurance limit; is that correct?
A. I think that's correct.
Q. And when you don't have enough insurance to cover something, that's called being
underinsured, isn't it, Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's not a good thing to be underinsured, is it?
A. Better to be fully insured.
Q. Well, if you're A. Lawyer, and you're advising A client, you would never advise a client
to be underinsured, would you?
A. You can only get whatever insurance is available. So if that's less than the amount of the
expenses you're trying to insure, you're underinsured.
Q. Sir... My question was: would you as a lawyer ever advise a client to be underinsured?
A. No.
Q. And, Sir... In the decade that you have been the general counsel for AEG Live, this is the
first time that the amount of the expenses exceeded the coverage amount; correct?

A. The amount of coverage available in the market, yes.

Q. And as the lawyer in charge, when you know you've got a lot out there, and you don't
have enough insurance, you've got to be concerned about that, don't you, Sir?
A. Well, can you explain what you mean by concerned in this context?
Q. Well, as a real lawyer that's in charge of taking care of the financial interests of your
client, and you have all these expenses, and you don't have enough insurance, you want to try to
get more insurance, if you can, don't you, Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's what you were doing. You told us, up until the day Michael Jackson died, you
were trying to get more insurance, weren't you?
A. Right. I testified that I was inquiring about ways that might be available to bridge the gap.
Q. Is that A. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And, Sir... As of June 2009, AEG did not have any sickness cancelation insurance in
place, did it, Sir?
A. No. The second medical was scheduled for July 6th; so as of June, no.
Q. And, Sir... That meant that if the shows were canceled due to Michael Jackson's illness,
AEG Live would have to repay the money for the tickets that they had obtained; correct?
A. I need you to ask that question again, please.
Q. Ok, did AEG Live sell tickets for these shows?
A. Yes.
Q. How many tickets did you sell?
A. I don't know the exact number.
Q. Well, it holds, what 50,000 at the 02 arena?

A. Well, not for a concert event. It's something less than that. But it's in the mid-teens for a
concert event.
Q. So if you sold 50 shows, let's just say that is over how many million, Sir?
A. If you're at ,000, say, and 50 shows, that would be 750,000 tickets.
Q. Ok, and what was the average ticket price?
A. I don't recall.
Q. But you saw the budget, you told us, that say how much the revenue was expected from
all the tickets; right?
A. I am familiar with the documents that were submitted to the estate. I'm not familiar with
every line item on the very thick budget in accounting that was attached to it.
Q. Well, didn't you tell us yesterday that you're the one that reviews those to make changes
on what categories the items should go into?
A. I testified if there were questions about line items, I would answer those accordingly.
Q. So would it be fair to say, you don't know -but when the tickets are sold, AEG holds the
money;
Right?
A. Typically, the venue holds the money, yes.
Q. You own the venue; right?
A. In this case we own that venue, yes.
Q. So you had all the money for the tickets already; right?
A. Correct.

Q. And if the concerts don't go forward, you've got to give all the money back; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you get to hold the money yourself; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And this is a substantial amount of money, isn't it?
A. Sure.
Q. So as of June 2009, concerns were being raised about Michael Jackson's physical
condition; correct?
A. I'm aware of the concerns expressed relating to the June 19th event, as I testified
yesterday and the day before.
Q. Not only would you have to return the ticket money, but you'd incur a lot of other costs,
too, wouldn't you, relating to the cancelation of the shows?
A. Sorry.
Q. I don't understand this question, either. That's Ok, Sir... As part of your review and
preparation for to testify in this case as the person most knowledgeable in many areas, did you
learn after Michael Jackson's death that Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware had threatened to
pull the plug on Michael Jackson and the tour?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you learn that Randy Phillips had threatened to take all of Michael Jackson's assets if
he didn't come to rehearsal and perform?
A. No. I'm not aware of that.
Q. Did you learn that Randy Phillips had threatened to take the house that was rented for
Michael Jackson?
AEG Objection: lacks foundation.
The Judge: Ok, let's go to sidebar.
SIDBAR.

Q. Ok, Sir... All of Michael Jackson's assets were secured by AEG under the contract; right?
A. No, that's not accurate.
Q. Ok, so none of Michael Jackson's assets were secured?
A. No. Your question was all, and I said that's not accurate.
Q. Ok, in fact, you didn't even know how much Michael Jackson's assets were worth at the
time he ran up 34 million; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you didn't have enough insurance; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Mr. Woolley, OMelveny & Myers, your lawyers here, they represent Mr. Woolley
in this case; correct?
A. They represented Mr. Woolley? I don't believe Mr. Woolley was a party to the case.
Q. When he was deposed under oath in Florida, Mr. Putnam, the lawyer you hired,
represented Mr. Woolley; right?
A. Sure.
Q. And your lawyers also represented the estate of Frank Dileo regarding production of
documents from Mr. Dileo's computer; correct?
A. I don't know anything about their representation of frank Dileo's estate or otherwise.
Ms. Stebbins: your honor, I'm going to object to beyond the scope of cross.
The Judge: sustained. Sustained.
Mr. Panish: well, I'm getting into the conflict of interest.

Q. Now, your lawyers, do you know whether your lawyers ever produced the email I just
showed you from Kathy Jorrie regarding the background check that she was requesting of Mr.
Tohme?
AEG Objection:. Beyond the scope of cross.
The Judge: are we back to that email about whether to do the investigation?
Mr. Panish: yes.
The Judge: overruled. If you want to come back and ask questions about it, then you can
do that.
A. . The question again, please, Sir?
Q. By Mr. Panish: did your lawyers at OMelveny & Myers ever produce this document in
this litigation?
A. I don't know if it's was produced or not.
Q. Certainly is related to this, is it not, Sir?
A. I mean, it's got A. Stamp at the bottom AEG 74, so I presume it was produced.
Q. But you don't know whether it was just produced today, do you, Sir?
A. That, I don't know.
Q. Whether it was produced from Mr. Dileo, do you?
A. I don't know.
Q. Ok, Sir... I'm going to show you exhibit 298-. Is what counsel showed you yesterday. It's
- this email from Mr. Ortega remember reviewing this? I'll get it up for you need ... I've got
another copy of this.
A. Is it one email?
Q. Well, it's a couple, so maybe I should give you the email just to make sure. Here you go
if you want to familiarize yourself with it, go ahead.
A. Ok,
Q. Ok, so this is Mr. Ortega writing to Mr. Phillips; right?

A. Right? Correct.
Q. And Mr. Ortega is saying: now that we've brought the doctor into the fold ... Did I read
that right, that's what he says, yes. That means the doctor is working with them;
A. The them is who?
Q. Mr. Ortega and Mr. Phillips.
A. Working with? I don't understand the reference.
Q. Do you know what it means to bring someone in the fold, Sir?
A. Could mean involved.
Q. Ok, involved.
A. Ok,
Q. Dr. Murray was involved.
A. Ok,
Q. Right? And we saw that other email where Mr. Woolley says Dr. Murray and Mr. Phillips
were responsible to get Mr. Jackson to rehearsals; right?
AEG Objection: misstates the document.
The Judge: overruled.
A. Could you ask it again, please?
Q. If I can. We just looked at the email about ... From Mr. Woolley to Mr. Taylor about the
responsibilities of . Murray and Mr. Phillips; right?
A. Right.
Q. And that means they were together, Phillips and Murray, in that email; right?
A. Right.
Q. In this email, Phillips and Ortega have brought Dr. Murray into the fold; right?
A. That's what Kenny says here, yes.
Q. And you haven't talked to Kenny about this; right?
A. No.

Q. And it says: and we've played the tough love now-or-never card. Do you know what that
means, tough love? Means?
A. Yeah, I have an idea what tough love means. And then, now or never. You know what that
I think it's self-explanatory.
Q. Do you think that when you tell someone we played tough love, and you tell them now or
never, that puts pressure on them?
A. I think that depends on the context, circumstances, facts, nature of the discussion, the
people involved, whether somebody feels pressured or whether, you know
Q. Do you know ...something else. Do you know, Sir... If Michael Jackson was pressured
and psychologically needed to be evaluated?
A. No, I don't know that.
Q. Mr. Ortega certainly thought that; right?
A. I believe he states that somewhere in an
Q. Ok, and you told us that the only time you ever heard there was any issue with Mr.
Jackson was June 19th when you thought he had flu symptoms; right?
A. That's my understanding, yes.
Q. And you're not A. Doctor; right?
A. That's right.
Q. And do people, when they have the flu, normally start obsessing?
A. I don't know.
Q. Trembling?
A. I don't know.
Q. Ok, so then he says: my concern ... And I'm going to skip the other part ... Is that the artist
may be unable to rise to the occasion due to real emotional stuff. Did I read that right?
A. That's what Mr. Ortega says, yes.
Q. And real emotional stuff has nothing to do with the flu, does it, Sir?

A. No.
Q. And Mr. Ortega believed that Mr. Jackson was quite weak and fatigued; right?
A. This is referring to the 19th, yes. This email is at :00 in the morning on the 20th, so he's
referring to the 19th.
Q. :00 in the morning, he must have been pretty worried, huh?
A. I don't know what hours Mr. Ortega keeps. They might have rehearsed pretty late or been
at the venue late that night. I have no idea.
Q. Did you know by this time that Alif Sankey and Karen Faye had expressed concern that
Michael Jackson was going to die?
A. No.
Q. You never heard that?
A. No.
Q. First time you heard it today?
A. When you just said it just now. I heard it in prior testimony in this case.
Q. They were right, weren't they?
A. That Mr. Jackson passed away? Yes, he did.
Q. That he was going to die?
A. He did.
Q. And then right here it says: finally, it's important for everyone to know, I believe, that he
really wants this ... That's what you and Ms. Stebbins went over; right?
A. Ok,
Q. Let's read the next sentence. Why don't you read that for us?
A. It would shatter him, break his heart, if we pulled the plug.
Q. You know, Sir... There was discussions at this time about pulling the plug on the
whole thing, wasn't there?

A. I don't know, you know, why Kenny is referencing that there. I don't know. I was not A.
Party to any discussions about ending the tour.
Q. Do you think Mr. Ortega was just making that up, Sir?
A. You'd have to ask Mr. Ortega what he meant about this statement.
Q. Fair enough. It says: he's terribly frightened it's all going to go away. Mr. Jackson was
feeling pressure and was frightened, wasn't he, Sir?
A. This just says he was frightened. Doesnt say he was feeling pressure and frightened, just
says frightened.
Q. So you as the person ...
The Judge: wait. Let him finish.
Q. Did you finish your answer, your question was, he's pressured and frightened it's all
going to go away. This sentence from Kenny says he's frightened, is all it says. So as the
person most knowledgeable from AEG about Mr. Jackson's condition, did you learn that he felt
pressured?
A. No.
Q. So as far as you know, Mr. Jackson was never pressured at any time during the
preparation for the This Is It tour, and he never felt pressured; correct?
A. The former question I ... You know, the answer is no. The latter, I have no idea what he
felt.
Q. But you said no one ever pressured him; right?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. Ok, let's go to ... Well, you would agree that there was some pressure on you, as the
general counsel, being underinsured and not having sickness coverage, wouldn't you, Sir?

A. I don't look at it as though there was pressure on me personally, no.

Q. Well, as a lawyer, then, Sir... You had no concern that the company you were in charge of
could lose $34 million? That don't worry you at all?
A. You know, like I said, the level of insurance was that available in the marketplace. The costs
were what the costs were. There's always risk associated with tours, whether it's this one or any
other one. I didn't personally feel the pressure that you're now asking about.
Q. I said, did you feel any pressure that your company could lose 34 million? Did you feel
any pressure about that, or not really, no big deal?
A. I wouldn't characterize it as pressure, and I also wouldn't characterize it as the company
could lose $34 million. It was Michael Jackson's obligation to us.
Q. But you didn't know if Michael Jackson had any money. You just told me that. You didn't
know what assets he had. You had to rent the house for him, you were going to pay for the
doctor, you had to do all this stuff for him, didn't you, Sir?
A. That's fine, yes.
Q. You didn't know if he had any money, did you?
A. That's fine. Yes.
Q. So you, as the general counsel of this company that potentially stood to lose 34 million,
were not concerned? Is that your testimony?
A. No, that wasn't my testimony. You were asking me if I felt pressured, and I answered no
to that.
Q. Were you concerned?
A. There's always concern.

Q. So, Sir... Had you ever lost 34 million before?

A. No.
Q. Let's look at exhibit 168. Just want to ask you a few questions about this, because you
told us yesterday as ... Now, you know, Sir... As a lawyer that's been referred to by your lawyer
as the master of contracts, that a contract can be written; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Can be oral?
A. Correct.
Q. Can be partially oral and partially written?
A. Correct.
Q. And you know that oral contracts, if properly done, are just as valid as written contracts?
A. It forms the basis of a contract, yes.
Q. And contracts can be implied by the conduct of the parties; correct?
A. That's A. Factor in determining whether or not A contract is formed.
Q. And often oral contracts precede written contracts; correct?
A. No. I wouldn't characterize that.
Q. So you don't enter into an agreement orally and then reduce it to writing? That's nothing
you're familiar with?
A. No. I think you have an understanding, obviously, of some terms and conditions of an
agreement
That you then reduce to writing that includes other relevant and material terms and conditions.
Q. Well, the contract with Mr. Jackson was only for 30 shows; right?
A. The contract was for 31.
Q. 31. And you sold tickets for 50 shows, didn't you?
A. Yes, we did.

Q. And that was based on your oral agreement with Mr. Jackson; right?
A. It was based on their verbal approval of going to 50, yes.
Q. So that was oral, wasn't it? There was nothing in writing about that, was there, Sir?
A. Right. That was an approval.
Q. That was an oral agreement, wasn't it, Sir?
A. The agreement was the tour agreement that contemplated that the number of shows could
be increased at the approval of the artist, which was provided.
Q. Sir... I'm going to show you exhibit 884, a summary of the conduct of the parties in this
case.
Ms. Stebbins: can I see this?
Ms. Chang: of course.
Q. While she's looking for that, you would agree that contracts created by conduct are
just as valid as oral or written contracts; correct?
A. I don't think contracts are formed on the basis of conduct alone.
Q. You don't know ...
A.I disagree that.
Q. Do you know what the law is in California for an implied-in-fact contract, Sir?
A. I'm familiar with contract law, Sir. I've been doing my job for years.
Q. Are you familiar with California contract law, Sir? Because you're not admitted to
practice, are you?
A. Yes, I'm familiar. And I am admitted to practice in the state of California.
Q. Oh, you are? You can go anywhere you want to and do whatever you want as a lawyer?
A. I'm admitted to practice as registered in-house counsel.
Q. Can you go to court?

A. That's the only thing that I can't do, right. What you do is what I can't do.
Q. I'm not going to ... In deciding whether a contract is created, are you supposed to consider
the conduct of the party and the relationship of the parties, as well as all the circumstances?
A. Could you ask that again, please?
Q. Sure. In deciding whether a contract exists, are you to consider the conduct and
relationship of the parties, as well as all the circumstances?
A. Consider all of the circumstances, yes.
Q. And the conduct of the parties?
A. Yes.
Q. And contracts can be created by the conduct of the parties without spoken or written
words; isn't that true, Sir?
A. Can you say that again, please?
Q. Contracts can be created by the conduct of the parties without spoken or written words.
A. Yes.
Q. And conduct will create a contract if both of the parties intentionally, and each knows ...
Strike that. Let me show you an exhibit.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm going to object to the exhibit, your honor.
The Judge: well, just tell me what the objection is.
Ms. Stebbins: it's a demonstrative that plaintiffs put together. A number of items in it lack
foundation and ...
The Judge: none of it contains a summary of evidence that's already been presented?
Mr. Panish: all of it.
Ms. Stebbins: some of it is not.
Ms. Chang:

The Judge: some of it is evidence that's in; may we some of it is not? Then we do need to
discuss it why don't I let the jury go a little bit early
LUNCH BREAK
Afternoon Session May 23
rd
2013
Redirect examination by Mr. Panish Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Trell.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Documents did you get a chance to review any more
A. No
Q/ Oh. Thank you. Sir, we talked a lot about signed contracts, unsigned contracts. So we're
clear, to work for AEG Live or to be retained by AEG Live, you don't need to have a fully
executed contract, correct?
A. There are employees that are hired by AEG Live that don't have contracts, that's correct.
Theyre all at-will employees.
Q. Well, there are independent contractors that worked on the This Is It tour that did work for
your company before they had a fully executed written contract, correct?
A. Yes
Q. I want to show you, Sir, an exhibit you talked about yesterday, when counsel was questioning
you about all of the every single person that ever got paid on This Is It had a fully executed
contract, right?
A. Can you say the question again, please?
Q. Every person that was an independent contractor who ever got paid by AEG Live on the This
Is It tour had a written contract. Was that your testimony or did I misunderstand you?
A. There are AEG Live employees that may have worked on the tour that don't have written
agreements.

Q. Well, how about, I said that Mr. Bearden he was the band leader, right?
A. Right
Q. He worked without a written contract
A. I don't recall.
Q. He didn't have a contract at the date of Michael Jacksons death after he worked for three
months rehearsal, did he, Sir?
A. I don't recall on Michael Bearden.
Q. Who is Allison Latham; I think you mentioned her yesterday.
A. I didn't mention her yesterday. She is one of the attorneys that works for me.
Q. Right. You said there's one who keeps track of all the contracts. Do you remember that?
A. No, I don't remember.
Q. Ok, let's look at another exhibit and let me just show you what I want to show you here.
Thats an email dated 7/1/09 to Allison Latham, who works for you, right?
A. Correct
Q. What about Cindy medina. Does she work for you?
A. No, well she works for the company, not for me
Q. Rick Webking, we know who he is, Ms. Hollander, we know who she is. And this is called
summary of M.J. agreements master. Do you see that, Sir?
A. Yes
Q. This is a document prepared by your department, Sir?
AEG Objection, lack of foundation. Judge: let's see if he can establish the foundation first.
Q. Was it sent to your department, Sir?

A. I don't know.
Q. Does Allison Latham work for you?
A. She does, yes.
Q. Does it say in that e-mail that it was forwarded to Ms. Latham?
A. Can you repeat that question?
Q. Does it say in that e-mail that it's sent to Ms. Latham, the first addressee?
A. Yes
Q. It's to Allison and Cindy medina, right.
A. Thats correct
Q. And Allison Latham, one of her responsibilities is to track these contracts, correct?
A. She was involved in some contracting matters for the tour. Other lawyers that work for me
were, as well.
Q. But she would be someone, as part of her job duties, would be sent contracts, executed or
unexecuted, related to Michael Jackson, right?
A. Well, it would go the other way. When we get a contract executed, we would send it to
Julie Hollander or the accounting department for payment, so it would go the other way
Q. You told us that every single person that got paid had a written fully executed contract, didn't
you, Sir?
A. That's my understanding, yes.
Q. That document that Ive shown you from your department, Id like you to look at it again and
see if that refreshes your recollection as to whether people got paid with unexecuted contracts,
Sir.

A. First of all, Ive already just testified this is not from my department
Q. Sent to your department
A. Well, Im not familiar with the document, so you've got to give me a minute to look at it
Q. I want to show him the unexecuted part.
AEG objection; argumentative
Q. I'm just asking you whether this refreshes your recollection that Mr. Bearden worked and had
an unexecuted contract as of at least a week after Michael Jacksons death.
A. Well, this summary is as of June 25, it says at the top of the page here Im looking at
Q. As of the date of Michael Jacksons death?
A. Right, I think you just said a week after. Im saying the summary is as of June 25th
Q I did. You got me on that. All right. Did he have an unexecuted contract or.
A. According to this.
AEG objection; you're asking him to interpret a document.
Q. And, you didn't review any documents like this when you testified that everyone that ever got
paid had a fully executed contract, did you?
A. I didn't review this document.
Q. Did you review another document like this that said whether people had executed or
unexecuted contracts to prepare you to testify about whether or not everyone that got paid had a
fully executed contract, yes or no?
A. I stand by that answer. While Michael Beardens agreement as of this date may have not been
executed, it ultimately was executed, and he was paid.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe this is not an AEG document, Sir?
A. I have no reason to believe that, no.
Q. Let's go to the left of the document. Does that refresh your recollection of whether or not
individuals were paid for the This Is It tour with unexecuted contracts?
A. No, it doesn't
Q. So you stand by your answer that people that worked on the This Is It tourevery single
person that got paid had a fully executed contract?
A. I stand by my answer to your last question, which was about individuals. This doesn't have to
do with individuals.
Q. Now, Mr. Trell, let me ask you, you told me before the break that the only thing that you
learned as a person most qualified for your company is that Mr. Jackson had a problem on June
19th, and that was it, right?
A. That's my understanding, yes.
Q. And you interviewed Mr. Philips in depth on that, and Mr. Gongaware, and one other person,
Right?
A. Amy Morrison, correct.
Q. And when you interviewed Mr. Philips, did he tell you that he'd been told before Mr.
Jacksons death that his condition had been deteriorating for eight weeks?
A. Im not aware of that, no.
Q. Well, let's look at this next exhibit and did you think Mr. Philips was telling you the truth, Sir?
A. When he was sharing with me his observations about the rehearsals that he attended, yes.
Q. But didn't you ask him, what information do you have about Mr. Jackson because I have to
go in court and I have to give a deposition under oath and 16 say what the company knew
about Mr. Jacksons physical condition"

A. No
Q. Did you ask him to tell you that information, Sir?
A. Yes and it was my understanding he was being truthful.
Q. Well, let's take a look at this. Remember yesterday I talked a little bit about the trouble at the
front email. Let's go to the last page so we can look back where we were. This is bugz, right?
You said he was very credible, right?
A. I haven't seen this chain, I don't think. Can I see a copy, please, I think Ive seen parts of this
chain.
Q. Did Mr. Phillips share with you this information when you thought he was being truthful and
honest of what he knew about Mr. Jackson's condition during the rehearsals?
A. When you say, this information, you're talking about the e-mail, the two at the very top of this
chain that I haven't seen yet?
Q. Exactly. You've never seen those before, is that what you're telling me?
A. I haven't seen these two e-mails before.
Q. Well, let's put them up and Im going to start at the back so we know where we are. I'm going
to go through this quickly. This is bugz writing to Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware about the ...
Being a drama queen, that Michael got sent home, he's a basket case, doubt is pervasive. We
talked about that already, right?
A. Right
Q. Let's go to the next one and the next one says that Randy Phillips got the same voicemail
message from bugzsorry Kenny Ortega told the same information to Mr. Phillips, right?
A. It sounds like Randy got a voice message from Kenny, yes.
Q. Did he tell you that, that he got that voice message?
A. No, I wasn't aware of that.

Q. Let's go to the next email. Now we're on the 20

th
, lets see whats said here.
A. Ive got to say I don't even understand the chain here because at the bottom, there's an e-mail
on
The 19th, then there's an e-mail on the 20th, and then above that, there's e-mails from the 19th.
Q. Well, that's the way they were produced by AEG, Sir. If you see the bottom, that's the way
They gave it to us. I don't have access to your computers. Now, it says here this is Mr. Hougdahl
Writing to Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware on June 19th close to 11:00 o'clock at night, ten
minutes to 11:00
A. That's correct.
Q. Now let's go to the next one. Randy Phillips says chemical or physiological. We talked about
that already, right?
A. Right.
Q. He didn't tell that to you, did he?
A. No, I wasn't aware of that e-mail; but we talked about it yesterday.
Q. I'm not going to go back over it.
A. This is when it goes back to the 19th. This is what I was saying.
Q. Yes, exactly. Let's see what happened there. Now, this is Mr. Hougdahl telling Mr. Phillips,
right?
A. Correct.
Q. And he's saying now, three minutes to 11:00, my laymen's degree tells me he needs a shrink to
get him mentally prepared to get onstage. Did I read that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That's within six days of the death, right?
A. Correct

Q. Did Mr. Phillips tell you that he received any information like this?
A. No, I don't recall him telling me that.
Q. And then he says, and then he needs a trainer to get him in physical shape, Kobes should be
available, did he tell you that?
A. No
Q. And then Mr. Hougdahl says to Mr. Phillips, I have watched him deteriorate in front of my
eyes for over the last eight weeks, did you see that, Sir?
A. I see it in the e-mail, yes.
Q. Did Mr. Phillips tell you and, by the way, Mr. Hougdahl, what's his position? What's his title?
A. I don't recall off the top of my head, maybe stage managerstage director
Q. But you know him, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Mr. Phillips tell you that Mr. Hougdahl is at rehearsal all the time
A. That, I don't know.
Q. Didnt Mr. Phillips, tell you that he received an e-mail that says that Mr. Hougdahl, watched
Michael deteriorate in front of his eyes over the last eight weeks?
A. I was not aware that bugz had said that, no.
Q. Sir that would be substantive evidence that somebody is telling Mr. Phillips that there's a
problem with Mr. Jackson; wouldn't you agree with me about that, Sir?
A. Could you ask that again, please?

Q. could I ask that it be read back, please? The question is read back
AEG Objection; calling for a legal conclusion on substantive evidence. Rephrase
Q. Would that be evidence that Mr. Phillips is notified that there's a deterioration of Mr. Jackson's
condition for eight weeks?
A. This e-mail is an indication from john Hougdahl to Randy Phillips that Mr. Hougdahl feels
That way, yes.
Q. And that would be contrary to you saying that the only time you ever had a problem or that he
(MJ) was in bad shape was January or June 19th, right?
A. That was based on the observations of people with the company.
Q. But based on your testimony, this e-mail written to Mr. Phillips would not be consistent with
your testimony in this case, would it?
AEG Objection; argumentative. Sustained
Q. Next sentence Michael Jackson, was able to do multiple 360 spins in April. He'd fall on his
ass if he tried it now, did I read that right?
A. You read it correctly
Q. Did Mr. Phillips tell you that?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. And, Sir, in the last eight weeks, Dr. Murray had been treating Mr. Jackson, hadn't he Sir?
A. I have no idea what Dr. Murray was doing, for the time period that you just referenced with
Michael Jackson.
Q. Well, what was the date that Dr. Murray's final contract was supposed to start?
A. His draft agreement had an effective date as of May 1st.

Q. Now, Sir, were you trying to stall Dr. Murray in getting him the contract?
A. Youas in me?
Q. Youas in you and AEG Live.
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q: Let's look at another exhibit This is regarding Dr. Murray, right?
A. That's the subject matter, yes.
Q. Have you seen this before, Sir, as the person most knowledgeable about the relationship and
negotiations with Dr. Murray?
A. I have seen this e-mail before
Q. Now, let's put another exhibit up and Brigittedid I say that right.Brigitte?
A. Right
Q. That's the person that dealt with the housing, right?
A. Correct
Q. What's a ping?
A. My guess is well, it's contacting him.
Q. Like a text message?
A. I don't know in what form
Q. Well, first of all, Sir Mr. Woolley is saying to Brigitte, any joy with an agreement for
Murray to sign. It appears that Dr. Murray is ready to sign here on May 26th, right?

A. No, I don't think that's what that says.

Q. Okayhe's pinging on us for payment, but we can't without a contract in place, is what I
reads
A. Right
Q. Would you like to stall him, with something for him to look at and mull over did I read that
right, Sir?
A. That's what it says, yes
Q. Did you ask Mr. Woolley about stalling Dr. Murray and the contract?
A. No, I didn't talk to Timm Woolley about this e-mail, no.
Q. Did you talk to Brigitte did she work for AEG
A. No
Q. Did you talk to Brigitte about this e-mail and stalling Dr. Murray?
A. No
Q. At this time, you didn't have full coverage, correct?
A. You're talking about the insurance
Q. Yes
A. Can't tell you where we were at on May 26th with the production expenses.
Q. You didn't have sickness insurance, did you?
A. I think Ive testified a multitude of times the policy in place never contemplated illness unless
or Until those later conditions were satisfied, which wasn't going to occur until we were in
London.

Q. So the answer would be simply no, wouldn't it?

A. No, we did not have illness cover at this
Q. Let I ask you this, Sir. That insurance policy you talked about all yesterday, Brigitte she
worked on the tour, didn't she?
A. She did.
Q. You said that AEG had the final approval for the insurance, right?
A. I don't know if it was final. It was subject to our approval. The Michael Jackson Company
getting the policy was to be secured subject to our approval.
Q. And you both had I think you called it a similar interest or aligned interest to get the
coverage, right?
A. Well, it was their obligation; but we were both interested in getting it placed, sure.
Q. You had the same interest and motive to get the insurance, right?
A. The insurance would be one way, we would have the Michael Jackson Company repay their
obligations to us. So Im not sure if characterizing it as the same is fair or accurate.
Q. Well, there was a lawsuit involved with the insurance, right?
A. It's still going on, to my knowledge
Q. And was in that lawsuit for a while, weren't they
A. Originally, yes.
Q. And they had the same lawyer as the estate of Michael Jackson, aligned trying to recover the
insurance money, didn't they?
A. They who?

Q. AEG Live and the estate of Michael Jackson had the same lawyer trying to recover this
insurance money, didn't they, Sir?
AEG Objection; beyond the scope. Overruled.
A. Im actually not aware of the representation status in connection with that piece of litigation.
Were not in the case. Thats all I know.
Q. You dropped the case?
A. We dropped it?
Q. Yes...
A. We were dismissed from the case because we don't have a financial interest in the policy.
Q. But you. Before that, you had a financial interest
Judge: I said we need to move on. I don't want to get involved in that other lawsuit. Mr.
Panish: Ok, I understand, your honor.
Q. Let's look at the next exhibit, which was discussed extensively yesterday. And I just want to
go through a few parts, Im not going to go in-depth. This is the agreement between AEG Live
and the Michael Jackson Company. Do you remember this yesterday, Sirthis is the tour
agreement, yes.
A. Right
Q. This is the one that we've established was signed now on January 28th, right?
A. Right
Q. Ok, let's go to paragraph 16 and while we're doing that, Sir, this morning you told us that you
could get verbal approval for Michael Jackson to extend from 31 to 50 shows, right? You
testified to that under oath this morning. Do you remember that?

A. That's correct.
Q. So says this agreement, it may not be modified or amended except by a writing signed by the
party to be bound. Did I read that right?
A. You read it correctly, yes.
Q. And this agreement only calls for 31 shows, the agreement calls for 31 shows. Do you have
anything in writing to bind Mr. Jackson to 50 shows, yes or no?
A. Yes, we have the verbal approval, which was all that was necessary to do that, pursuant to
another provision in this contract. This paragraph here is not relevant to the issue you're
questioning me on.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, Im going to move to strike. The question was, "do you have
anything in writing that authorized you to extend from 31 to 50 shows, yes or no?"
AEG Objection; sustained
Q. Ok lets look at this portion of the document, "all notices, approvals and consents required or
permitted to be given hereunder, or which are given with respect to this agreement, shall be in
writing, did I read that right, Mr. Trell?
A. You read it correctly, yes.
Q. Now Sir, let's go to the next paragraph you would agree that all production costs are to be
mutually approved, correct?
A. Correct
Q. Now, does this paragraph require mutual approval of all production costs in excess of 7.5
million?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Do you have anything in writing for Mr. Jackson approving costs in addition toin excess of
7.5 million before his death?

A. Not before his death, no.

Q. Let's look at this now is this the written statement to you that Mr. Jackson told you that Mr.
Tohme was not authorized to represent him. Do you know what a revocation of a power of
attorney is, Sir?
A. Yes, I do
Q. Did you receive this from Michael Jackson revoking any power of attorney for Dr. Tohme?
A. Yes, I did
Q. All right.so that means that Mr. Tohme is not authorized to act under any power of attorney,
correct?
A. Correct, which means
Q. That's April 14th, 2009, correct?
A. This is a revocation of a power of attorney, which means Dr. Tohme no longer had the
authority to sign on behalf of these entities listed here.
Q. And Sir, did you know that Mr. Phillips had been meeting with Dr. Tohme recently?
A. No, Im not aware of that.
Q. Now Sir and I don't want to have to go back yet as of May 5th, you knew that there was
a writing for Mr. Jackson not authorizing Dr. Tohme to represent him. We went through that
yesterday or two days ago; I don't need to bring that back up, do I
A. If that's the date of that writing, then I accept that.
Q. Fair enoughthen Im going to go back now, with respect to Dr. Murray, you told us that for
him to get paid, there had to be a fully executed contract, right?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And you didn't have a fully executed written authorization for Mr. Jackson for AEG Live to
get paid back the expenses before he died, did you Sir?

A. No, not before he died.

Q. But after he died, you prepared the letter ... Oh strike that. Did you prepare a letter relating to
Mr. Jackson getting repaid, Sir?
A. I'm sorry?
Q I want to show this exhibit Im referring to the letter that you had Mr. Tohme sign; do you
remember that its to get back the money, a submission to the estate that says well, while
they are looking for it, let me show you another exhibit. Ill come back to that. We heard all
about this yesterday; let's look at the first page. This is what was submitted to the estate by Mr.
Webking July 17th, we talked about it yesterday, right?
A. Correct
Q. And what does it say is being submitted
A. Costs incurred and advances made
Q. Ok what does costs incurred mean
A. Costs incurred means those costs and expenses incurred
Q. Like you owe it. Yet there's a difference between something paid and something owed, isn't
there?
A. Advances, are a defined term under the tour agreement. Thats what the advances costs would
be, the production costs.
Q. And this next exhibit which you talked about yesterday. This is the document that you talked
about its footnote, right?
A. Right, the one where you just put the line item up onon Monday, right
Q. Right and show us wheres the footnotes is the fine print on that one?
A. Show you?

Q. Yes, the one related to Dr. Murray. Do you see it on your screen?
A. It's the line item that's highlighted; which one is that?
Q. No, No, No you told us yesterday that I didn't show you the footnote, do you remember
that?
A. Right, I just said that again, too
Q. Where is it, the footnote?
A. At the very bottom of the note
Q. Would you call that fine print?
A. Well, you just put the line item on the screen when we did the exhibit, Sir. You didn't put the
full page, so.
Q. Sir, is that fine print or not?
A. I don't know, its a footnote. Typically footnotes are of a smaller font than the balance of the
agreement. I don't know if it's fine or not.
Q. But in the front, it says costs incurred and you don't have to pay until there's a fully executed
contract, right?
A. We would not pay on an agreement unless there was an agreement, which means it's fully
executed.
Q. Well Sir, you had agreements that were signed after Mr. Jackson died, and you paid on those,
didn't you?
A. They were still in process of being negotiated, just like the one that's at issue in this case,
same with Michael Bearden and some others.
Q. They were all working, though, weren't they?
A. Michael Bearden was working on the tour project, yes.

Q. Ok lets look at something else this is the letter I was looking for; did you prepare that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And this is where, if we go downyou had Dr. Tohme approve all of those expenses that
were being sent to the estate, the 34 million and such, right?
A. Correct.
Q. After Mr. Jackson was dead?
A. That's right.
Q. Ok, so you didn't have anything in writing before this, did you, Sir, to approve those
expenses?
A. Nothing in writing, no.
Q. And you had nothing in writing signed by Mr. Jackson at any time to approve any of those
expenses, did you, Sir?
A. Not in writing, no.
Q. You told us also you had Mr. Dileo sign off on that, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Mr. Dileois he deceased?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. And you also had Mr. Dileo sign off on these expenses after Michael Jackson died, right?
A. Yes

Q. Oh, I wanted to go back to this budgetlet me show you this, Sir. I want to show you
another exhibit it was attached to that exhibit yesterday. It was just the last page of that and
that is an acknowledgement and authorization form for your company; is that right, Sir?
A. I believe it's an acknowledgement and authorization form that's part of that other document
that we were looking at yesterday.
Q. Right, and this is for your company, your company uses this, right?
A. Yes
Q. Ok and I showed the other documents yesterday, I don't need to get back into this. But this
is to authorize obtaining consumer reports, investigative reports, by the company at time after
receipt of this authorization, correct?
A. You've highlighted the words that I would answer the question with, throughout my
employment, so it's what you read through somebody's employment, which didn't exist here.
Q. Well Sir did you tell Mr. Taylor from the Robertson Taylor insurance company that AEG
Live employed Dr. Murray at the request of Michael Jackson?
A. I don't recall if I used those words. I certainly used the words at the request of Michael
Jackson, yes.
Q. No, No I'm asking you this question, specifically
A. Uh-huh
Q. Do you deny telling Mr. Taylor before Michael Jackson died that AEG Live employed Dr.
Murray at the request of Michael Jackson, yes or no?
A. I don't recall saying that to him
Q. Are you saying you didn't say that, or are you saying you don't know what you said?
A. I'm saying I don't know whether I said it and I certainly don't know why I would
Re-cross examination by Ms. Stebbins of Shawn Trell

Q. Mr. Trell, let's start where we left off. That form you were just looking at, that Mr. Panish put
up, is that a form that AEG Live uses for independent contractors?
A. No
Q. Is it a form that's ever given to independent contractors?
A. No
Q. Now, do you know whether California Law requires AEG Live to conduct background checks
on employees?
A. I'm not aware of any law requiring that, no
Q. What about on independent contractors; there a law that requires background checks on
independent contractors?
A. Not to my knowledge
Q. Does AEG Live to this day conduct background checks on independent contractors?
A. No
Q. And how many years have you worked in this
A. 13
Q. Have you ever conducted a background check on an independent contractor?
A. No
Q. And Mr. Panish asked you a number of questions earlier about the law. You talked about
independent contractor agreements there are things called indemnities and there are insurance
obligations. Do you recall that?
A. Yes

Q. What Mr. Panish asked you is one of those purposes one of the purposes of such provisions to
protect interests. Do you recall that?
A. Yes
Q. Are there any other purposes to provisions like that in an independent contractor agreement?
A. Well, I think when you have provisions like that in an agreement such as that, it gives a degree
of legitimacy to the engagement. The independent contractor showing you knowlegitimate and
real insurance coverage and of the types that are spelled out in there, and that they're
indemnifying us for their acts and willful misconduct means they're standing behind the
services that they're rendering. So I guess in my eyes you could have an independent contractor
agreement that, you know would pay you this for that, and that's all it would say; so it's putting
some substance and meaning into the agreement above and beyond that.
Q. And had the agreement between AEG Live and Dr. Murray and GCA been completed, what
would Dr. Murray have had to provide proof of, to AEG Live I guess what would he have had
to provide proof of?
A. The licenses that we discussed the other day, both here in the United States and then proof
that he was also duly authorized and able to render the services, capitals, that's defined in the
agreement over in the U.K.
Q. Do you know whether to get a medical license, you have to have some kind of background
check done?
Jacksons Objection: there's no foundation; overruled.
A. No, I don't know.
Q. Was there anything else that the agreement required Dr. Murray to provide in addition to
proof of being licensed?
A. He had to provide the proof of the insurance and that he was duly licensed both here in the
U.S. and in the U.K.
Q. And if Dr. Murray, if the agreement had been signed by AEG Live and by Michael Jackson
A. Right

Q. And then Dr. Murray had not provided those proofs, could he have been terminated under the
agreement?
A. He could have been, yes. That was one of the termination delineated listed provisions.
Q. So in order to keep working pursuant to the AEG Live/Dr. Murray GCA contract, Dr. Murray
would have had to provide these kinds of proofs that we're talking about?
A. Yes
Q. Now, let's stay on the draft Dr. Murray contract for a moment.
A. Ok
Q. I want to ask about a couple of provisions that I didn't ask about yesterday that Mr. Panish
asked about this morning and the first of these is paragraph 3.3. Mr. Trell, what do these
provisions relate to?
A. These provisions relate to the various items that Dr. Murray requested as part of this
agreement necessary for him to perform the services in London.
Q. In London?
A. Yes
Q. did Dr. Murray request these items for the United States?
A. No, they were intended for London.
Q. Did AEG Live ever provide any equipment to Dr. Murray?
A. No, no
Q. Never provided him any syringes?
A. No
Q. Or Band-Aids?

A. No
Q. C.P.R. machines?
A. No.
Q. Needles?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, two reasons Number 1, the agreement never came into effect, so there was no
obligation to do so. That would be first and foremost. And secondly, had the agreement come
into existence, these things would have been provided in London, as Ive said.
Q. And paragraph 3.4, what was the idea there, the approval by producer is simply to have a
check and balance as to the cost of that qualified medical assistant person
A. It wasn't an open-ended thing, as I stated, it would be at Michael Jacksons cost ultimately.
Q. So I guess to back up Dr. Murray request an assistant medical person?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And who was going to select that assistant medical person?
A. Dr. Murray.
Q. And did Dr. Murray ever select an assistant medical person?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did he ever come to AEG Live and say, Ive picked a person. I want you to pay for this
person?
A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Any idea why not?

Jacksons Objection: speculation, no foundation; sustained.
Q. But that never happened?
A. No
Jacksons Objection: asked and answered; overruled.
Q. Now, we've talked a lot today about contracts that were in various stages of execution at the
time Mr. Jackson passed away, and you've testified about some of those, like Mr. Bearden's. Can
you clarify to me what you recall happened to Mr. Bearden's contract, if you recall?
A. Well, my recollection is only due to the line item that I looked at earlier which indicated it
was still in negotiation.
Q. Did Mr. Bearden's contract require approval by Mr. Jackson before Mr. Bearden could be
paid?
A. No
Q. Did it have a clause like paragraph 9 in 5, that agreement we were just looking at?
Jacksons Objection: there's no foundation he's ever seen; sustained
Q. Have you seen an executed contract for Mr. Bearden?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Sorry, I didn't mean to create any confusion. Do you know when that agreement was
executed?
A. Well, I know my memory was refreshed today that it was still in negotiation at the time of his
death. I know it was executed, so that would mean it was executed sometime after June 25th.

Q. And did Mr. Bearden's contract have this provision in it?

A. No, it did not.
Q. Anything like this provision?
A. No.
Q. And I think you just told me it did not have a signature block for Mr. Jackson.
A. No, it did not.
Q. Let's turn quickly to paragraph 20. Do you remember this from this morning?
A. Yes
Q. Can you tell us what a provision like this means?
A. A counterpart provision just simply means all of the parties to an agreement don't have to sign
the same piece of paper; that is, each party can sign and fax, like Dr. Murray did in this particular
case. But it has no bearing on whether it's fully executedthis provision has no bearing on
whether an agreement is considered fully executed. It just means the parties don't have to sign
the same piece of paper.
Q. So if I understand you correctly, AEG Live could have signed a different piece of paper than
Dr. Murray?
A. Correct
Q. And Michael Jackson could have signed a different piece of paper than AEG Live and Dr.
Murray?
A. Different signature page, yes, correct
Q. Did you still need all three signatures?
A. Yes

Jacksons objection: vague.

Q. In order to have a fully executed agreement, did you still need three signatures?
A. Yes
Q. Let's talk a little bit about what Mr. Panish asked you about contracts, and about oral contracts
and contracts created by conduct. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it your understanding that there can be oral contracts between two parties?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your understanding that parties negotiate before entering into contracts?
A. Yes
Q. Does the fact that they're negotiating mean that there's a contract?
A. No, they're just that, negotiations.
Q. And does it happen sometimes that you negotiate and then no contract comes out of it?
A. Sure
Q. Do you have any understanding whether the parties agree that a contract has to be in writing,
whether it's valid and if it's not in writing?
Jacksons Objection: it's calling for expert opinion on that issue; overruledyou may
answer.
A. Would you ask the question again, please?

Q. Yes, is it youre understandingthe parties agree that they only have an agreement if it's in
writing.
A. Right.
Q. Does the agreement have to be in writing to?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. So if they have that agreement, then it's part of their agreement?
Jacksons Objection: leading; sustained.
Q. Let's talk a minute about the contract between AEG Live and Michael Jackson. When did you
start negotiating for that?
A. I would guess put that probably late November early December
Q. And this is back in November of 2008
A. I'm sorry. 2008, yes.
Q. Back in November of 2008, you contacted Mr. Taylor; is that correct?
A. I believe I contacted him in November of 2008, right.
Q. And was that to obtain cancellation insurance for the Michael Jackson This Is It tour?
A. Right, for that intended purpose, right.
Q. And then in January 2009, before the contract with Mr. Jackson was executed, were you still
working on the insurance matters?
A. Yes
Q. And what about Mr. Jacksons side of the table, Mr. Hawk and Dr. Tohmewere they
involved in that?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. If I recall correctly, you testified yesterday that the insurance physical with Dr. Slavit was
actually scheduled before the contract with Mr. Jackson was executed.
A. That's my recollection, yes.
Q. So did that mean that you had a contract with Mr. Jackson?
A. No, we didn't.
Jacksons Objection.
Q. When did you have a contract with Mr. Jackson?
A. As of January 28
th

Q. And if Mr. Jackson had walked into the room on January 28th, 2009, and said, you know
what, I changed my mind. Im not signing thiswould you have had an agreement?
A. No
Q. Now, Mr. Panish asked you about whether the draft agreement between AEG Live and Dr.
Murray had been sent to Mr. Jackson. Do you recall that?
A. Im sorry. The draft agreement we're now on Murray?
Q. Yes, going back to Murray do you know or would you know if Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson
discussed the contract?
A. I would have no idea whether they did or they didn't
Q. Do you know whether or not Mr. Jackson had once the contract had been sent to him,
would have signed it or had comments to it?
A. No, I have no idea what would have happened. A number of things, you know could have
happened at that juncture.

Q. You were also asked earlier about whether or not Dr. Murray had an attorney review the
contract. Do you know whether he did or didn't?
A. I know Murray himself referenced that in one of the e-mails that we've looked at here in the
past couple of days. I don't know whether Murray utilized the services of an attorney or not. Im
not aware of any contact to meI know I didn't receive any contact and Im not aware that
Kathy Jorrie did either, from a lawyer for Dr. Murray
Q. But you don't know whether or not Dr. Murray showed the contract to an attorney?
A. Right, I don't know if he utilized the services of a lawyer and then provided the comments on
his own.
Q. Do you know whether he provided comments to the contract?
A. Oh, I know that he did, yes
Q. Now, Mr. Panish asked you this morning about the idea of mistakes in contracts
A. Right, right
Q. And does it happen sometimes that there's a drafting mistake in a contract?
A. Sure
Q. Is it common?
A. I don't know how common it is. It happens sometimes.
Q. Do you have an idea of how many contracts were done for the This Is It tour?
A. Dozens and dozens. I don't know that Id want to venture a guess as to how many. Id say
north of 50
Jacksons Objections: Move to strike, there's no foundation, speculation; overruled.

Q. Mr. Panish asked you about this idea of mistakes in contracts and what happens. Do you have
an understanding of whether if two parties agree and then there's a drafting mistake so that the
document doesn't reflect their agreement whether the drafting mistake controls or the
agreement controls?
Jacksons Objection: Expert opinion. I asked about ambiguities, and he didn't know the
answer in California, so I object it calls for an expert opinion. Overruled, you may answer
Q. Mr. Trell, if there's a drafting mistake, but both parties know what the intent is, which controls
in how the agreement is enforced?
A. While it is true that a mistake would be construed against the drafter, what would be of more
importance there in that analysis is the intent of the parties.
Q. And if Dr. Murray and AEG Live agreed on the provision's intent, would it matter whether
there was a drafting mistake?
A. No
Q. Let's go back to the Jackson/AEG contract. Im jumping contracts a little bit on you here.
Look at paragraph 3 on pages 150 and 151. Mr. Trell, can you tell me what this provision is
about?
A. The subject heading of the provision is the itinerary of shows. So it's dealing with various
aspects associated with where, when, how frequent, etc the shows would occur.
Q. And is this the itinerary for This Is It
A. Yes
Q. And can you read the first clause to me?
A. I'm sorry read the first part?
Q. Yesthe first half sentence, I guess.
A. It's kind of a long sentence, so I thought Id go up to the semicolon, ArtistCo and promoter
shall reasonably cooperate with each other in an effort to arrive at a mutually approved. In an
effort to arrive at mutually approved itineraries for each leg of shows during the term.

Q. Now can you jump down a couple of lines to where it says, artist hereby preapproves. Can
you read that sentence?
A. ArtistCo hereby preapproves up to 31 shows."
Q. Keep going
A. Or such other greater number as agreed by ArtistCo and promoter at the 02 arena in London,
England, between July 26th and September 30th, 2009.
Q. So did this agreement contemplate only 31 shows?
A. No, it contemplated 31 or such greater number as the parties would otherwise agree.
Q. And do you have an understanding on whether the parties agreed on a greater number?
A. Absolutely, as I understand that the parties agreed to go to 50
Q. Let's go to paragraph 8.2; let's go to the one Mr. Panish talked with you about Mr. Trell, do
you recall Mr. Panish asking you about this provision?
A. Yes
Q. And what does this provision deal with?
A. It's setting forth the various things that are included in the definition of production costs.
Q. And can you just read that first clause up to the colon for me.
A. Means the following costs to the extent they relate to shows and are mutually approved.
Q. Now, is it your understanding that under this agreement that let's look at what some of these
costs are.
A. Okay

Q. Sound and lights?

A. Yes
Q. Rigging motors?
A. Yes.
Q. Staging elements?
A. Yes.
Q. Video?
A. Right.
Q. Photos?
A. Right.
Q. Musical instruments?
A. Right.
Q. Food?
A. Right.
Q. Is it your understanding that any time anyone bought any of those items for the This Is It tour,
they had to go track down Mr. Jackson and get his signature?
A. No, it would be impractical. I mean, the mounting of a tour, especially one such as this, is a
major undertaking. It would be administratively cumbersome to try to do that with each and
every new expense.
Q. Is it your understanding that the approval process was more informal?
Jacksons Objections; leading and suggestive of the answer; overruled.

A. Yeah, there was an ongoing dialogue, if you will, regarding ongoing and continued approvals
for the development, the mounting, of the tour.
Q. Now, we've talked a lot about an agreement between AEG Live and Dr. Tohme Tohme after
Mr. Jackson passed, approving some of these costs. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. Now at the end of the day did that agreement have any force and effect as to whether or not
you were able to get costs from the estate of Michael Jackson?
A. No, Noas I testified previously, the complete audit was submitted to the estate for their
review, and subsequently confirmed by the estate
Q. Then why get it?
A. Well, at the time, you know, the production had developed to where it was, and we got the
signed writing from the two managers of the artist at issue during the period of time in which we
were involved with them.
Q. Mr. Trell, you said you got Mr. Jacksons two managers?
A. That's correct.
Q. So who was the other one?
A. Frank Dileo.
Q. And why did you get Mr. Dileos signature?
A. As I said, he was representing Michael in some capacity during the period of time in which
we were involved with Michael and the tour.
Q. And the document in front of you, does that relate to that?
A. That's the document, correct.
Q. Were you involved in preparing that with Mr. Dileo?

A. I actually wasn't involved in preparing this document, no.

Q. Did you review it in the course of your work for AEG Live?
A. Yes
Q. Is this the statement of Mr. Dileo that you were talking about?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you testified earlier that Mr. Jackson had two managers over this time period.
A. Yes, Dr. Tohme Tohme initially. Mr. Dileo then came into the picture or Michaels life in
some capacity. Then it was my understanding Dr. Tohme Tohme later came back into Michaels
life in some capacity.
Q. And in this first paragraph, does Mr. Dileo represent how long he was engaged as Mr.
Jacksons manager?
A. From approximately march until the date of Mr. Jacksons death.
Q. And does he say anything in this document about whether or not he was involved with Mr.
Jackson in preparing for the This Is it tour?
A. He says a lot of things here; but he says he had regular contact directly with Michael Jackson
about matters related to the concerts at the 02 arena and the preparation for such concerts.
Q. Can we go down to paragraph 4, does it say whether Mr. Jackson whether Mr. Dileo
worked with Mr. Jackson to approve the budget?
A. Yes.
Q. The first sentence of that paragraph reads, Michael Jackson not only approved the attached
budget of expenses, and he requested AEG Live to incur such costs to produce the type of show
that Michael Jackson said he wanted. And is that consistent with your understanding?
A. Absolutely.

Q. Does this paragraph say anything about the retention of Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, it does, about right at the middle of the paragraph, the sentence that starts with,
throughout
Q. What does it say?
A. Mr. Dileo says, throughout the process of producing the show, Michael Jackson had many
requests of AEG Live, and he acknowledged that he would be responsible for the costs
associated with such requests. For instance, Michael Jackson asked AEG Live, as the producer of
the show, to retain the services of Dr. Conrad Murray, who Michael said was his personal
physician.
Q. And can you go down to the bottom of that pagedid Mr. Dileo sign this document?
A. Mr. Dileo, under a paragraph that reads, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein,
and if required to do so, I would and could testify competently to the same. I declare under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, the United States of America, and any
other applicable laws, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of July,
2009, in Los Angeles, California, Frank Dileo.
Q. Mr. Trell, what was your understanding of Mr. Dileos role in this time period?
A. That he was acting in a management capacity with or some capacity in connection with the
overall management of Michael Jackson.
Q. Did anyone connected with Mr. Jackson ever tell you, as an officer of AEG Live, that Mr.
Jackson had not approved any of the costs for the This Is It tour?
A. No
Q. We talked a little bit this morning about the idea of conflict of interest. Do you recall that?
A. Yes
Q. And you testified that you didn't understand there to be a conflict of interest between ... In
connection with the Dr. Murray draft agreement.
A. Right, correct.

Q. Can you explain to me why not?

A. Id be happy to. I don't feel there was a conflict of interest, as was previously being
questioned about, for two reasons. Principally, the interest of all three parties involved that is,
Michael Jackson, AEG Live, and Conrad Murray were the same; that is, Michaels health, and
good health. So there wasn't an inconsistency, an agenda that existed there between any of the
three parties. Secondly, as between the three parties, the fact is had the agreement been entered
into, it was effectively Michael Jackson paying Conrad Murray his fee, just using our money to
do so.
Q. You were asked this morning actually, about both those issues. You say it was AEG Lives
interest for Michael Jackson to be healthy.
A. Of course.
Q. Why is that? I mean, didn't you just want to get him to rehearsal so he could take the stage
the first date at the 02?
A. We had entered into a multifaceted multi-year agreement with Michael Jackson, and wanted
nothing other than for what came out of that to be successful for all involved.
Q. And if Mr. Jackson got to the stage and then got sick, would that have been good or bad for
AEG Live?
A. Well, I mean, if the tour had been postponed, or even cancelled, I mean, that's certainly not a
great result, but it's not a terrible result. If it was postponed or cancelled, it could always be
rescheduled when time and circumstances were right.
Q. Now, you testified a moment ago that, as you understood the Dr. Murray agreement, it would
have been, had it been executed, AEG Live or Michael Jackson, essentially, paying Dr. Murray.
And that's something Mr. Panish asked you about this morning and said couldn't you have asked
Mr. Jackson to pay his own doctor directly. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And he also asked couldn't you have given Mr. Jackson the money to pay Dr. Murray. Do you
recall that?
A. Yes.

Q. In your mind, is there any difference between the agreement that was contemplated and that
second hypothetical, giving Mr. Jackson the money to pay Dr. Murray?
A. No, that's what I was just saying. Effectively, that's what was happening.
Q. And why is that?
A. Because those payments were advances to Michael Jackson, and would have been recouped,
paid back by the Michael Jackson Company accordingly.
Q. Now, AEG Live had advanced a lot of money to Mr. Jackson, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is $34 million advanced to Mr. Jackson the largest amount that AEG Live has ever been on
the hook for paying an artist?
A. No.
Q. Have there been larger amounts?
A. We have had tours that we have done with various artists that have had guaranteed financial
commitments of that are nine digits, meaning $100 million or more.
Q. And those agreements also present a risk to AEG Live, don't they?
A. Yeah, we in the agreements that Im referring to, we would be at risk for that sum whether
one ticket was sold for the entire tour or every ticket was sold for the entire tour. That's the risk
that a promoter takes.
Q. And in those instances, is it something that AEG Live has insured, that whole 100 million?
A. No, no, no. No. We would insure the advances and our advances made to the artist and, I
think as I explained, we would also insure for nonappearance our out-of-pocket costs like
marketing, road costs and some venue-associated costs.
Q. But you would take the risk of whether the show actually sold the tickets?

A. Yes, absolutely that's the risk that a promoter takes. That's the concert promotion business.
Q. And if something had gone awry with this agreement if Mr. Jackson had not performed as
planned who would have been on the hook for the $34 million in production advances?
A. Well, the Michael Jackson Company would have, in the first instance, been responsible for the
repayment of that amount of money. If they were not able to repay the amount of money,
Michael Jackson guaranteed the obligations of the Michael Jackson Company, so Michael
Jackson would be obligated to repay the money.
Q. Did that mean he could just go start collecting Mr. Jackson's assets and selling them off like a
fire sale?
A. No.
Q. Explain to me how it would work
A. Yeah, because there's this whole notion thus far that we could just take his music catalog, for
example. That's not the case. What we would have had a right to was if he got any royalties or if
there was a revenue stream thrown off by his catalog, we would have had a right to that revenue
stream to pay down the amounts that he owed to us. But we could not take an interest a
percentage interest, whatever is meant by that, in his music or publishing catalog.
Q. And would you ever have a right to anything more than what Mr. Jackson and his company
owed you under the agreement?
A. No.
BREAK
Q. Mr. Trell, before we continue, we're going to have played a portion of your deposition that
relates to the portion that was shown this morning.
A. Ok
Q. Mr. Trell, I have just a few follow-up questions. You had testified earlier that AEG Live
sometimes it supervises independent contractors, broadly speaking, depending on the

circumstances. What about when an artist is engaged; sorry.when an independent contractor is

engaged for a personal service to the artist like hair or makeup. Do you supervise those people?
A. No.
Q. So when you're talking about supervision, it was not people who provide personal services to
artists?
A. No, Im talking about the tour production generally, the what you see onstage aspects of
that tour production.
Q. So would you supervise someone's makeup artist?
A. No, of course not.
Q. Mr. Trell, we had a lot of questions earlier about your role as person most qualified relating to
Mr. Jacksons physical appearance at rehearsals. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall being asked about some e-mails by various people relating to Mr. Jackson's
physical appearance at rehearsals?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you also recall being asked about your role as person most qualified regarding the
interactions between AEG Live and Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall being asked about conversations that took place a telephone conversation that
took place between Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to first ask about one of the exhibits. It's the one by Mr. Hougdahl. You know what
Im going to ask you about something else while I look for that e-mail.
A. All right.

Q. On Mr. Hougdahl e-mail. Obviously, you were shown this e-mail a few moments ago, and
you said you hadn't seen it before.
A. That's correct, right.
Q. Does Mr. Hougdahl mention any concerns about Mr. Jackson abusing medication?
A. No.
Q. Does he mention any concerns about him having trouble sleeping?
A. No.
Q. Anything about anesthesia?
A, no.
Q. Any suspicions about Mr. Jackson's doctors?
A. No.
Q. What is his suggestion for Mr. Jackson?
A. Something having to do with him being mentally prepared.
Q. And?
A. And getting a trainer to get him in physical shape.
Q. Thanks. That's all I wanted on that one. All right... And you were asked about conversations
between Dr. Murray, Randy Phillips, and so on and so forth.
A. Right.
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Phillips in your role as person most qualified about his discussions with
Dr. Conrad Murray?

A. No.
Q. I talked with him about the meetings that they attended.
A. Well, I asked him about the discussions, he told me about the meetings.
Q. And that was two meetings?
A. Right. The one on the 20th; and then a second one, although earlier in time, sometime in early
June, is my understanding. I'm not sure of the specific date.
Q. And is it your understanding, based on your conversations with Mr. Phillips, whether Mr.
Jackson was present for those meetings?
Jackson Objections: excuse me, your honor, I didn't ask about this beyond the scope;
overruled.
A. Yes, it's my understanding, Mr. Jackson was at both meetings.
Q. And you were asked earlier about the HIPAA law. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your understanding of what that law is, if you have one?
A. Its intent is to protect patient information, as a general matter.
Q. Is that something you deal with in your role as general counsel at AEG Live?
A. No.
Q. So would you say your understanding of it is pretty general?
A. Very general.

Q. Are you aware of any law that prevents a person from expressing concerns about a patient to
that patient's doctor?
A. Could you ask that again, please?
Q. Sure, are you aware of any law that prevents one person from calling a patient's doctor and
expressing concerns about that person's wellbeing?
A. No.
Jacksons Objection: there's no foundation; overruled.
Q. Are you aware of any law that prevents a person, let's say a concert promoter from
inquiring whether there are any steps that they can take to help a person?
A. No.
Q. You testified earlier that whether or not a communication between a person's doctor and an
outsider was appropriate or inappropriate you thought would depend on the circumstances.
A. Right.
Q. Did Mr. Phillips ever give you any indication that he discussed Dr. Conrad Murray's treatment
of Michael Jackson with Dr. Murray?
A. No, not at all.
Q. All right. You were also asked a few moments ago about the testimony in this courtroom
from a couple of weeks ago about Ms. Alif Sankey and Ms. Karen Faye. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall whether Ms. Sankey testified whether she had spoken to either Mr. Phillips
or Mr. Gongaware about her concerns about Mr. Jackson?
Jacksons objection: the jury heard the testimony; overruled.

A. Could you ask it again, Im sorry?

Q. Sure, do you recall whether Ms. Sankey testified that she spoke to either Mr. Phillips or Mr.
Gongaware about her concerns?
A. I don't recall her testifying that she spoke to anybody at AEG, no.
Q. And do you recall whether she was expressing those concerns about Mr. Jackson's appearance
on June 19th, or some other night, or more broadly?
A. I think it stemmed from the 19th, if I recall correctly.
Q. Do you recall Ms. Faye testifying whether she ever spoke to Mr. Phillips or Mr. Gongaware
about Mr. Jackson's condition?
A. I recall her testimony being the same that she did not speak with anybody at AEG about that.
Q. Now, Mr. Panish asked you a few moments ago didn't Ms. Sankey and Ms. Faye express
concern that Mr. Jackson was going to die. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they express concern, to your understanding, that Mr. Jackson's doctor was giving him
propofol in his bedroom at night?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson, to your knowledge, die of being too thin?
A. No.
Q. Were you here when the coroner testified that Mr. Jackson's weight was not underweight?
A. I was actually not here for that portion of the testimony.
Q. All rightnever mind, then. Did Mr. Jackson, to your understanding, die from being sick?

A. No.
Q. Now, we heard earlier were you here for the testimony of detective Martinez about the
medical supplies found in Mr. Jackson's bedroom?
A. Yes, I was.
Jacksons Objection: your honor, this is all beyond the scope of what I asked this witness;
overruled.
Q. Did AEG Live provide any of those medical supplies?
A. No.
Q. Did AEG Live provide any medical supplies ever to Mr. Jackson or Dr. Murray?
A. No.
Q. Did they ever pay for any drugs for Mr. Jackson?
A. No.
Q. In all of the e-mails that we've seen that Mr. Panish has put in front of you, did you ever see
anyone express any concern that Dr. Murray was not a good doctor or was not treating Mr.
Jackson well?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see anyone express concerns that Mr. Jackson was receiving propofol?
A. No, never heard the word until after his death.
Q. And what is your understanding of what Mr. Jackson died of?
Jacksons objection: asked and answered, beyond the scope; overruled.

A. I believe it was acute propofol intoxication.

Q. By Ms. Stebbins: administered by whom?
A. Dr. Conrad Murray.
Q. And where?
A. Michael Jackson's bedroom.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you. Nothing further.
Further redirect examination by Mr. Panish
Q. Were you aware that after Michael Jackson died, AEG Live paid Frank Dileo $5 million?
A. No, Im not aware.
Q. Ok, did you approve Mr. Dileo to get paid money after Michael Jackson died, Sir?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Ok well, let's take a look, Sir and that's something you would recall if you were approving
sums of money to be paid to Mr. Dileo; isn't that true, Sir?
A. Sums of money you're talking about $5 million?
Q. Let's start with any money, Sir.
A. Don't recall any money beingme being involved in approving the payment of any money to
Frank Dileo.
Q. Well, let's first talk about did you know that AEG paid money to Frank Dileo after Michael
Jackson died, yes or no?
A. No.

Q. Ok, so let's start with another exhibitOk now, this is a string of e-mails, Sir. Do you see
that?
A. Am I going all the way to the back?
Q. Well, let's just start right here.
A. Ok its a string of e-mails, yes.
Q. Ok now, first, this is talking about... This is an e-mail to you, and this is on the fourth page.
Do you see that, Sir?
A. Right here.
Q. Shawn Trell, is that you?
A. Yes, Im on this string, so...
Q. Ok so, let's put that up first. Let's start with that. Actually, it's a whole long string, let's start
there. Can you read it now?
A. Yes.
Q. Seen that before, is your name on there, Sir Shawn Trell?
A. On these two.
Q. Let's put these first two up. Actually, you're on the first three, at least. Because you're on this
one, too, right? One, two, three ... Ok so here's one that says, forward Frank Dileo expenses
revised, rightthat's sent to you?
A. Right, in October.
Q. Two months after Michael Jackson died ... Or, actually, four months, right?
A. Four months, yes.
Q. And then it says, approved 5 million bucket, right?

A. Yes.
Q. And then it says, above that, someone needs to generate a check request with a full
explanation of what this payment is for. Randy and Shawn can sign off, and it can be charged to
additional motion picture expenses.
A. Yes
Q. Do you see that?
A. That's an e-mail from rick Webking to me, right.
Q. Did you sign off and approve any expenses for Mr. Dileo to be paid after Mr. Jackson died,
yes or no?
A. This looks like a $50,000 payment was made to Frank Dileo in connection with the motion
picture.
Q. Ok well, let's start with that. So after Mr. Dileo signed exhibit ... Let's put that up now ... Im
going to be all messed up here, but ... What would that be called after Mr. Jackson died, after
you got Mr. Dileo to sign, then AEG paid money to Mr. Dileo, right?
A. Correct
Q. Did you go to Mr. Dileo ... AEG Live, and get him to sign this document?
A. Yes
Q. Can we put that up, Sir I believe Frank volunteered to sign it, and if he didn't sign, he
wouldn't get paid any money by AEG, would he, Sir?
A. No, I don't think that's the case.
Q. Ok Sir, is Mr. Dileo's money included in what was submitted ... Did AEG submit this, Sir?
A. Well, if I have an opportunity to answer this question fully...
Judge: Ok, answer it fully.

A. The $50,000 payment to Frank would have had to do with something, it's not clear to me,
related to the motion picture. And the reference to the $5 million bucket is an agreement as
between AEG and the estate regarding additional motion picture expense ... Like a contingency.
You know, we had a bucket to deal with additional expenses incurred as the film was produced,
so that's ... When it says $5 million bucket, it means it's to be accounted for in that bucket. It
does not mean Frank was paid $5 million.
Mr. Panish: I didn't say that, Sir.
A. I think you did say $5 million when you started out this whole thing. So that's what that
pertains to. I don't ... From this e-mail chain, I don't know what specifically it was that Frank did
for the $50,000 payment, so that means the ultimate submission to the estate for approval for all
expenses incurred from the This Is It tour all the way through the This Is It movie would have
included this $50,000 payment and would have received the estate's approval, as well.
Q. Ok well, first of all, let's put up that exhibit and that also included, did it not, under number
430, the money for Dr. Murray that he said he was retained, and that was submitted by your
company to the estate for approval, correct?
AEG Objections: objection, mischaracterizes the evidence.
A. Could you ask the question again, please?
Q. Sure. We got paragraph 4, you kind of went over that a little bit earlier, about Mr. Jackson
asking AEG to retain Dr. Murray, right?
A. Sure, yes.
Q. And you don't need a written contract fully executed to retain or hire someone to work for
AEG Live, do you?
A. Again, there are employees that work for the company that do not have agreements. There are
employees that will. There are a couple of people that were on the tour that as of the time of
Michaels death, their contracts were still in negotiation.
Q. Right. So they were working for AEG Live as independent contractors without fully executed
contracts, on the tour, correct
A. Tour people, yes.

Q. And Dr. Murray was asked to be hired, and his expense was submitted with this Frank Dileo
declaration, wasn't it, Sir?
A. Well, if this ... This declaration probably ... Well, I don't know what was attached to this. I
assume it's the same one that was attached to the Tohme one.
Q. Well, wait a minute. You do or you don't know?
A. Ok, I don't know specifically without seeing it...
Q. All right. Lets see ... What budget was attached to the Frank Dileo declaration. These are the
exhibits that your counsel provided to us for you. Do you see that, Sir?
A. Ok, does that one have a footnote on it, I don't ... I don't see anything on this page that we're
looking at, no.
Q. Ok and this is what was submitted four months ... Wait a minute ... Three to four months after
Michael Jackson died, right?
A. I'm not familiar with this document. I haven't seen this particular document that you have on
the screen, no.
Q. Didn't you just testify all about Mr. Dileo's declaration, and told us all about it, and what he
meant, and all his understandingswere you not familiar with that, Sir?
A. I actually testified that I didn't draft that document, and I was asked to read portions of it into
the record, and that's what I did.
Q. Mr. Dileo, who you say was authorized to approve things ... You say he was authorized by
Michael Jackson to approve things, right?
A. That was my understanding.
Q. And he approved the Dr. Murray expense, didn't he, Sir?
A. If this was contained in the attachment at this time, that's what Frank was signing off on
behalf of Michael Jackson.
Q. Right, just like you had Dr. Tohme sign off on behalf of Mr. Jackson, right?
A. Correct.

Q. And Dr. Tohme approved the payment and submitted it to the estate, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And, Sir under Mr. Jackson's contract, which I hate to do this ... Let me just try to do it
without showing it. Ok now, in this part of the contract, it says all notices ... Does it say ... Does
it say some notices, ones that are verbal, does it ever say that, Sir?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. All notices, approvals and consent required or permitted to be given hereunder or which are
given with respect to this agreement shall be in writing, did I read that correctly, Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Jackson, he was the sole officer of the Michael Jackson Company, correct?
A. That was my understanding as of the date this agreement was entered into.
Q. And you told us that there was a verbal agreement to extend it to 50 shows, right?
A. Yes, there was a mutual understanding to go to 50, yes.
Q. And the contract requires any notice or approvals or consents to be in writing, correct?
A. That's what this provision says, yes.
Q. And, Sir for Mr. Jackson's expenses and production, you had Mr. Tohme and Mr. Dileo sign
after Mr. Jackson was dead, right?
A. Right.
Q. And you had no signature before Mr. Jackson was dead, did you?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, Sir ... So AEG took the position that somebody could sign that was authorized by Mr.
Jackson after the fact, correct?

A. We took the position that his management could sign on his behalf in that regard, all of it
rendered moot by the estate ultimately signing off on it anyway. The estate is Michael Jackson,
so Im not sure I understand your question.
Q. Because you don't want to answer it. I know let me say it again.
A. I am answering it.
Q. Isn't it true that AEG took the position to satisfy the contract that Dileo and Tohme could sign
after Mr. Jackson was dead, yes or no?
A. Yes, they signed off on it.
Q. And isn't it true that Tohme and Dileo signed off on Dr. Murray after Mr. Jackson was dead?
A. It was included in that version of the expenses at that time, yes.
Q. And they got paid, Dileo and Tohme, after they signed to submit the ... The documents,
correct?
A. I'm not aware of any payments to Dr. Tohme; and Im only aware of this $50,000 payment to
Frank in connection with the film, as I just described.
Q. Well, Mr. Jackson never had a signed agreement with Mr. Dileo, did he, Sir?
A. I don't know what agreement he had with Mr. Dileo. I wouldn't be privy to something like
that.
Ms. Stebbins: Im going to show you an exhibit it starts at page 3, and it goes all the way
up ... That's an agreement, unsigned, between Mr. Dileo and Mr. Jackson, dated June 5th,
2009.
AEG objection, I would like to see the document before the witness is shown it, and I
would like a foundation to be laid before Mr. Panish reads it out loud. Judge: agreed. Mr.
Panish: Ok go ahead, look at it.
Q. You've never seen any written agreement between Mr. Dileo and Mr. Jackson authorizing him
to act as his manager, did you, Sir?
A. No.

Q. Ok, I want to show you this June 5

th
document. Take a look at it and tell me have you ever
seen that document, Sir?
A. No, I have not.
Q. You haven't looked at it yet?
A. I haven't seen any representation agreement between anybody and Michael Jackson. That's
his business.
Q. Ok well, you would expect Mr. Dileo to have a copy of any agreement, wouldn't you, Sir?
A. It is not uncommon at all in this industry for people to have agent-type agreements,
management-type agreements, without written ... Without a written contract, so ... That's not
uncommon on the agency or manager side of the artist business.
Q. That wasn't my question, Sir.
A. But that was my answer to your question.
Mr. Panish: I know. Why don't you try answering the question now? Judge: Mr. Panish ...
Lets go to sidebar for a minute. Mr. Panish: Im sorry.
Sidebar
Q. Sir, my question is, would you expect Mr. Dileo to have a copy of any agreement between
him and Mr. Jackson if such an agreement existed?
A. I don't have an expectation of what Mr. Dileo would have in his ... In his business affairs.
Q. So the answer is you don't know?
A. I don't know how Mr. Dileo conducted his business activities.
Q. And you haven't seen any written agreement between him and Mr. Jackson, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, Sir Ms. Sankey, she worked for AEG live, didn't she?
A. No, she didn't.

Q. Have you seen her contract?

A. She was an independent contractor.
Q. Well, Sir, who was her contract with?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, have you seen ... Have you seen Mr. Bearden's contract?
A. I have seen Mr. Beardens...
Q. Who was his contract between?
A. I don't recall. Either AEG Live or AEG Live productions, I would presume.
Q. Right so Ms. Sankey had a contract ... Strike ... Mr. Bearden had a contract between AEG
Live or AEG Productions and himself, right?
A. All independent contractors had an agreement between those entities and themselves.
Q. And AEG Live pays them, right?
A. Right, independent contractors, they get paid by AEG Live, correct.
Q. Now, Sir Mr. Ortega was being paid by AEG Live, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in the contract ... And Im not going to put it back up ... Does it say anywhere where the
equipment for Dr. Murray was to be used only in London?
A. No
Q. In the Murray contract?
A. Yes, it does not specify London in the contract,
Q. It doesn't say anywhere that the assistant he had would be an independent contractor in there,
does it, Sir?
A. No, it doesn't say that.

Q. Ok the biggest asset for the This Is tour was Michael Jackson, correct?
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. The biggest asset?
A. Of course Michael Jackson was necessary for the Michael Jackson tour. Of course.
Q. Ok tell me, of all the people that were on the This Is It tour, was there anyone that if they
weren't there, the tour couldn't go?
A. Of course not. It's his show, it's the Michael Jackson show. He's the most important person.
Q. Thank you.
A. You're welcome.
Q. Now the law doesn't say that AEG has to check out its independent contractors, does it, Sir?
A. Can you say it again, please?
Q. Sure, the law doesn't say that AEG has no obligation to check out its independent contractors,
does it, Sir?
A. Ok
Q. The law doesn't say there's no obligation. Do you agree with me on that?
A. Yes.
Q. Ok and you told us about all the contracts that were in the tour, and I think you estimated
dozens. I'm just trying to summarizesomething like that, right?
A. Uh - huh
Q. How many of them were for 150,000 a month?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Can you think of anyone other than Dr. Murray that was going to get paid, according to the
contract, 150,000 a month?
A. I don't recall anybody else at that monthly rate.
Q. Can you recall anyone at 100,000?

A. Over the ... The term of the agreement, there were some that were ... There was a significant
amount of compensation. I don't recall specifically what it would break down to monthly.
Q. Now, let's talk about contracts. You told us all about how to have a contract and different
parts of contracts and testified all about that, right?
AEG Objection; vague; overruled.
Q. Is that right, Sir?
A. I don't understand the question. I know what was intended with respect to this contract.
Q. Ok well ... So you can't tell us about what general contract law is, then, Sir?
A. I can speak to that.
Q. Ok Mr. Phillips was told that Mr. Jackson was deteriorating in front of Bugz Hougdahl's eyes
for eight weeks, right?
A. That's what that e-mail from Bugz indicated, yes.
Q. And you've seen other e-mails ... Or have you seen e-mails where anyone told an AEG
employee to get rid of certain video that showed Michael Jackson looking too thin and skeletal?
AEG Objection: objection; beyond the scope of redirect; overruled
A. The answer is no, I haven't seen the e-mail.
Q. And when Mr. Phillips had that 20-minute conversation with Mr. ... Dr. Murray, was Michael
Jackson on the phone?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did Randy Phillips ever call your doctor to see how you were doing?
A. No.
Q. Was it common for AEG to make mistakes in contracts that went through multiple drafts?
A. No, I wouldn't say that was common.

Q. Was it common for AEG to make mistakes on contracts that paid 150,000 a month?
A. No.
Q. Was it common for AEG to have made mistakes on budget items for $150,000 a month?
A. Im not aware what you mean, mistakes on budget items.
Q. You told us that Mr. Webking made mistakes in his budget. Do you remember that, Sir?
A. Before I had the benefit of all the applicable information to that line item, that's what I said. I
then corrected that that Mr. Webking was just being over-inclusive in his report to the estate, had
a footnote to what that line item pertained to, and that line item was subsequently removed.
Q. So you're changing your testimony, you're saying Mr. Webking made no mistakes; is that
right?
A. When I was first questioned by you, and you threw the line item ... Just the line item up there,
my testimony was that must be a mistake. I had no explanation for why that would have been
included when I was first questioned by Ms. Stebbins and shown the footnote qualifying the
inclusion of that line item, I had a different feeling about why it was included.
Q. Was it common for him to have budgets on two separates months with mistakes like that?
A. It was the same ... It was the July 17
th
budget that was submitted to the estate that we were
talking about.
Q. Was it common for Mr. Woolley to make mistakes as to where budget items were placed?
A. I ... I can't speak to Mr. Woolley, but...
Q. Ok have you ever seen another mistake that you've claimed that Mr. Woolley made where he
put medical costs in production costs?
A. So now we're talking about a different budget, not Webking but Woolley, right.
Q. Do you want me to repeat the question?
A. Yes.
Q. Timm Woolley, do you know him?

A. Yes.
Q. Your authorized agent, right independent contractor, yes. Was it common for Mr. Woolley
to make mistakes when ... As the former CFO where he categorized production expenses?
A. I can't speak to whether it's common or not.
Q. Have you ever seen one where he made a mistake of $300,000 before?
A. Im not typically reviewing budgets, Sir.
Q. Well, you told us whenever there's a mistake or a question, they come to you, right?
A. If there was a question about where an expense should ... How an expense should be
categorized arising out of the underlying agreement related to it, they would come to me.
Q. Has anyone ever come to you with a mistake or question about something Mr. Woolley did in
a budget?
A. Yeah, Mr. Webking asked me about the line ... The line item in question.
Q. Ok way after Michael Jackson died?
A. I don't recall when.