JACKSON V AEGLive May 22

nd
Trial Transcripts
05/28/13 Please help us!
Shawn Trell
Recross-examination continued by Stebbins Bina

Q Mr. Trell, if I recall correctly where we left off yesterday, we were discussing an agreement
between A.E.G. Live, Dr. Tohme Tohme, and Michael Jackson that had been executed the same
day as the tour agreement.

And I'd like to put back up exhibit 2320 and just ask a few more questions about that.

A okay.

Ms. Bina: and I'd like to zoom in on Paragraph 2.

Q Mr. Trell, can you tell me what the idea was behind this agreement, to the extent you know?

A The idea behind this particular agreement is that Michael wanted Dr. Tohme Tohme on the tour
performing certain functions in connection with it. As it's spelled out here, that those services
may include those types of things.

Q So are those the services spelled out there in Paragraph 2 in that second sentence?

A Right. "Acting as a liaison with the Artist, coordinating publicity and other activities with the
artist in connection with the tour and other matters. Assisting with the creation of the tour,
creative artwork in connection with the tour, and assisting with the coordination of musicians and
dancers and other production-related tasks reasonably requested by promoter."

Q so Dr. Tohme was Mr. Jackson's personal Manager, as you testified yesterday?

A that's right.

Q and did this agreement contemplate him doing additional activities in connection with the
"This Is It" tour?

A Yes, it did.

Q And do you have any idea whether this was the only compensation that Mr. Jackson would be
paying his Manager, Dr. Tohme?

A I do not know, no.

Q And I'd like to just go down to the next Paragraph, because you said something yesterday that
was a little confusing to me, which was about Dr. Tohme's compensation, and why it wasn't paid.
So this paragraph, is this is the paragraph in the agreement that sets out how and when Dr.
Tohme was to be paid under this agreement (indicating)?

A correct.

Q and you said something yesterday about a condition precedent. Is that in this paragraph?

A yes, it is.

Q Can you explain what it was you were talking about?

A The condition priced is set forth at little. here in the definition of the production term. And
that's -- the little 2 is described as the date by which Artistco, the Michael Jackson company, has
obtained cancellation insurance in a form and at a cost approved by promoter and promoter
received written evidence that we've been named as loss payee on such insurance in accordance
with the insurance paragraph of the tour agreement.

Q So yesterday we looked at the tour agreement, and there was that paragraph 13.1 that talked
about Mr. Jackson's obligation to provide cancellation insurance. Is that the same paragraph
that's referred to here?

A correct.

Q So just to make sure I understand you correctly, the term of this agreement, this agreement
with Dr. Tohme, didn't start until after cancellation insurance was obtained?

A Right. So while this agreement was executed in January, it doesn't spring into existence unless
these conditions are satisfied. And this particular condition here was not satisfied until the end of
April.

Q So even though this agreement was signed in January, did A.E.G. started paying Dr. Tohme in
January?

A no.

Q Because of this little here?

A correct.

Q and then you said the insurance came into place at the end of April?

A it was bound at the end of April, I believe, Yes.

Q And so at that point, if Dr. Tohme had performed those production management services in
Paragraph 2, would A.E.G. Live have then started paying him?

A Provided the payments were authorized by Michael, we would have.

Q And was Dr. Tohme still performing production management services at the end of April?

Mr. Panish: No foundation.

Q If you know?

A That, I don't know. That was going to be my answer, I don't know.

Q at some point were you informed by Mr. Jackson that Dr. Tohme was not to perform any
services for him anymore?

A Yes. He advised that he was -- we were not authorized to pay Dr. Tohme in accordance with
this agreement.

Q So while in January Mr. Jackson wanted this agreement, in may he no longer wanted Dr.
Tohme to be paid in connection with the "This Is It" tour?

A That's correct.

Judge. can I ask you a question? Do you pay him -- if it kicks in, and they get the
insurance, do you pay him retroactively to the original date of the contract? So would you
pay him all the way back to January or whenever he signed?

Trell. if I could -- what number is it, and I'll look?

Ms. Bina: yeah. It's ????.

Mr. Panish: I can't believe you do not have it in there. You have everything in the world
there.

Ms. Bina: It's a skinny document. It might get buried in that binder.

Judge: remind me when it was signed?

Trell: It's dated the 24th. It was signed on the 26th of January.

Judge: okay. I guess what I'm asking is, once they -- assuming they got the insurance,
would Tohme's payment, assuming you would get paid, be all the way back to January
26th?

Trell: Right. I understand the question.

judge: all right.

Trell: (reading docs)

Mr. Panish: What date -- I'm sorry? it was signed? on 26th?

Trell: the date when the tour agreement was signed, the 26th.

Mr. Panish: 26th. Okay. Thank you.

Trell: your honor, I believe the answer -- I believe the answer is "no." he would have been
paid as of the date that the conditions were satisfied, because the definition of production
term that you see in paragraph 3 refers to the time periods, "the later of February 1, '09,
and the date by which Artistco has obtained the cancellation insurance." So the production
term as defined, which is when these fees would have been paid, would have commenced as
of the satisfaction of that condition, which occurred at the end of April.

Judge: okay. So if Tohme provided services prior to that, that would be Mr. Jackson's
responsibility?

Trell: correct. They would not have been an obligation under here to remit to him any
money.

Judge: okay.

Ms. Bina: Thank you.

Q by Ms. Bina: And there was one other agreement that was executed on January 26th, was there
not?

A that's correct.

Q okay.

Ms. Bina: and I'd like to quickly pull up that one. I don't think it's one we've talked about
very much. It's exhibit 2319.

Q and Mr. Trell, to save you the trouble of getting it out of that binder, I'm just going to walk up
with a copy, because I think it's terribly thick (indicating).

A Okay. Thanks.

Q just go to the top of this Mr. Trell, what is this document?

A it's called a feature film development agreement.

Q And what was this agreement about?

A this agreement had to do with a commitment we were making to either enter into a
development agreement for a film or underwrite the costs of a script being developed by some
third party.

Q And we heard Mr. Jackson had an interest in movies. I believe you talked about that yesterday.
Did this relate to Mr. Jackson's interest in a movie? Developing a movie?

A Yes. He was interested in developing films. A related A.E.G. Company is in the film business.
Michael was aware of that. So this was an agreement entered into as part and parcel of the tour
agreement to pursue this interest that he had in developing films.

Ms. Bina: let's zoom in on paragraph 2. I think that's on the next -- no, it's on the same
page. And there's a bit more to it.

Q Mr. Trell, this is obviously av ery dense paragraph. Can you tell me just generally,what did
this agreement provide for A.E.G. and Mr. Jackson to do, respectively?

A it contemplated entering into a separate film development agreement, like I had mentioned,
that would have contemplated developing up to three film projects. The one that we were aware
of at the time that Michael was interested in doing related to the "Thriller" video, that I'm
guessing most people are familiar with. In the alternative, it also contemplated that if there was a
third party, not an A.E.G.-related party, that was interested in developing a film, we would be
advancing a million dollars towards the cost of that script to development.

Q and was there a date by which Mr. Jackson had to sort of start developing the film, and you
would contribute costs to?

Q and you might want to put up Paragraph 3.

A I believe it was June 1st. Yes, June 1st, 2009.

Q And so tell me what this paragraph provides. What was to happen by June 1st, 2009?

A Well, by that time, I mean, I think the idea was that things would have moved along in a
manner where either we had entered into a separate development agreement with him, or
someone else was developing a script. I had talked with people who work at the film group
company that I referenced. I know they were undertaking to see if anybody was interested in
developing that script. As of the time that June 1 rolled around, they had not identified anybody
that was interested in moving that project forward. So this contemplated, you know, a date by
which those activities would have occurred.

Q and so if those didn't happen by June 1 -- if by June 1 no one was interested in developing the
picture, would A.E.G. Live still have any obligations to Mr. Jackson under this agreement?

A No.

Q And did there come a time where you attempted to extend this June 1 deadline to give Mr.
Jackson more time to develop his film ideas?

A Yes. I mean, I think the interest was still there on Mr. Jackson's side. And I know we were
interested in helping him realize what he wanted to accomplish here. So we actually had
prepared an Amendment to this agreement to extend that date to October 1, if I remember
correctly.

Q And did that -- did Mr. Jackson ever sign that amendment?

A No. It was prepared, and it was provided to Mr. Jackson's representatives, but it never came
back to us executed.

Q So this film agreement, nothing ever really came of it? Is that what you're telling me?

A that's correct.

Q but it was one of three agreements executed on January 26th between Mr. Jackson and A.E.G.
Live?

A that's correct.

Q I'd like to turn on to the idea of ...

Q can we go back to the tour agreement, Pam, which is -- lost it now. I think it's 677. Plaintiffs'
exhibit 677-???.

Q so at the end of the day yesterday, Mr. Trell, I promised we were going to talk more today
about cancellation insurance.

A okay.

Q and I want to zoom back in on Paragraph 13.1. Mr. Trell, you testified yesterday, if I recall
correctly, that this is a standard cancellation provision of insurance that you put in pretty much
any contract when A.E.G. Live is making advances to an artist. Do I recall that correctly?

A yes, correct.

Q and is this -- I believe you testified when Mr. Panish was questioning you, that you actually
started looking into cancelation insurance back in November of 2008; is that right?

A it's my recollection that I first reached out to Bob Taylor in connection with cancelation
insurance in November of '08, yes.

Q and did you have an understanding back in November of 2008 as to whose obligation it was
going to ultimately be to secure cancelation insurance?

A it would be the artist's obligation. It was always the artist's obligation, as I explained
yesterday. When advances are made, it's always the Artist's obligation to secure this form of
insurance in order to have the means to pay back the advances.

Q so even back before this agreement was signed, by custom, you knew this was going to be Mr.
Jackson's obligation?

A Exactly. By the custom and practice in the Entertainment industry, and ours at A.E.G. Live,
Yes.

Q and I'd like to move on. Who benefits from nonappearance insurance like this?

A well, the costs that it goes to pay are the payment obligations of the artist. So we're being
repaid our advances, but it's an obligation of the Artist. So it benefits Artistco.

Q so if I understood you correctly yesterday, A.E.G. Live was loaning Mr. Jackson a large sum of
money to produce the tour; is that right?

A correct.

Q And if for some reason the tour didn't go forward, this insurance would pay A.E.G. Live back
for those advances so that the artist didn't have to come up with the money to repay? Is that --

Mr. Panish: leading and suggestive. Overruled.

A The cancellation insurance, to the extent there's a claim made against it -- again, whether it's
for, you know, one show lost, or a series of shows, or the entirety of the run -- to the extent it
responds, meaning, to the extent it pays out, our rights in the policy, meaning A.E.G. rights in the
policy, only exists to the extent of our rights under the tour agreement, and under the tour
agreement Mr. Jackson or Artistco, the Michael Jackson company, was obligated to pay to us the
advances we made, including the production costs.

Q and you talked a little bit about, when Mr. Panish was questioning you, the process of trying
to obtain insurance for Mr. Jackson. I'd like to ask now about that.

A okay.

Q how did you go about determining whether or how Mr. Jackson could get cancelation
insurance for the "This Is It" tour?

A I contacted a broker that we use from time to time in connection with obtaining these types of
coverages.

Q and who is that broker?

A Bob Taylor.

Q And what's his company?

A he works at a company called Robertson Taylor.

Q is that company in the united states, or is it elsewhere?

A it's in London.

Q and did you communicate with Mr. Taylor about obtaining potential insurance for Mr.
Jackson's tour?

A right. And what the broker does is, they go to the insurance marketplace to find out -- and the
term of art used is, what capacity there is in the marketplace. In the entertainment industry, both
the artist and the promoter can secure this type of insurance. So on our side of it, on the A.E.G.
Live side of it, we have this obligation that relates to advances, okay, that the artist is obligated to
get this kind of insurance. Separately, we can only get this kind of insurance, and sometimes do,
for our out-of-pocket costs, like marketing expenses, road costs. We have people on the road. If
shows are lost, you've got to wind that process down, and there's payments that are due and
owing to those people. At the same time, on the artist side of it, they have their own costs and
expenses, potentially, and they also have profits that they can make. So it's not uncommon for
the artist to also get this kind of insurance to secure profits that they might make on a particular
tour. As a matter of our business endeavors or, I suppose, company policy, we don't secure
cancellation insurance to secure anticipated profits for us, only to recoup our advances.

Q so --

A so the capacity -- what I mean by that, there's a general capacity available in the marketplace,
call it "x," whatever that dollar amount is. And it's that "x" That both the artist and the promoter
could potentially access in order to obtain this kind of coverage.

Q and that "x" is some amount of money?

A it's whatever the marketplace comes back with, Yes.

Q and is that marketplace determined by the Concert promoters?

A it's determined by the types of insurance companies that underwrite this type of policy.

Q and Mr. Taylor, you said, was a broker.

Is his company separate from A.E.G. Live?

A yes.

Q and is it separate from the insurance companies as well?

A yes.

Q and he makes deals between concert promoters and artists and insurance companies? Is that --

A that's a fair way to say it, yes.

Q and did you work just with Mr. Taylor, or did you work with anybody on Mr. Jackson's side as
well in this conversation?

A well, again, because it was an obligation of Artistco, I worked with Dennis Hawk in
connection with securing this coverage. I should say, it's not uncommon for the Artist's side of it
to have a promoter assisting in obtaining this type of coverage for two reasons.

Number one --

Mr. Panish: excuse me. I'm going to object. Nonresponsive. The question was, did you
work with anyone else? Sustained.

Mr. Panish: he's got to answer the question. Sustained.

Q so did you work with Mr. Hawk?

A I worked with Mr. Hawk, yes.

Q and is it common or uncommon for you to work with an artist's personnel to come up with
cancellation insurance?

A okay. It's not uncommon at all for a couple of reasons: Number one, while it's Artistco's
obligation, the policy is subject to our approval. It's obviously meant to be paying us back
advances. So we have to be satisfied with the policy. The rating of the carrier, the strength of the
policy. So, number one, it's subject to our prior approval. And, number two, oftentimes an artist's
lawyer, which is the person I'm dealing with the most, would just ask that we do it so he or she is
not doing it. They know we have to be satisfied with the strength of the policy, anyway, so it's
just one less thing on their plate. So that's not an uncommon thing at all.

Q and did Mr. Taylor ever come back to you and tell you whether insurance was available for
Mr. Jackson, and in what amount?

A he said that the capacity was available at $17.5 million.

Q before that point, I think it was probably a bad question, because I asked you to jump a little
bit in time.

A okay.

Q did you have an understanding as to whether Mr. Taylor was having an easy time or a hard
time finding insurance for Mr. Jackson?

A initially he had a very difficult time. Apparently, when he went to the markets that he goes to,
the initial indications weren't very strong at all, if they existed at all. There was a lot of
skittishness as a result of tabloid articles that were reporting on Mr. Jackson's health. I
specifically remember him referencing something about skin cancer; that it appeared in the
Tabloid media over there in the UK.

Q to your knowledge, Mr. Trell, did Mr. Jackson gave skin cancer?

A not to my knowledge, no.

Q do you recall an insurer being concerned about Tabloids saying Mr. Jackson had skin cancer?

A they are insurers, so they underwrite insurance on whatever criteria that they utilize. It
obviously includes the cancelation history of a particular artist, whatever other information is
available to them about that artist's health. And things like this, if they're aware of it, which they
obviously were, they would have to get answers to and information about.

Q and did Mr. Taylor make any recommendations to you and Mr. Hawk as to -- a way to get the
insurers more comfortable with the idea of insuring Mr. Jackson?

A he thought it would be useful, in light of these reports, to have a medical exam conducted and
be able -- and for him to be able to then take that report, that medical report that had results, back
to the marketplace.

Q and did he recommend any particular physician for that medical exam?

A he referred to a doctor that he referred to me as a Lloyds-preferred physician, a doctor in New
York named Dr. Slavit.

Q and was it your understanding that Mr. Taylor recommended Dr. Slavit as the person to do the
exam?

A correct.

Q all right. Now, plaintiffs' counsel asked yesterday whether Mr. Hawk was ever involved in
direct e-mail conversations with Mr. Taylor.

Q and I'd like to put up one of plaintiffs' exhibits -- actually, plaintiffs' exhibit ???-14.

Mr. Panish: was that showed to him yesterday?

Ms. Bina: it was one you introduced with him yesterday.

Mr. Panish: so this is in evidence?

Ms. Bina: yes.

Mr. Panish: okay. Go ahead.

Q who is on this e-mail chain, Mr. Trell ?

A this e-mail is to Dennis hawk and myself from Bob Taylor on January the 8th, 2009.

Q so did Mr. Taylor in fact have direct e-mail communications with Mr. Hawk?

A yes, he did.

Q and I'd like to turn to the first E-mail in this chain. There's actually four pages in it. 677-18.
Actually, let's go back one. 17. Can you blow up that bar on the right?

Q Mr. Trell, can you explain what this e-mail is, you recall?

A yes. It's an e-mail from me to Bob Taylor on the 7th of January, where I'm passing along to Mr.
Taylor contact information for Michael Jackson's Attorney, Dennis hawk.

Q and this is before --if I note the date correctly -- before the agreement with Mr. Jackson was
executed?

A approximately three weeks prior, yes.

Q so prior to that agreement being signed, had you and Mr. Hawk already been discussing
cancellation insurance?

A yes, because we had already exchanged drafts of documents, and the provision and the
requirement was already contained in those drafts from the first draft forward.

Q and then I'd like to look at the next e-mail in this chain. If you want to go to the top of it, I
think it starts there. Mr. Trell, would it be helpful if I brought up this document, since it's a
number of pages?

A sure, that's fine.

Q (showing him docs.)

A thanks.

Q and can you zoom in on those first two paragraphs? First three paragraphs. so who is this e-
mail to?

A this e-mail is from bob Taylor to Dennis Hawk and myself on January the 7th, 2009.

Q Okay. And is this regarding a potential insurance physical that -- the one you just discussed?

A yes.

Q and what was Mr. Taylor's recommendation as per this e-mail?

A he's recommending in that third paragraph there that: "the artist be asked to attend a medical
examination with a doctor who is accepted and trusted by them." "Them" is referring to the
carriers. The insurance carrier.

Q and does he say what kind of exam he expected this to be?

A he said it would be: "a full medical exam that would involve a questionnaire, as well as blood
and urine tests."

Q if you could turn to the next page...is this the doctor that I think you testified yesterday Mr.
Taylor recommended?

A yes. Dr. Slavit.

Q now, did you have any concerns about the costs of using Dr. Slavit?

A well, as I testified previously, I had just -- I asked the question why it was necessary to have a
Doctor from New York flown in. I think there are great hospitals here in Los Angeles, and world-
renown doctors. So I was inquiring about the need to incur that expense in connection with this
medical exam.

Q and can we put up another e-mail which plaintiffs showed yesterday, which is 677-??? this is a
short one, so if you need me to walk it up, that's fine.

A no, that's fine.

Q do you recall seeing this e-mail yesterday?

A yes, I do.

Q now, yesterday Mr. Panish asked you whether anywhere in this e-mail you said you were
concerned about the costs because it would fall on Mr. Jackson. Do you recall that?

A yes, I do.

Q and do you recall what you told him?

A well, this e-mail doesn't refer to Michael Jackson, but obviously my awareness of the provision
and whose obligation this expense would ultimately fall to is, it's the artist.

Mr. Panish: it's his remarks. It's nonresponsive to the question again, which was --
Sustained.

Ms. Bina: your honor, I actually think it was responsive. I asked him if he recalled what he
told Mr. Panish, and I believe he restated what he told Mr. Panish yesterday.

Judge: let's redo it, then.

Ms. Bina: all right.

Q Mr. Trell, I'm just trying to figure out why -- let me see if I can ask it differently. As of
January 9th, 2009, did you have an understanding as to whether this would be Mr. Jackson's cost
or A.E.G. Live's cost?

A yes. For the reasons I gave, custom and practice, and knowing what our draft agreements had
already said, and what our tour agreements always say, it would be an Artistco obligation.

Q and was that something you and Mr. Hawk had already discussed?

A yes. We had already exchanged drafts of agreements by this date.

Q so even though you don't say here in this E-mail, in your mind, I think you testified yesterday,
It was understood?

A correct.

Q let's go on to exhibit 2???. Mr. Trell, was an exam ultimately set up for Dr. Slavit to examine
Mr. Jackson?

A yes, it was.

Q and I'd like to zoom in on this first e-mail of this chain. Starts on page 1, and then toes over to
page 2. Mr. Trell, do you recall what this e-mail is referencing?

A well, it's an e-mail from me to bob Taylor on the 25th of January. It's referencing a discussion
Randy Phillips had with somebody in Michael Jackson's camp, and it was requested that Bob
Taylor provide Dennis Hawk, Michael's attorney, with Dr. Slavic's resume. And also notifying
him that Dr. Slavit would need to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Q and would that be a confidentiality agreement relating to Mr. Jackson's medical records, or did
you have an understanding?

A I think it would be a confidentiality agreement to whatever was the substance of the medical
exam that was to take place, and also whatever medical records or whatever information specific
to Michael Jackson were provided to Dr. Slavit.

Q and do you have any understanding as to whether Mr. Taylor did send Dr. Slavit's resume to
Mr. Hawk?

A he did.

Q and did Mr. Slavit end up performing an exam on Mr. Jackson?

A he did.

Q do you remember when that was?

A I believe it was February 4th.

Q now, did you ever see the results of Dr. Slavit's physical on Mr. Jackson?

A no.

Q why not?

A we would never receive the results of a medical examination in this context. Never have, and
did not here in this particular matter, either.

Q are there other tours that you've gone on where Doctors have provided physicals?

A yes.

Q and have you ever seen the results of the

Patient's medical records, artist's medical records?

A never.

Q were you told anything about the results of the physical?

A Bob Taylor --

Mr. Panish: it's hearsay.

Judge just asks for "yes" or "no."

Were you told anything?

Trell yes.

Ms. Bina: your honor, I think it's an exception to the hearsay rule because it goes to the
state of mind as to what Mr. Jackson's physical condition was, which goes to a number of
issues in dispute in this case.

judge let me hear the question.

Q Did Mr. Taylor tell you whether or not the physical exam was passed?

Judge okay. Overruled. You may answer.

Trell Mr. Taylor's exact words to me, "Other than a slight case of hay fever, he passed with
flying colors."

Q and did Mr. Taylor ever -- do you recall whether he ever e-mailed you anything further about
the results of the physical exam?

A could you ask that again, please?

Q do you know whether Mr. Taylor ever -- you said he called you. Did he ever e-mail you? Do
you recall?

A he may have said that same thing in an e-mail I don't recall specifically.

Q I'd like to put it up, just for the witness and plaintiffs' counsel, plaintiffs' exhibit 2344, and see
if that refreshes your recollection.

A okay. Yes, that refreshes my recollection.

Q did Mr. Taylor e-mail you?

A he e-mailed me and Paul Gongaware something in regards to the cancellation insurance
policy that makes reference to the medical examination, in part.

Q do you have an understanding as to whether or not a blood test was performed on Mr. Jackson
at the Dr. Slavit physical?

A that's my understanding.

Q so your understanding was -- that it was or wasn't?

A that it was. A blood test was done at this, Yes.

Q so when Mr. Taylor informed you that Mr. Jackson had passed with flying colors, your
understanding that he had passed not only the physical, but also the blood test?

A correct.

Q did you ever wind up getting nonappearance insurance for the "this is it" tour?

A yes.

Q and I believe you said it was bound in late April?

A I believe it was bound in late April, yes. April 24th, maybe.

Q okay. And how much coverage did it provide? A provided for the $17 1/2 million.

Q and I'd like to look at the insurance policy.

A okay.

Q which is defense exhibit 11,287.

Ms. Bina: put it up for counsel first.

Mr. Panish: 11,287? Okay. Go ahead.

Ms. Bina: put it up on the screen.

Q Mr. Trell, do you recognize this document?

A yes, I do.

Q what is it?

A it is the nonappearance insurance that we were just discussing, together with an invoice with
respect to the premium payment associated with the same.

Q now, it says at the top here, "A.E.G. Live, LLC, and/or the Mark Jones company, LLC." Who
is the Mark Jones company?

A Correct. In order -- because of Mr. Jackson's high profile, in order to keep that matter from
becoming publicly known that this policy was being sought, the underwriters utilized this fill-in
name of Mark Jones for Michael Jackson.

Q and is that something you've seen before for insurance policies for celebrities, for lack of a
better word?

A I haven't seen this before, no. I think this is yet another item related to the tabloid media stories
at the time.

Q so this is the only time you've seen it used, a pseudonym like this?

A yes.

Q and I'd like to turn to page 4. Mr. Trell, what is your understanding of what this page is?

A this page spells out the details of the coverage, if you will.

Q so is it kind of like a summary of the rest of it?

A that's fair, yes. A summary.

Q and what is an "assured" under an insurance policy of this type?

A an assured is -- that's the term of art utilized by the particular carrier that placed this policy. It
would be the same as -- "beneficiary" would be another word that more people would associate
with that word here.

Q so beneficiary, is that the person who receives any proceeds from the policy?

A that's correct, yes.

Q so who were the assureds under this policy?

A there were two. It was A.E.G. Live, and it was The Michael Jackson company, LLC.

Q and says "for their respective rights and interests." can you explain that to me?

A fight. That's what I had mentioned previously, for their respective rights and interests. That
would be the rights and interests under the tour agreement. so in our case, it's our right to recoup
the advances. If there were any proceeds paid out above and beyond those obligations, those
would go to the Michael Jackson company, LLC.

Q and then who is the insured person, or what is The insured person? What does that mean?

A that means the person on whom the policy is actually written.

Q so the person for whom if something happens to their tour, that's whose cancelation policy is
in effect?

A right. In connection with these types of policies, that's the artist, yes.

Q and is Mark Jones Mr. Jackson?

A that's Michael Jackson, yes.

Q and I'd like to just go to the bottom of the page there. it says, "limit of indemnity." What is
that?

A That is the amount of the insurance coverage. That is the maximum amount of the coverage
available under this policy, $17.5 million.

Q and did you have an understanding as of April 24th, 2009, whether any more coverage was
available for this particular tour?

A it was my understanding there was no other coverage or capacity available for this tour.

Q okay.

Q and then I want to go further down To page 11,287-5, or 0005. And zoom in under
"conditions additional." Mr. Trell, what is this page?

A this is a continuation of the terms and conditions of the policy with more detail.

Q and what are "conditions additional"?

A these are the conditions on which the policy is written. The terms and conditions of an
agreement, in essence.

Q got it. And what is paragraph a about?

A okay. This particular policy was written on what's called a declining-balance basis. That's my
term, what I call it. So a budget was submitted to the insurers, and on the basis of that budget, as
income was earned over the first 13 shows, okay, the $17 1/2 million would be reduced. So as
we recouped our advances, the amount of coverage under the policy would reduce pro rata
accordingly.

Q so, again, was this the idea that the purpose of the insurance was to get back the advances?

A correct.

Q and so once the advances were recouped in this case, the policy goes down?

A that's correct.

Q so that it no longer has to pay out?

A it incrementally decreases. That's correct.

Q okay. I'd like to turn -- well, actually, I'd like to stay on this page for a moment. Actually, I
want to go forward and then backward. so let's go now to page 11, a heading called "perils."

A okay.

Q and what are perils under a cancellation Insurance policy? What's are perils?

A A peril is a word used to describe a circumstances on which the policy might respond; that a
claim could be made against the policy.

Q so are these the perils that this policy applied to?

A they are the types of risks covered by the policy.

Q and are the ones there common for cancellation insurance policies?

A yes. These are your common or typical perils In a policy of this nature, yes.

Q can you just briefly go through each one of these, explain what they are?

A sure. Just going down the line. The first Peril is "death."The second policy (sic) is "accident or
Illness." and that will need to be explained further.

Q right.

A okay. The next one are "travel delays." I mean, that's a typical risk that's covered. You know,
An artist getting from show to show, if something happens there. Things that might happen to a
particular venue That could give rise to a claim on a nonappearance Policy. "Adverse weather"
is always in there. If it's an outdoor show, you have a provision like that. That obviously didn't
apply here "cases of national mourning." that might give rise to a nonappearance claim.

Q what would that be, national mourning?

A oh, I mean, that would be a significant event That has happened where -- I mean, we all know
where we were when 911 happened. And sporting events, concert Events, and all things were
canceled as a result of that. That would be an example of national mourning.

Q got it. And then "other perils." what does it say about other perils?

A it's sort of a catchall. "any other peril not listed in this section, and not specifically limited or
excluded elsewhere in the document" would be covered.

Q now, you said the "accident and illness" would Need further explanation, and I'm going to get
to thatNow.

A okay.

Q was illness coverage actually covered by this policy as of April 24th, 2009?

A no, it was not.

Q let's go back to page 5, which is "conditions additional." let's look at condition Additional 2.
Mr. Trell, can you explain what this condition additional is, and what it means?

A it's setting forth that a claim for accident only is covered and that illness would not be covered
until these conditions were met: "that the insurers have seen and agreed to a medical report that
takes place in London and that the insurers, a representative of the insurers, has an opportunity to
attend a rehearsal taking place in London."

Q so that --

A the satisfaction of those two things would be necessary in order to have illness added as a
covered peril under the policy.

Q so that covered peril no. 2, "accident or illness." only the accident half was in effect at this
point?

A that's correct.

Q and I want to also look at some exclusions to this policy, which is 11287, page 16
(indicating). What are policy exclusions, Mr. Trell, just generally?

A A policy exclusions are circumstances that, if they apply, would cause the policy not to
respond.

Q what do you mean?

A I mean, these types of things set forth on this page would not be covered under this policy.

Q so if something would otherwise be a covered peril, these are kind of exceptions to that?

A that's another way of saying it, yes.

Q I don't deal with insurance very often.

A yes. That's accurate.

Q and I'd like to look at exclusion 7.5 (indicating). What is this?

A this is a standard, typical, customary exclusion that deals with the illegal possession or the
illegal taking of drugs and their effects.

Q so is it fair to say that you couldn't use cancellation insurance to cover an artist who died of,
say, a heroin overdose?

A that's correct.

Q or any other drug that was illegally possessed or illicitly taken?

A if it fell within that parameter, that is correct, yes.

Q so A.E.G. Live couldn't go out and get a policy to protect against an artist using drugs illegally
or illicitly?

A that is correct.

Q so that -- I guess what I'm saying is, this policy would not address that issue?

A could you ask that question -- what do you mean by "that issue"?

Q right. This insurance policy wouldn't cover -- In other words, I guess what I'm trying to say,
you wouldn't go out and get a policy for an artist you thought had an illicit drug problem?

A of course not. It wouldn't respond. And this exclusion is in every nonappearance policy that
I've seen, so --

Q I'd like to just look at a couple more pages here. could we go to page 20? can you tell us what
this page is?

A this is, it's called a "named persons extension." this means that the policy extends to the people
that are listed here, should anything set forth there happen to them.

Q so is there an additional named person in this policy?

A there's Dr. Tohme Tohme.

Q so does that mean that if Dr. Tohme got sick, and that caused the show to be canceled, the
policy covered him as well?

A well, it would mean that if -- just going to number one listed under there, "the death of," that
would mean that if Dr. Tohme were to die, and the artist was distraught about that such that he
was unable to perform a show, that show being canceled would fall within the coverage provided
by this policy.

Q was there any reason that you know of to think that Dr. Tohme was likely to die?

A no.

Q do you know whether Mr. Jackson or Mr. Jackson's attorneys ever considered adding any
Additional persons to this "named persons extension"?

A I don't know what they considered. I -- this came from them, so I presume they considered it.

Mr. Panish: well, move to strike. No Foundation. "presumed considered," he doesn't know.

judge answer is stricken. Calls for Speculation.

Q Mr. Trell, did the persons who were added to the policy, were they persons A.E.G. Live added,
or would they have come from Mr. Jackson's side?

A they came from Dennis hawk, from Mr. Jackson's lawyer, yes.

Q so A.E.G. Live didn't have anything to do with adding Dr. Tohme to the policy?

A no.

Q that's all I wanted to ask.

A okay.

Q all right. Now, I think, as we've seen, the policy in place did not cover Mr. Jackson's illness as
of April 24th, 2009; is that correct?

A that's correct.

Q and did you try to get the second insurance physical scheduled so the coverage could get into
place?

A yes. In fact, the second insurance physical was scheduled for July 6th.

Q did you think that Mr. Jackson was going to pass the second physical on July 6th?

A we had no reason to believe that he wouldn't. We had had an idea of the results of the first
examination.

Q now, from time to time -- let me ask something different. Did the cost of production,
production advances, did they ever exceed $17 million?

A yes, they did.

Q and in your business, do you prefer to have cancellation insurance that is more or less than the
advances that have been given out?

A you would set it up typically so that it's equal to.

Q so that if there's some cancellation, there's none of it uninsured?

A the amount of the insurance would be equal to the amount of the advances.

Q and was that possible as of April 24th, 2009?

A no.

Q so after April 24th, 2009, did you make any efforts to see if you could get additional coverage
to make those two match?

A I had had ongoing conversations with Bob Taylor from time to time, just to see if there had
been any change in the marketplace as to the potential capacity to insure this tour, particularly in
light of the first medical.

Q and is this something that would be unusual for you to do? To try to make the advances and
the insurance match each other?

A yes. Very unusual.

Q it's unusual to do?

A as in, I can't think of another circumstance where this occurred.

Q because in other circumstances, the advances are already matched, or you didn't bother

A the amount of coverage available was sufficient to cover the advances
.
Q got it. So in all other circumstances, you've had a situation where you could insure the full
amount upfront?

A that's correct.

Q and in this case, that wasn't available?

A that's correct.

Q okay. So you were attempting, from time to time, to get more coverage?

A simply inquiring whether there was any way in order to bridge the gap, yes.

Q were you making those inquiries because you were concerned about Mr. Jackson's health or
well-being?

A no. I was just trying to bridge the gap between costs and expenses.

Q and did you make those inquiries throughout this period, or just at certain times?

A from time to time.

Q and were you ever able to get more insurance coverage?

A no.

Q and I'd like to show you exhibit 8447.

Q and just put it up for the witness and counsel for a moment.

Mr. Panish: is that in our book here?

Ms. Bina: it should be. ??47.

Mr. Panish: okay. Thank you.

Ms. Bina: I think we might have dealt with a version of this e-mail. I'm not positive.

Mr. Panish: I didn't, but go ahead.

Q while we're waiting, Mr. Trell, did you have an understanding as to why additional coverage
was not available?

A the understanding is, because the marketplace that underwrites it wasn't willing to offer any
more, in light of the concerns that they had, continued to have, because of the media reports.

Ms. Bina: any objection to the document?

Mr. Panish: no. (defendants' exhibit no. 8447, an e-mail chain, was marked and received
in evidence.)

Ms. Bina: go ahead and put up 8447. I want to ask about the second e-mail in this chain.
You can zoom in on the top first.

Q this is an e-mail from Mr. Taylor. And -- I believe you said at some point, Mr. Trell, Dr.
Murray got involved in communications with Mr. Taylor?

A that's correct.

Q how did that come to be, if you know?

A Kathy Jorrie, who was working on the independent contractor agreement with Dr. Murray,
asked if he might be in a position to assist in gathering the 5-year medical record history of Mr.
Jackson, which is what the insurers were requesting.

Q and that medical history was needed for the cancellation insurance policy?

A it was needed in order to get illness added as an additional covered peril.

Q and who were the insureds under that policy again?

A the Michael Jackson company and A.E.G. Live.

Q and why don't I --

Q, Pam, back up and go to the E-mail at the top of this chain. Mr. Trell, do you see, this is an E-
mail to Mr. Taylor from Mr. Gongaware, and it's copied To you and Mr. Woolley and Mr.
Phillips (indicating)?

A I see that, yes.

Q and it forwards a number of additional e-mails?

A yes.

Q and I want to ask you about one of the additional e-mails that was forwarded, and that's on the
second page here. actually, Pam, if you can zoom in on the bottom of the first page so we can
see how the E-mail starts. that was the e-mail we were seeing a minute ago from Mr. Taylor. Do
you have an understanding who it's to?

A it's from Bob Taylor to Conrad Murray.

Q and I'd like to look at the second page here. Actually, Pam, a little bit higher than that. you
talked earlier about tabloid rumors?

A that's correct, yes.

Q and I want to bring this up. Do you have an understanding about what this list is here

A it appears to be a list of the specific tabloid stories that were underlying this entire process,
yes.

Mr. Panish: and did you say what date this is?

Ms. Bina: June 24th, 2009, or June 25th.

Mr. Panish: are we on the bottom, June 25th?

Ms. Bina: we're on the e-mail on the bottom of. The page, and it goes to the second.

Mr. Panish: the last two bates are 77?

Ms. Bina: yes.

Mr. Panish: okay. So that's June 25th.

Ms. Bina: June 25th.

Q and I think you said Mr. Taylor was in London?

A right. Eight hours ahead of us.

Q so sometimes a bit of confusion as to whether some things are June 25th or June 24th,
depending on what date it is, and the time?

A well, if he e-mailed it at 5:44 am, I'm getting that at about 10:00 the prior night on the 24th.

Q so 6:00 am London time would be the prior night?

A would be 10:00 pm here.

Q so let's go back to that list.

A yes.

Q and are these the things you recall the insurers being concerned about?

A this is what he described to me when we talked about it, yes.

Q and these were the reasons there was difficulty getting insurance for Mr. Jackson?

A yes. Exactly.

Q and some of them include Mr. Jackson uses a wheelchair?

A yeah. I heard this wheelchair reference a number of times. Apparently there was a picture of
Michael Jackson in a wheelchair with a surgical mask on, and Bob made reference to that on a
number of occasions.

Q did you ever see Mr. Jackson in a wheelchair -- I guess you only saw him one time. On
January 26th was he in a wheelchair?

A no.

Q did you ever hear of anyone seeing Mr. Jackson in a wheelchair other than in the tabloids?

A only in the media like this.

Q and press reports that the artist is suffering from or previously suffering from cancer. Do you
have any understanding of whether Mr. Jackson suffered from cancer?

A I have no understanding that he ever did.

Q and then information about cosmetic procedures.

A what's the question?

Q is that something that the tabloids were concerned about?

A yes.

Q and do you have any understanding as to whether Mr. Jackson had cosmetic procedures?

A it's my understanding he had cosmetic procedures, yes.

Q and back injuries. Do you have any understanding as to whether or not he had back injuries?

A I had no understanding that he had a back injury, no, at this time.

Q this list is kind of all over the map, isn't it?

A appears to be, yes.

Q is there any mention on this list about concerns about drug abuse?

A no, there's not.

Q is there any mention about concerns of prescription painkiller abuse?

A no, there's not.

Q any mention of alcohol abuse?

A no.

Q is there any mention of a sleep disorder?

A no.

Q so those weren't things that the insurers were concerned about, to your knowledge?

Mr. Panish: excuse me, your honor. Misstates the testimony. First of all, this is what Mr.
Taylor is reporting that the press mentioned, not what the insurers said.

Judge: okay.

Q Mr. Trell, does this document say whether or not the insurers were asking information on these
topics?

A no, it does not.

Q are you sure?

A I'm sorry?

Q I said, "are you sure?"

A can you ask the question again? I'm sorry. I thought you were asking the same question.

Q does this e-mail from Mr. Taylor to Dr. Murray indicate whether or not the insurers had
requested this information?

A that's what this e-mail says, yes.

Q okay.

Ms. Bina: you can take it down.


Q in addition to getting this second physical exam arranged, and in addition -- you know what? I
think I already went through this. Could A.E.G. Live ever have made a profit off the cancellation
policy?

A no.

Q why not?

A well, for one reason, we only get this kind of coverage for our out-of-pocket costs, the
advances in this case; and secondly, in this particular case, those costs exceeded the amount of
the coverage.

Q so if there was insurance in place, and a claim was made, and for whatever reason it didn't pay
out, who would be responsible for the costs that the insurance would have otherwise covered?

A the Michael Jackson company.

Q let's move on from insurance. I'm going to talk about something that came up briefly
yesterday, which was the idea of A.E.G. Live's hiring and retention practices for employees and
independent contractors. You recall that?

A okay. Yes.

Q and it's kind of an abrupt switch from Insurance --

A that's all right.

Q -- but I want to make sure we understand things before we move on to the next line of
questioning.

A okay.

Q you seem to be making a distinction between Employees of A.E.G. Live and independent
contractors retained by A.E.G. Live. Did I get that right?

A correct.

Q why was that?

A because they are distinct in a number of different ways.

Q can you explain to me what you mean?

A well, the employees are just that. They are Employees of the company. They are overseen by
Management of the company. They are paid pursuant to a W-2, which means the company would
pay withholding taxes and things of that nature. They're able to get the health and other benefits
that the company offers. Employees are effectively insured by the company for their acts on the
job. On the other hand, independent contractors are just that: they're independent. That's why the
name. Their engagement is pursuant to a contract. They are paid either on a 1099 basis from us,
which just means they get the full amount of their fee. Taxes aren't withheld. It's their obligation
to pay the taxes that they owe, or they're paid through a third-party payroll service. Independent

contractors aren't able to get Company health and vacation and other benefits. Independent
contractors provide insurance to the Company, evidence of liability insurance to the company
with whom they're working, and they also indemnify the Company with whom they entered into
that agreement with for claims arising out of their negligence under the agreement at issue.

Q there's kind of a lot to impact there.

A right.

Q I want to make sure -- for what purposes would A.E.G. Live hire employees?

A A.E.G. Live would hire employees to work on a Full-time basis at our office.

Q and would those people generally be permanent employees of the company?

A generally, yes.

Q and they actually work in your offices on Wilshire boulevard?

A they work at our office on Wilshire boulevard, and we have a number of offices, we call them
regional offices, around the country. And we have offices outside of the us. As well. So all of
those people are employees of the Company.

Q and if A.E.G. Live is doing a concert tour, is everybody who works on the concert tour hired
on as an employee?

A no.

Q so how would people be retained for a concert tour?

A in fact, there would be very few people that would be employees that would be involved with a
tour that we are producing. That's a one-off, one-time project, short-term endeavor. So people
would be hired to make that project happen. At the project's conclusion, those people all go their
separate ways.

Q and so when you're doing a tour, do you use primarily independent contractors or primarily
employees?

A A tour that we're producing?

Q yes.

A we primarily use independent contractors.

Q and would those independent contractors be people who worked in areas that are maybe
different from what A.E.G. Live's primary business is?

A right. I mean, they -- the independent contractors would have an area of expertise necessary to
make the project happen. Whether that's sound or it's lighting or it's -- they're in the business of
providing equipment. Like the LED Screen that I referenced yesterday that was going to be the
backdrop of the show, they have an expertise not available within the company itself.

Q and do you have different processes -- does A.E.G. Live use different processes for engaging
Employees than it does for engaging independent Contractors?

A yes, we do.

Q I'd like to put up a demonstrative to sort of help walk through your testimony.

A okay.

Q Mr. Trell, let's start with employees. Can you tell us how A.E.G. Live goes about hiring an
employee to work at its offices either in LA or regional?

A Well, first off, somebody within the company has to have a hiring need. They identify a hiring
need and get approval, then -- or not. Assuming they get the approval to then hire for that
position, they will aubmit like a requisition form, if you will, that will -- sets forth the particulars
of the job. The things that you might expect. What the job is, title, pay, et cetera. And then we
would post for the position. Independent candidates would apply.

Q would they fill out applications?

A they would fill out an application for the job, Yes.

Q and then what would happen?

A those that got beyond the application process And -- would be interviewed by one or more
people Associated with the particular position at issue.

Q would that be you, sometimes?

A I would be doing the hiring for people within The legal department at A.E.G. Live, yes.

Q and if it's for another department, somebody else?

A yes. I mean, our head of marketing would hire for her department. Our head of information
and technology, the IT group, would hire for their Department. Touring would hire for theirs.
Various Business units hire for the positions of need within their unit.

Q so let's say you conducted interviews and reviewed resumes and picked the candidate you
want to hire as an employee. What happens next?

A okay. Well, hr. Is then involved, and they do what I refer to verify employ-ability.

Q what does that mean?

A that's -- you have the candidate's social security number. You get past addresses. You verify
past employment. You need that information for w-2 purposes, the withholding of taxes and
such.

Q to make sure that they are....

A employable.

Q and what would be an example of not employable? I guess that's what I'm trying to
understand.

A if they were -- if they didn't have a social Security number, then it would not be possible to
withhold taxes.

Q got it. You have to have their social security number because you have to

Q because with employees, you withhold taxes?

A yes.

Q and then anything else?

A HR Would do a criminal background check. And if the employee was in a financially-
sensitive -- or potential employee was applying for a potentially financially-sensitive position,
they would also do a credit check.

Q what do you mean by "financially sensitive"?

A if they're involved in the handling of money, I guess, is a simple way I would put it.

Q like somebody in the accounting department?

A all of these people would be accounting and finance, yes.

Q does A.E.G. Live do credit checks for anyone who is not being hired for financial positions or
a financially-sensitive position?

A for employees?

Q yes.

A not to my knowledge.

Q and then after you do all of these checks, then what happens?

A well, if all of that comes back, and the person is still interested in the job, an offer is extended.
The person accepts or not, and establish a start date, and go from there.

Q and does it always happen in that order, or sometimes offers are extended, and then checks are
run, Or -- does it always happen in that order?

A no, it doesn't always happen in that order. But those -- that process with hr. Happens with
Full-time employees.

Q before they're hired?

A before they're hired, yes.

Q and just to be sure -- and this process is the one you use for employees of A.E.G. Live?

A employees for A.E.G. Live, correct.

Q and then after they get the offer of employment to be a permanent employee, is that when they
become entitled to those benefits that you talked about earlier? health benefits, and things of that
nature,

A: Yes. 401(k) plan. Those things people are generally familiar with, I think.

Q and is it at that point that they're supervised by A.E.G. Live?

A to whomever they report to, yes, correct.

Q now, is this the same process that you use when you're engaging independent contractors on a
tour?

A not at all.

Q and why is that?

A well, again, because it's a specific project. It's something that's going to come into existence
and end. It has a beginning and an end. And the people necessary to make that project happen
have areas of Expertise outside of people within our company.

Q so let's say you're putting together a tour, and you need to build up a team of people to work on
a tour.

A uh-huh.

Q do you post a job somewhere the way you do for employees?

A no. I mean, look, we don't have a sound business unit; we don't have a lighting business unit.
It would not be good business to retain, you know, people like that in-house as full-time
employees year-round because tours come and go. So independent contractors -- by virtue of
that, we hire third parties for those specialties or for specific equipment, whatever the case may
be. And those people come to us through one of three channels.

Q I was just going to ask, how do you find them?

A well, they're either already known to us because we've worked with them in the past, all right;
Or they're known generally in the industry, and they're referred to us; or they're known to the
artist.

Q and when you say, "known to the artist," what do you mean?

A I mean they have a history, a connection, some kind of nexus with the artist.

Q so, for instance, someone like Karen Faye on The "This Is It" tour --

A right.

Q -- which of these paths did she come to you via?

A she was known to the artist. Travis Payne would be another example, and Kenny Ortega would
be another example.

Q so those were all people who, to your understanding, were already known to Mr. Jackson?

A correct.

Q and then once you get in touch with an Independent contractor, or are referred to an
Independent contractor one of these three ways, what's the next step? Do you conduct an
interview and collect resumes?

A no. They're not interviewed. Again, because they're either already known to us from having
worked with them, or they have a reputation within the industry for the services or the equipment
they provide. So the engagement of independent contractors is a contractual matter. It's pursuant
to a contract. So we would start the process of trying to agree upon the terms and conditions of
that engagement.

Q so you start negotiating a contract?

A correct.

Q and what kinds of things, or what kind of people would be involved in -- or who -- I'm sorry.
Who would be involved in negotiating those kinds of contracts with the independent contractors
for the tour?

A well, the people responsible for the project generally would be involved in establishing or
setting rates of pay, for example, or any other specific terms and conditions. But the contracting
process, the actual, you know, submission of an agreement and any negotiation of that, that's
handled by me or somebody in my department.

Q your department handles the actual contracting processes?

A that's correct.

Q and, actually, just to back up a moment, does A.E.G. Live just work with independent
contractors on concert tours?

A no. We have some employees that would be involved on tours. But generally speaking, it's
Independent contractors.

Q and do you use independent contractors for any of the other projects that we've heard A.E.G.
Live is involved in? Like festivals or one-time shows or things of that nature?

A yes. I mean, the festivals that we do, whether it's Coachella or stagecoach, or we're involved in
the New Orleans jazz and heritage festival, things of that nature, are also projects that have a
finite beginning and end to it. So there may be some employees within the Company that are
involved in those events, but largely, the people that are engaged to work them are engaged on a
one-off basis as independent contractors.

Q do you have any idea of how many projects A.E.G. Live does per year? Just a broad estimate.

A well, for the last few years, I know we've done between 5- and 6,000 shows annually each of
those years around the world. This past year in 2012, we did approximately 5,800 events. That's
a little bit misleading, because that includes all one-off concert events, but doesn't really account
for all the work and effort that goes -- I mean, a festival event, for example, takes a lot of
manpower to pull off. That's just one event out of that 5,800. So you'd be hiring all of those
people for that one event.

Q and those people you were hiring for that one event would be, generally, independent
contractors, if I understand correctly?

A right. Correct.

Q okay. Now, in this process of contracting independent Contractors, you were asked yesterday
about background checks and things of that nature. Does A.E.G. Live run background checks
on Independent contractors?

A no, for the reasons I gave previously. They're known to us already; they're known to the
industry; or they're known to the artist.

Q so they already have a relationship with someone who is working on the tour?

A correct.

Q and has A.E.G. Live ever run background checks on independent contractors?

A not to my knowledge.

Q do you have any understanding as to whether -- you've been in this industry a long time.
Whether it's customary in this industry?

Mr. Panish: calling for expert testimony. He's not an expert. As to A.E.G. He's fine, but he's
Not designated as an expert.

Judge. sustained.

Ms. Bina: let me see if I can ask this I think it's safe, but your honor --

Q are you aware of any other Concert companies that conduct background checks on
Independent contractors?

Mr. Panish: same objection.

Judge. sustained.

Q Mr. Trell, have you ever conducted a background check on any independent contractors?

Mr. Panish: asked and answered.

Judge overruled.

Trell no, I have not.

Q all right. Do you -- does that mean there's no safeguards for independent contractors working
with A.E.G. Live?

A no, that doesn't mean that at all.

Q so tell me how A.E.G. Live imposes safeguards in its relationships with independent
contractors.

A okay. Well, again, as a general matter, there's already that nexus or that connection with us or
the artist. But contractually, there's also built-in requirements placed upon the independent
contractor. They make certain representations and warranties. They have to provide our
company with evidence of commercial general liability insurance, and they indemnify the
Company for their negligence or willful misconduct.

Q and when you say, have to provide evidence of Insurance, what do you mean? What kind of
insurance would independent contractors have?

A like that of a business. So they have general Liability insurance, whether it's commercial -- it's
called CGL Insurance. And that responds in the event of any claim arising out of that
independent contractor's activities.

Q and would you ever require that an independent contractor provide evidence of licenses or
permits, or things of that nature?

A that type of thing would be part of the Representations and warranties that are offered. They
are also required to show proof of, you know, having whatever is necessary for them to conduct
the business that they conduct, whether that's licenses, or whether they're in adherence with
applicable laws, etc Things of that nature.

Q do you know what a civil record search is?

A I have an idea of it. It's a search of whether or not there are any lawsuits, generally.

Q does A.E.G. Live run civil records searches on employees?

A not to my knowledge, no.

Q does A.E.G. Live run civil record searches on Independent contractors?

A no.

Q and did A.E.G. Live do any kind of background check on any of the persons who were
involved in the "This Is It" -- phrase that more precisely -- any of the Independent contractors
who were engaged for the "This Is It" tour?

A no.

Q so they didn't do a background check on Karen Faye?

A no.

Q didn't do a background check on Kenny Ortega?

A no.

Q or Timm Woolley?

A no.

Q Mr. Woolley was actually handling financial information, wasn't he?

A yes, he was.

Q why would A.E.G. Live not run a credit check on him?

A Mr. Woolley was known to the company. At one point in time he was the company's CFO.

Q is that an example where the prior relationship makes it sort of -- I guess -- what word would
you use?

A Mr. Woolley not only worked with the company previously, but he's also well known in the
industry for what he does as a tour accountant. In fact, he's the tour accountant on the rolling
stones tour taking place right now.

Q so given that, A.E.G. Live wouldn't conduct a credit check on him?

A no. I think he would fall into that category as somebody known to us and known to us as being
capable and competent for what he does at his profession.

Q do you have any idea what his personal financial situation is?

A no idea.

Q does it matter?

A no. I mean, we were retaining him to do what he's very good at doing, and what his financial
condition is, is not our business.

Q couple more questions on this idea of Independent contractors, and kind of what's done to
check them out. You testified yesterday that A.E.G. Live doesn't run background checks on
independent contractors. And you talked a little bit about things that you do. How would
insurance help ensure that an Independent contractor is actually safe? In other words, how does
acquiring an independent contractor to have insurance help ensure that he's a safe independent
contractor?

A well, I mean, I think -- I mean, the concept of Insurance and indemnity in these types of
agreements is entirely customary and typical. It shows, you know, a level of diligence, and, you
know -- what do I want to say? -- capacity on the independent contractor's part to have secured
that type of insurance coverage. And they have to name the company as what's called an
additional insured. It would then respond if there was a claim arising out of their actions.

Q does A.E.G. Live endeavor to provide a safe working environment for the artist it's working
with?

A sure. As a general matter, yes.

Q and how does it do that?

A we do that by hiring capable people that are experts in their particular field. When we're doing
a project -- I mean, of course, the entire working environment of that project, it's the desire or
goal of the company that that's a safe working environment.

Q do you do anything to make sure when Independent contractors leave A.E.G. Live premises,
that they're not doing something bad?

A no. I mean, look. A tour project is just that; right? People come together, they mount the tour. I
use the word I used yesterday. They're building this thing. It's an ongoing, developing thing. But
on a nightly basis when people leave that project, they're leaving and going home to their family.
And what they're doing in their home, in the privacy of their home, in the sanctity of their
bedroom, that's their business.

Q and in connection with tours A.E.G. Live is producing -- I'm talking about specifically
producing now -- is it common for an artist to have, for lack of a better word, an entourage
they're traveling with?

A sure.

Q and is A.E.G. Live sometimes involved in paying or securing travel, or otherwise involved
with that entourage?

A yes.

Q does it do background checks on the artist's entourage?

A no.

Q why not?

A because those are people the artist has around them and wants with them as they tour. It would
be misplaced or misguided for us to inject ourselves into the personal relationships or affairs of
an artist and those types of people.

Q let's talk about the draft agreement with Dr. Murray specifically.

A okay.

Q how did A.E.G. Live come to deal with Dr. Murray? Were they looking for a tour doctor For
the "this is it" tour?

A no, we were not.

Q so what happened, to your knowledge?

A it's my understanding Michael requested that this doctor accompany he and his family to
London for these -- for this period of time.

Q did A.E.G. Live conduct any searches for Doctors or do any kind of looking for the best doctor
for Mr. Jackson?

A no.

Q why not?

A because it's not what we would do in mounting the tour. That would be something personal to
the Artist, like I just described. That wouldn't be part and parcel of literally building the show.

Q did A.E.G. Live have any role in choosing Dr. Murray?

A no.

Q given your experience dealing with issues on Concert tours, were you surprised by Mr.
Jackson's request to bring a personal physician on tour?

Mr. Panish: excuse me. Objection to foundation with this witness. He was not involved in
this. No foundation.

Ms. Bina: your honor, this witness has been involved in the contract and has been involved
in contracts for every artist that the company has produced for 10 years. I think there's a
foundation.

Judge.: Overruled.

Trell could you ask the question again for me, please?

Q . Given your experience dealing with independent contractors on tours, were you surprised at
Mr. Jackson's request to bring his family physician on board?

A no. It doesn't surprise me. It's not necessarily uncommon that an artist would have, or a band
would have a physician accompanying them on a tour. We've been involved in other tours where
the artist has had a doctor along for them and/or their families.

Q were those tours that you were producing or just promoting?

A those were tours that we were promoting.

Q so in those instances, you weren't involved in putting together the pieces of the tour, mounting
it, as you called it?

A could you ask that again?

Q those other instances you're aware of with doctors, your company was not involved in
mounting the tour?

A that's correct. It would have been a Fully-delivered tour, was the word I used yesterday.

Q remind us what a fully-delivered tour is.

A fully-delivered tour is the one where the Artist builds what you see on the stage. They mount
the Tour. We just promote those tours.

Q and so in those instances, whoever was mounting the tour was not you?

A that's correct.

Q and do you know what contractual arrangements were with those other physicians traveling on
those other tours?

A no, I don't.

Q but in this instance, A.E.G. Live was mounting the tour?

A correct.

Q and Dr. Murray was someone that Mr. Jackson requested come tour with him?

A correct.

Q now, Mr. Panish asked you about some e-mails between Dr. Murray and Timm Woolley. Do
you recall that?

A I do.

Q and what's your understanding, if you have one, was Mr. Woolley's role in dealing with Dr.
Murray?

A I think they were establishing some of the basic parameters of the engagement.

Q I'd like to go through the correspondence -- did you review the correspondence between Mr.
Woolley and Dr. Murray in your role as person most knowledgeable on the relationship between
A.E.G. Live and Dr. Murray?

A I've seen it, yes.

Q I'd like to run through some of that correspondence Mr. Panish showed, and some other
correspondence in more detail. Now, I believe you testified on Monday -- and correct me if I'm
wrong, I'm not always good on dates -- That the amount of Dr. Murray's compensation was
agreed upon on or about May 6th, 2009?

A okay. That sounds accurate.

Q and do you have an understanding as to how that amount was set?

A my understanding is it was communicated to Paul Gongaware by brother Michael Amir
Williams.

Q and I'd like to look at an exhibit you were shown on Monday. It's plaintiffs' exhibit 175-1 And
is this an e-mail that reflects your understanding?

A yes.

Q and does it give an idea -- let me ask this: What is the date of this e-mail?

A May 6th.

Q do you have an understanding of what "150k per month per MJ means?

A it means Michael Jackson had agreed to pay Dr. Murray at the rate of $150,000 per month.

Q now, you were asked about the second sentence Here about: "Dr. Murray needs about 10 days
to wind down his practice, and then he will be full time." Do you have an understanding as to
whether or not Dr. Murray was already working part time at this period for Mr. Jackson?

A I have no idea.

Q do you know whether Dr. Murray had treated Mr. Jackson before this time period at all?

A as of this date?

Q well, as of now.

A only because he had represented that he had, Yes.

Q when you say "he had represented," do you mean Michael Jackson or Dr. Murray, or both?

A I mean Dr. Murray had represented that he had been Michael Jackson's physician for
approximately three rears prior.

Q and now I'd like to go to an e-mail that Mr. Panish also showed you. This was 177-1. This is
two days after the last one, may 9th, 2009. Now, Mr. Trell, you looked at this e-mail on Monday.
Do you recall that?

A yes, I do.

Q is this e-mail something that you, as a person who signs contracts for A.E.G. Live, considered
to be a contract?

A no.

Q why not?

Mr. Panish: your honor, I would object again Now; the witness's expert opinion as to
what's a contract and what isn't.
Judge overruled.
Mr. Panish: also for the court to instruct the Jury.
Judge overruled.

Q Mr. Trell?

A why was this not a contract?

Q yes.

A simply put, it doesn't contain all of the material terms and conditions of the engagement.

Q can you read that sentence, Mr. Trell?

A it says: "lots to consider above and would be happy to continue discussion when convenient to
you. Timm."

Q and does that sentence give you any understanding as to whether or not Dr. Murray and Mr.
Woolley considered themselves to be complete and done at that point?

A no. It sounds like they're -- the intent is to continue discussing the matter.

Q by the way, here it says the contracting entity is G.C.A. Holdings, LLC Do you have an
understanding if the agreement between A.E.G. Live and Dr. Murray was to be an Independent-
contractor agreement or an employment agreement?

A always an independent-contractor agreement.

Q like we talked about earlier today?

A yes, of course.

Q was there ever a question of A.E.G. Live hiring Dr. Murray as an employee?

A no.

Q let's go on to another exhibit Mr. Panish showed you, which is 191-1. Mr. Panish showed you
the e-mail on the first page. I want to look at the one that preceded it.

A okay.

Trell may I see the preceding e-mail, the one I saw yesterday, just so I know which one it was?

Q yeah. Let me give you a paper copy just so you have it. I know it's tough with these chains
going back and forth.

A it's okay

Q so why don't you zoom in on the first one we saw on Monday.

Trell okay.

Q Mr. Trell, you recall seeing this first e-mail I've blown up here ?

A yes.

Q I'd like you to turn to the e-mail that preceded this one, which I don't think we saw on Monday.

A okay.

Q so the e-mail we looked at on Monday was an E-mail from Dr. Murray to Mr. Woolley. And
this is an E-mail from Mr. Woolley to Dr. Murray; is that right?

A correct. From Tim Woolley to Dr. Murray, Thursday, may 14th, 2009.

Q and is it cc'd to anyone?

A cc'd, Paul Gongaware.

Q can you describe what this e-mail is?

A sounds as if Mr. Woolley is asking Dr. Murray whether or not he had any response to an e-mail
that he had sent him that addressed certain terms of the engagement.

Q would that be the one we just saw from May 8th?

A yes.

Q all right. So is there anything from this E-mail that makes you think the parties had or had not
reached an agreement at this point?

A well, he hasn't heard from Dr. Murray one way or the other, so that's what would make me
think there was no agreement.

Q and can you read the second sentence aloud there?

A "I should like to take the next Step of discussing a contract for the period including the terms
on which we agree."

Q and does that give you an understanding as to whether or not there was intended to be further
conversations?

A I think the plain language of that makes it clear that the next step was to discuss a contract.

Q and so let's look at the one Mr. Panish did show you on Monday, which is the response to this.

A okay.

Q now, Mr. Panish showed you this document you focused in on certain things, which you recall
the language in that second paragraph, as far as "with my client"?

A right. Right.

Q who does Dr. Murray refer to as his client

A Mr. Jackson.

Q and who does he say his services are already fully engaged with?

A Mr. Jackson.

Q and I'd like to look at the first sentence of that second paragraph.

A right.

Q what is Dr. Murray saying there?

A he's asking if we would put together the contract so he could have his lawyer take a look at it.

Q so he wants a lawyer to review a contract?

A right. He's asking for a contract.

Q and does he give any indication as to whether he's going to sign the contract or not?

A no. He's going to have his lawyer look at it.

LUNCH..



Q Mr. Trell where we left off just before lunch, we were going through some e-mails between Dr.
Murray and Timm Woolley

A okay

Q do you recall that?

A yes

Q before I go back into those in a moment, I want to follow up on a couple of things we talked
about this morn the 1st one is this 2 nd physical with Mr. Jackson

A okay.

Q did I understand correctly that was required of the policy as of April 24th when it was issued?

A yes

Q so that wasn't something that was added in response to anything to do with Mr. Jackson's
health in May or June

A no it was a requirement to the orig policy in order to add illness as a covered peril

Q so there was always going to be that 2nd physical in London from the time the policy was
issued?

A if illness was to be added yes

Q now 1 more question I wanted to ask... There was an e-mail yesterday I apologize I don't have
it here but I'm hoping you'll remember it. And it was from the insurers and it was dated March

22nd 2009 and it asked a number of questions about what was...Information the insurers needed
for the policy do you recall?

A yes

Q and do you recall whether one of the questions was whether or not there would be a tour
doctor accompanying Mr. Jackson?

A I remember the e-mail yes

Q now, as of March 22nd 2009 did AEG live know that Mr. Jackson was bringing Dr. Murray
with him on tour?

A what was the date?

Q March 22nd 2009

A not to my knowledge.

Q to your knowledge was that something ... When was that learned?

A Murray?

Q uh-huh

A late April early May

Q and you mentioned earlier that you knew of other tours where AEG live had been a promoter
but not a producer where there had been tour physicians

A yes

Q can you tell us any of those tours, or

A sure

Q do you recall which tours they were?

A I'll give you 2... We did a tour with Celine Dion a few years ago it's my understanding she had
a physician with her and her fam on that tour. We're currently doing a tour with the rolling
stones and it's my understanding they have a physician on tour with them

Q how many tours has AEG live produced as opposed to just promoted

A tours like the one that we're talking about here ... Just one

Q just one?

A yes

Q Ms. Hollander said there were maybe half dozen is that wrong in some way or

A well I'm characterizing it a little bit differently ... We've done production elements for "so you
think you can dance" ... That project some other things called "veggie tales," which is like a
christian kids show that went on tour and we've done other production matters in connection with
other projects like our exhibition business and things of that nature. But as far as a tour is
concerned that's anything akin to what we were doing here, we produced prince's tour a few
years back, which was an 88 show tour

Q and is that the only one where AEG live has served as producer in a way that you think is
similar to the "this is it" tour?

A yes

Q let's go back to the e-mails between Dr. Murray and Mr. Woolley and this is the one where Dr.
Murray had asked for a contract to review with his lawyer...What's the date of this e-mail?

A May 15th, 2009.

Q and do you know whether there were further e-mails between Dr. Murray and Mr. Woolley
after this?

A yes

Q so we haven't seen those yet, but let's go ahead and look at them now

A ok

Q Mr. Trell, do you see here this e-mail? On the 2nd page I think is the one we just saw

A right

Q so is that the May 15th e-mail we just saw from Dr. Murray to Mr. Woolley?

A yes it

Q Mr. Trell, what's the date of this e-mail?

A this e-mail is dated May 21st 2009

Mr. Panish: just for the record, it's okay if they show him this as long as I can show him
ones that he's not listed on. I don't have a problem with that. But there was an objection
when I tried to show him certain ones he's not listed on.

Ms. Bina... There was no objection to Mr. Panish showing these e-mails to Mr. Trell. There
were objections with other witnesses, but Mr. Panish established that they had been
reviewed in Mr. Trell's person most knowledgeable capacity.

Mr. Panish.... As long as I can ask go ahead.

Ms. Bina all right

Q what's the date of this e-mail Mr. Trell?

A May 21st, 2009

Q and could you read the highlighted sentences to me?

A this is from Timm Woolley to Dr. Murray "I should like to send a contract to you in the next
day or two but am looking for help within the legal dept because the forms within which I work
don't apply to your specialized position"

Q you talked earlier about contract standard forms and then variations on those standard forMs.
Was Dr. Murray's draft agreement a standard form independent contractor agreement for AEG
live?

A no

Q and was Mr. Woolley authorized to draft an agreement that varied from the standard term? Did
Mr. Woolley have authority to vary from the standard form contract and create his own custom
contract?

A no

Q whose responsibility would that have been?

A that would fall to me

Q so in this e-mail is Mr. Woolley explaining that he doesn't have a contract in hand or.... What
does this e-mail say to you?

A this e-mail means to me that he's hopeful that a proposed contract could be sent to Dr. murray
within a day or two

Q now

A of the date of this e-mail.

Q let's go back to two more that Mr. Panish showed you that came after the two e-mails we've
just seen (shows 2 exhibits) and you can just pull those up side by side do you recall reviewing
this e-mail on the left the other day when Mr. Panish was questioning?

A yes

Q this is an e-mail where Dr. Murray asked for a deposit of the monthly fee?

A yes

Q Mr. Trell, was another to the same effect?

A yes

Q so after asking for a contract for his lawyer to review, Dr. Murray then sent these two e-mails
asking for payment?

A that's correct, that's what these e-mails are doing

Q now we didn't look the other day at Mr. Woolley's response to Dr. Murrays e-mail did we?

A I don't recall that we did no

Q now, Mr. Trell, in this e-mail did Mr. Woolley tell Dr. Murray "no problem....... You can be
paid"?

A no, he didn't.

Q what did he say?

A he said that the legal department had not yet completed the agreement which is rather
specialized since it is a rare event that a physician is engaged to accompany a touring artist

Q and did he say anything about whether payment would be made before there was an executed
agreement?

A he says AEG policies dictate that payments can only be made under a fully executed
agreement

Q at some point .... Because this was a specialized agreement that couldn't be completed on the
form agreement did responsibility for lack of a better word of Dr. Murrays agreement... Pass
from Mr. Woolley to someone else at AEG live?

A yes effectively it passed to me as general counsel for the company

Q and did you then negotiate with Dr. Murray directly?

A no I delegated the task to Kathy Jorrie

Q and who is ms Jorrie again?

A she's an outside lawyer that does work for the company from time to time

Q and so at your direction, Ms. Jorrie began negotiations with Dr. Murray?

Mr. Panish: objection, your honor...... Leading and suggestive of the answer he said he
passed the task along

The court: overruled.

A I'm sorry could you ask the question again, or have it read back to me, either way?

Bina-- sure.

Q did Ms. Jorrie begin negotiations with Dr. Murray at your direction?

A yes

Q do you know whether she spoke to Dr. Murray?

A yes she did

Q do you know whether she provided draft contracts to Dr. Murray

A yes she did

Q and we saw some of those contracts yesterday right?

A correct

Q were you copied on the drafts that she sent to Dr. Murray?

A yes

Q do you know how many drafts there were?

A I don't recall no

Q do you know whether ms Jorrie made any changes to her initial draft based on responses she
received from Dr. Murray

A well I know we made she.... I guess.....Effectively made the changes to our base form
independent contractor agreement and I know that there were changes made along the way as
part of the negotiations with Dr. Murray

Q I'd like to look at the very first draft contract that ms Jorrie prepared and sent to Dr. Murray

A okay

Q and that's if you want to go pg 2 so what's the date of the first e-mail here?

A this e-mail is from June 15th.

Q so I think we left off before at May 28th or 29th

A right

Q and then at some point after that ms Jorrie put together a draft contract?

A yes

Q and what's the title of this first one

A the title is .....Murray agreement 6/15/09

Q and it doesn't say draft agreement does it?

A no, it doesn't say draft

Q did you understand it to be a draft?

A yes she says expressly in the opening paragraph I have attached a draft agreement for your
review and comment

Q and do you know whether this draft agreement was, in fact, sent to Dr. Murray?

A it's my understanding Mr. Woolley passed this along to Dr. Murray

Q lets look at the first page of this

Document just to make sure thats the case the first pg of the e-mail and so is this what you're
talking about?

A this would be that -- that e-mail from Timm Woolley to Conrad Murray it was on June 16th 09

Q and in this e-mail Mr. Woolley makes a ref to the fact that the contract would be retroactive
back to May?

A yes he does

Q and at this point did you have an understanding as to whether or not there was a signed
agreement -- whether or not there was an agreement between AEG live and Dr. Murray?

A well this was Murrays first receipt of a proposed contract so it was clearly not any agreement
at this juncture

Q I'd like to now look at the first draft and I'm not going to go through the whole draft but I want
to just look at a couple of pages

A okay

Q so is this the first draft agreement?

A yes

Q okay I'd like to I'd like you to quickly read through this

A okay

Q and tell me if there is anything in this document that just looking through makes you believe
it's not a final agreement

A yes it's not signed.

Q is it signed by anyone?

A not signed by anybody no

Q let's turn to pg 7 of the third or fourth page of the contract

A I'm sorry the third

Q it's the one with paragraph 9 on it

A paragraph 9 ok

Q Mr. Trell this is a version that we've seen before in the later agreement

Q can you read this provision for me

A sure paragraph 9 artist consent the effect of this agreement is conditioned upon the approval
and consent of the artist without the artists expressed and written approval of the agreement
neither party to the agreement will have any rights or obligations to one another arising from the
agreement

Q is this a standard provision that's in all AEG live independent contractor agreements

A no this provision is not in our base form of independent contractor agreement.=

Q is it in any other agreements that you've ever done as an AEG tour independent contractor... I
guess master of independent contracts?

A no I've been in the capacity of the company that I'm in for almost a decade same title same
responsibilities. This paragraph here has never been added to an independent contractor
agreement during my tenure in my role

Q why was it added here?

A because of the personal request here from Michael Jackson for this particular engagement of
his personal physician

Q and what does this provision mean.... You mentioned yesterday it was a condition precedent
can you explain what this provision meant, or what the idea behind a provision like this is?

A okay it means simply that this piece of paper...This document,.... This agreement... Has no
force or effect unless or and until Michael Jackson provides his written approval of the
agreement

Q and does that go both ways Mr. Jackson and AEG's obligations to Dr. Murray and vice versa?

A right neither party would then have any obligation to the other correct

Q and this provision is in the very first draft that Ms. Jorrie sent to Dr. Murray?

A yes it was

Q I'd like to turn to the last page of the agreement can you blow up the bottom there.... This
signature block, is this....This is a signature block for Mr. Jackson right?

A that's correct

Q is this something that you have on independent contractor agreements as a normal course?

A no in the entirety of the time that I've been in the role that I've been in this signature block has
also not appeared on any other independent contractor agreement and its inclusion here is
because it dovetails with paragraph 9 that we just went over

Q so Mr. Jackson would give his expressed and written approval by signing this block

A yes

Q and can you read the highlighted sentence above the signature block for me?

A sure .....The undersigned hereby confirms that he has requested producer to engage Dr. Murray
on the terms set forth herein and on behalf of and at the expense of the undersigned

Q now.... It says here at Mr. Jackson's expense ....We've seen budgets where Dr. Murray's pay
was characterized as a production advance do you recall that?

A yes

Q now,we talked yesterday about production advances and artist advances do you recall that?

A yes

Q is Mr. Jackson responsible for both production advances and artist advances under the Jackson
AEG agreement?

A yes the Michael Jackson company

Q sorry?

A yes

Q the entity?

A the entity, artistco, is responsible for that,,,, yes

Q so whether he's a production advance or an artist advance, is Mr. Jackson responsible for the
payment either way?

A it's --

Mr. Panish objection misstates the contract the company is responsible.

Ms. Bina sorry

Q the Michael Jackson company responsible either way?

A it would be an obligation of the Michael Jackson company either way yes

Q did you have an understanding as to whether Dr. Murray was ultimately going to be
categorized as an artist advance or as a production advance?

A my understanding is that he would have been categorized as an artist advance. Even though the
budget showed him as a production advance?

Mr. Panish: leading

A that's right

The court: overruled.

Q why is that?

A well the reason for that is that this was a specific accommodation at the request of the artist, as
opposed to the type of production costs that would customarily and typically be included in the
capture of all production costs and mounting the tour

Q and if this agreement was signed -- not this agreement,,,,, but a later draft of it had been
signed, and let me ask you differently.... In your view does this agreement itself say whether or
not he's categorized as an artist or a production advance?

A not expressly no

Q is it possible to change categorizations on a budget if it's later determined that something is
put in the wrong slot?

Mr. Panish: foundation for this witness

Court: sustained

Q do you have an understanding as to whether budgets change in connection with settling up tour
accounts?

A yes, I do

Q and I know it's not your forte, you testified that Mr. Webking is the chief financial officer but
in your role as a contract the person who's handling the contracts do you have any involvement
in making sure that expenses are categorized according to how the artist and the artist-AEG live
contract categorizes them
A yes

Mr. Panish objection there's no foundation he said he doesn't categorize them

The court: you're talking about how they're categorized or described within the contracts
that he prepared?

Bina: in terms of recon- -- let me back up and lay a little more foundation because it's kind
of both, and that's why I want to make sure that the witness understands my questions and
it's something he can answer or not

Q Mr. Trell do you understand that there are budgets made in connection with a tour?

A sure

Q and do you have any role in creating those budgets in the first instance?

A no I don't

Q okay and there are tour agreements in connection with tours?

A yes

Q do you have any involvement in creating the tour agreements?

A yes I do

Q and do the tour agreements provide how artist costs are supposed to be split up as between
AEG live and the artists?

A yes it does

Q at the end of a tour is there a process to make sure that everything is accounted for in the right
way and that costs that are supposed to be in one bucket per the contract are actually accounted
for in that..... That proper bucket?

A there is a final -- what we call settling the tour that takes place at its conclusion... Yes

Q and in the settling process are you involved in reviewing the contracts and figuring out which
kinds of expenses should be categorized in which bucket?

A I'm familiar with the contracts that underlie the project at issue the tour..... And I'm aware of
where they should be categorized yes

Mr. Panish: I'm going to object. It's nonresponsive as to whether he's involved in the
creation of that or not

The court: sustained

Ms. Bina: I think it was responsive, your honor, but.....

Mr. Panish: no it's not

Q are you involved in the settlement process?

A people directly involved in the settlement process will come to me with questions from time to
time so in that capacity yes I'm involved

Q so you're involved but you're not the primary person

A that's fair to say yes

Q and would you be involved in interpreting contractual provisions to make sure things are put in
the right buckets?

A ye

Q and in the case with the AEG/Jackson contract obviously you never got to the point where you
were settling up after a tour, but is it something you would have been involved in?

Mr. Panish speculation foundation

The court overruled

A yes

Q and if at that time your understanding was that this agreement was supposed to place Dr.
Murray's salary in artist advances versus production costs is that something that you would have
made known to the financial folks?

Mr. Panish speculation

The court overruled

A yes

Q okay that's all

A ok

Q and to your understanding, was he supposed to be an artist advance or a production advance?

A my understanding, he was an artist advance

Q and, again, are both artist advances and production advances Mr. Jackson's responsibility?

A yes

Q or Mr. Jackson's company's responsibility?

A yes

Q ok I don't want to get too far into the financials, because there are other witnesses for that. So
turning back to paragraph 9 this was in the first provision that was sent to Dr. Murray on June
15th or 16th

A the first draft yes

Q do you know whether Dr. Murray ever raised any objections to this provision?

A I'm aware that he did not raise any objections to this provision

Q was there ever a draft of this agreement that was sent to Dr. Murray that did not contain this
provision?

A no every draft contained the provision as written here

Q so every draft contained a provision that said unless Mr. Jackson expressed a written approval
of this agreement, then neither party has any obligations to each other?

A that's correct

Q let's go on, and talk about the last draft that was sent on June 24th, 2009

A ok

Q and that is one that plaintiffs put in as exhibit # 677 let's pull up the first part of this agreement
and confirm we're all looking at the same thing. Is this the document that you were shown
yesterday that was the last independent contractor draft agreement that was sent from Kathy
Jorrie to Dr. Murray?

A yes, I believe it is

Q and can we turn to the last page just to.... Who prepared this document?

A Kathy Jorrie prepared it

Q let's go back to the first page Mr. Trell who are the parties to this agreement to this draft
agreement?

A the parties are AEG live productions LLC as producer, and the parties are GCA holdings LLC
and Dr. Conrad Murray

Q if we turn to paragraph b,,,,, do you have an understanding as to who GCA holdings is?

A GCA is Dr. Murray's employer.

Q and so he was with both Dr. Murray and his company?

A yes

Q and is that typical in independent contractor agreements?

A not necessarily it could just be with a company it could just be with the individual. In this case
it happens to be both

Q but it is something that's happened in other instances?

A yes

Q now, is Mr. Gongaware a party to this agreement?

A no

Q what about Mr. randy Phillips?

A no

Q were either of them going to sign the agreement as being a party in their individual capacity?

A no not in their individual capacity...No

Q let's turn... Let's look at the top there the very first line what's the title of this document?

A independent contractor agreement

Q now I asked you earlier Mr. Trell whether there was any thought of Dr. Murray becoming an
employee of AEG live LLC, or whether he was going to be retained as an independent
contractor, and you told me an independent contractor does this paragraph 8 relate to that idea?

A yes it does

Q what does it say? Don't read the whole thing, just give me an idea of what the provisions like
this mean

A this paragraph would be an agreement between the parties that the engagement is that of
independent contractor, and it expressly says that no employment relationship exists between the
parties there in about the middle of the paragraph

Q to your understanding did Dr. Murray ever raise any objections to this paragraph?

A no

Q do you have any understanding of anybody ever asking Dr. Murray to be anything other than
an independent contractor?

A no not at all

Q and can you remind us why that matters?

A well it matters because employees of the company, go through a bit of a different process when
engaged they have the privilege of availing themselves of company benefits like health insurance
or 401k. Theres administrative functions that need to take place with employees like the
withholding of taxes so they'd be issued a w-2. Independent contractors' engagements are a
matter of contract

Q now, you've talked about other artists sort of have tour party or concierge-type folks that travel
with an artist?

A okay

Q would any of those people ever be engaged as an AEG employee? And by that I mean the
individual party that travels with an artist

A no

Q so was Karen Faye engaged as an employee of AEG live?

A no

Q and what about Mr. Ortega?

A no

Q now let's go back to the first page we talked about this already. What was the effective date of
this agreement?

A it's effective as of May 1st, 2009

Q now, when you have something like that condition precedent clause that we saw in paragraph
9 does that affect the effective date of an agreement?

A the effective date of an agreement is just that,.... It's one of the agreed upon items in the
contract, so if and when a contract actually sprung into existence or became a valid and
enforceable contract, it would begin as of the stated effective date

Q so I'm not quite sure, though, that answered my question if Michael Jackson didn't sign the
agreement as per paragraph 9, would this agreement still be effective as of May 1?

Mr. Panish I'm going to object

Q based on your understanding.

Mr. Panish first of all, it

A if Michael Jackson

The court hold on

A I'm sorry

Sidebar...

Q can we go back up to paragraph 9

Q Mr. Trell, were you involved in the decision to add paragraph 9 to this draft contract?

A yes

Q how?

A in discussion with Kathy Jorrie.

Q and what was your intent in adding this provision to the contract?

A to make it expressly subject to Michael's signature appearing on it

Q and let's go back to the first page paragraph 3 are you familiar with this provision of the draft
agreement?

A yes

Q and what, if anything, does it say about the timing of when Dr. Murray could receive payment
under the contract?

A there's a later of the 15th day of the month or five business days after the execution and
delivery of the agreement.

Q so the later of those two?

A the later of those two days, which would mean there would not be a payment made until five
business days after the execution of the agreement

Q and who would be getting paid under this provision?

A GCA holdings.

Q that's Dr. Murray's employer?

A correct

Q so would AEG live be paying Dr. Murray directly?

A no we would be paying that entity.

Q let's go on to ... Go to the last page and whose expense would Dr. Murray's payments
ultimately be?

Panish: I'm going to object. It's been asked and answered five times, at least.

Court: sustained

Q let's go to recital a on the first page of the document do you have an understanding as to what
this provision was intended to do?

A this recital sets forth the understandings of the parties generally as they attempt to reach an
agreement as to something and this recital a is meant to set forth that this engagement is at artist's
request.

Q and then can you pull up recital b and what was this recital meant, to you, to include?

A well, in part, it was meant to have Dr. Murray representing that he's a licensed cardiologist.
It's also meant to provide for his representation that he acts as the artist's general practitioner,
meaning at that time prior.

Q was it your intention in working with Ms. Jorrie with this agreement that Dr. Murray would be
providing services for AEG live?

A no

Q let's go down a little bit to paragraph 1--scope of services and look at.... What is a scope-of-
services provision in a contract like this?

A the scope of the services sets forth the nature of the services to be rendered.

Q okay. So --

A the types of services, if you will.

Q so for a choreographer, would it say choreographers should perform choreography services?

A yes

Q and what does it say that Dr. Murray's services here will be?

A right the services defined here in this first paragraph contemplate the general medical care to
the artist

Q does it say anything about how the services will be administered?

A yes

Q what does it say?

A professionally and with the greatest degree of care to be expected from similarly situated
members in the medical field

Q and then can you read to me the second to last sentence in the paragraph starting with...Dr.
Murray shall.

A Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by the artist from
time to time during the term hereof

Q lets go back to exhibit 7799, the first draft 4779 agreement Mr. Trell, can you read that second
to last paragraph from the earlier draft?

A this is from the first draft, I believe

Q yes

A "Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by producer
from time to time during the term hereof."

Q the producer is AEG live or AEG live productions right?

A correct

Q was it ever your intention that Dr. Murray would be providing services for AEG live
productions?

A no

Q and was that language later changed to reflect that that was not the intention?

A yes, it was it was later modified, "producer" being changed to "artist."

Q now, we looked yesterday at plaintiffs exhibit 648, which showed a redline of a document
between an earlier version and a later version of Dr. Murray's draft contract. Do you recall that?

A yes, I do.

Q Mr. Trell, do you recall yesterday we were looking at one that said revised Michael Jackson
and final Michael Jackson, two documents attached?

A yes

Q so is this the same one we were looking at yesterday?

A that's that same e-mail, yes

Q so let's go to the second page, then, which is the one that we looked at yesterday where it was
forwarded, if I recall correctly. Mr. Trell, can you just ,,, was this forwarded to you, right?

A correct

Q so you've seen it before?

A yes

Q can you just read the first bit of that there?

A an e-mail from Kathy Jorrie to Timm Woolley and Conrad Murray, dear Dr. Murray, I have
attached hereto a revised version of your agreement which incorporates all of the revisions you
requested. I have redlined the word version so that you can see all the revisions.

Q what does it mean to redline a version?

A compare one version to another.

Q and this was a version that you understood Ms. Jorrie was sending to Dr. Murray incorporating
revisions?

A yes

Q did you review the redline that she sent?

A yes

Q Mr. Trell, is this the redline we looked at yesterday?

A yes

Q and can you tell me if there's any changes to scope of services?

A there's the one change in the paragraph that we were just discussing where "artist" was added
and "producer" was struck.

Q and did you have an understanding as to why this change was made?

A it was a change requested by Dr. Murray.

Q let's go back to exhibit # xxxx and now we're back to the agreement that had been sent that
day that Dr. Murray signed but the others didn't

A ok

Panish object to narrative

The court: okay well, is there a stipulation that that's what this is? What you were
referring to yesterday
Chang: I think it's an argument your honor

Panish: at what time?

Bina: I'm just trying to explain which document.

Court: she just asked is this a document we were looking at yesterday

Chang: that's not what she said, though.

Panish: I will stipulate this is the one Dr. Murray signed.

Q Mr. Trell let's go back in paragraph

A ok

Q is this the one where it's been changed to artist?

A yes

Q let's turn to paragraph 4 Mr. Trell do you have an understanding of whether this paragraph
contains similar language to language in paragraph 1

A no it contains contradictory language

Q do you have an understanding as to why paragraph 1 and paragraph 4 are contradictory?

A yes this language is contained in our base form of agreement and when the change in the
paragraph 1 was made it wasn't caught by either side to make the corresponding change here so
this is a holdover from that form.

Q and does that happen sometimes with form agreements that things get left over from one
version to another?

A sure it does yes

Panish it's leading and argumentative

Court sustained

Panish and move to strike the answer

Court sustained on leading the answer is stricken

Q ok let's go back and look at the AEG/Michael Jackson agreement Mr. Trell can you look at the
first sentence of this AEG/Michael Jackson agreement

A look at it or do you want me to read it?

Q why don't you read it.

A ok ....By signing below, each party acknowledges its agreement to the foregoing and agrees to
negotiate the definitive agreement expeditiously and in good faith.

Q was there another agreement that was going to be negotiated after this agreement between
AEG live and Mr. Jackson?

A no this is another example of a holdover from a form, the last portion of that referencing a
definitive agreement

Panish I'm going to again object and move to strike as nonresponsive to this question,
which was is this a definitive agreement, not what he said

Bina your honor, I think the question was there an intention to do another agreement.

Panish that wasn't the question

Court let's strike the answer, go back and ask your question

Bina sure

Q Mr. Trell was there going to be another agreement? A definitive agreement after this one?

A no this agreement was the definitive agreement between the parties

Q do you have an explanation for why this language would be here?

A yes this started out as a smaller form summarizing terms and conditions this last language is in
that form where a separate, separately negotiated document is contemplated the original form
just got expanded upon into the letter agreement format that this tour agreement ended up being
in. And Kathy and myself, umm you know, didn't catch that holdover language

Q you said holdover language?

A yes, holdover language from the form from which the agreement started

Q is this language supposed to be here?

Panish objection leading suggestive

Court overruled

A the sentence at top should just end after the word foregoing

Q so the rest of it?

A the balance of it is the holdover language that I would refer to

Q let's look at exhibit 677-180 and this is that Tohme Tohme producer services agreement that
we looked at this morning?

A right

Q Mr. Trell can you explain to me why the word change is at the end of that sentence?

A it would be another example of holdover language from a form or an insertion in the drafting
process to go back and change something I don't know to what specifically it refers to, but that
language wasn't ultimately deleted in the final version and should have been.

Q let's go back to the draft Dr. Murray agreement, which is 677-252 Mr. Trell are there any
other mistakes in this paragraph?

A yes there is there's a mistake in that paragraph as well

Q where is that?

A in the fourth line where there's the list of parties whom GCA is indemnifying it makes
reference to officers, directors, employees, representatives, tenants, agents, Dr. Murrays and
volunteers.

Q and is that not supposed to say Dr. Murrays?

A no

Q what should it say?

A the form agreement from which this started, rather than Dr. Murrays, it was contractors, so it
appears to me somebody did a word search and replace for contractor with Dr. Murray, and so it
changed that there, that's why it reads Dr. Murrays, and did not catch the mistake

Q do these kinds of mistakes happen sometimes when you're drafting contracts, in the
paperwork?

Panish leading and suggestive

Court sustained

Panish it's also irrelevant

Court overruled on irrelevant

Q Mr. Trell, is it something that happens sometimes, or does it not ever happen that there are
mistakes in contracts made in connection with --

A it sometimes occurs yes

Q and have we seen some examples of that?

A yes we have

Q now I know you've reviewed this draft contract now, obviously, and before this litigation. Do
you recall you testified about that yesterday, right?

A uh-huh yes

Q do you recall whether you have read it between the time Ms. Jorrie sent it to you and when Mr.
Jackson ... Sorry ... When Dr. Murray signed it?

A well I'm familiar with the underlying form so I'd read that many many times I'd had the
conversations with Kathy about the consent paragraph 9 and the signature block and I otherwise
charged her with handling the revisions and the sending of drafts and the back and forth with
Murray on it.

Panish ok I'm going to object and move to strike the question is.... Do you recall whether
you read it between the time ms Jorrie sent it to you and when Dr. Murray signed it?

Court sustained

Panish that answer was nonresponsive and should be stricken.

Court motion granted the answer is stricken

Q do you recall whether you had read it in that time period between when Ms. Jorrie sent it to
you which we established was about 1:00 in the morning yesterday, and when Dr. Murray signed
it and sent it to Ms. Jorrie?

A read the Wednesday 6/24 document?

Q yes

A no, it didn't I don't recall reading it

Court so I guess what you're saying is you didn't read it before it was sent to Murray? Is
that ...I guess I'm trying to figure out what...

Bina what I'm trying to figure out is it looks like Ms. Jorrie sent it to Dr. Murray

Court directly?

Bina yes and sent it to Mr. Trell and my question is had he had a chance to read it before
Dr. Murray signed that version. Sometimes copies go out simultaneously to multiple people
that's what I'm just trying to figure out.

Court all right so you didn't review it before it went directly from Jorrie to Murray?

A I did not, no.

Panish your honor, excuse me. He just answered, I don't recall. That's his answer that he
just gave.

Bina your honor, I think he just gave his answer in response to your question.

A I don't recall reviewing it

Panish exactly

Q would you have reviewed it before anyone at AEG live signed it?

A yes

Q did anyone from AEG live ever sign it?

A no

Q now, we talked a little bit earlier about some of the items that AEG live puts into independent
contractor agreements. Do you recall this?

A yes

Q and the required licenses and permits and insurance and indemnification provisions, do you
recall testifying about those this morning?

A yes I do

Q were there any items like that in the draft agreement with Dr. Murray?

A yes there was

Q let's pull back to the draft independent contractor agreement which is 677-253 ok Mr. Trell can
you read paragraphs 3 and 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 out loud?

A sure paragraph 4.3 under responsibilities of GCA and Dr. Murray, obtain, maintain and
comply with all licenses, permits and franchises or other approvals required by any applicable
law or from any governmental agency or authority to permit or otherwise legally authorize Dr.
Murray to perform any and all of the services and to fulfill all of his obligations under this
agreement, including in accordance with any and all applicable laws in the united kingdom.
4.4, present to producer within two weeks from the date of this agreement documented proof of
any and all licenses required for Dr. Murray to practice medicine in the united states and to
perform the services under this agreement.
4.5, present to producer no later than July 3rd, 2009, documented proof of any and all licenses
required for Dr. Murray to practice medicine in the united kingdom and to perform the services
under this agreement to the reasonable satisfaction of the producer.

Q and are these paragraphs do they fall into one of the categories we talked about earlier?

A yes

These are paragraphs you know requiring the independent contractor to supply proof of license ie
licensing in this case.

Q let's look at paragraph 7 on page 677-254
A okay

Q does anything in this paragraph relate back to the idea of Dr. Murray's providing proof of
licenses?

A well, 7.1 generally would cover that, and 7.5 would cover that as well.

Q any others?

A I didn't get a chance to read, and 7.4 as well

Q and what's the heading of paragraph 7?

A termination

Q and so what is,,,, I can have you read them all, but what is your understanding of these
provisions?

A well these would be the types of provisions that you have in an independent contractor
agreement that would give rise to a termination, 7.1 being a breach of the agreement that's not
otherwise cured within five days,,, that means its not otherwise fixed, 7.4 having to do with
failing to obtain and maintain and comply with all licenses, and 7.5 having to do with his failing
to provide us that documented proof that he's legally authorized to practice medicine in the
united states that I just read.

Q and then there's one more on the next page paragraph 7.6.

A and that would be the -- the provision dealing with failing to provide the proof to practice
medicine in the united kingdom from the requirement that I just read previously.

Q now let's go back to paragraph 6 and this one is two pages I think Mr. Trell is there anything
in this paragraph that relates to those ideas you talked about with us earlier about what is
included in an independent contractor agreement?

A yes

Q and what is that?

A ok these are the respective insurance requirements that are in the draft agreement for Dr.
Murray

Q and what insurance requirements are those?

A those would be a commercial general liability insur policy which is typical and customary;
business auto liability insurance, again, typical and customary. Proof of workers' comp
insurance, again, typical and customary, and then little subsection d is medical malpractice
insurance that's unique to this particular agreement. That's not in our form independent
contractor agreement.

Q and under paragraph 1 does it say whose responsibility it was for providing this insurance?

A GCA

Q and do you have the -- the draft contract in front of you,,,, a copy of it?

Panish which one are we on now?

Bina the one that Dr. Murray signed.

Panish fair enough.

Bina let me know if you don't.

A I have unsigned wait a minute. There's one right in front of me maybe no these are e-mails. I
just have the unsigned.

Bina ok let me just grab that

Panish: it's actually underneath this on the screen, if you take that off.

A 677 what

Bina: May I approach, your honor?

Court yes

Bina you know what? I don't never mind

Panish it's on the screen

A I've got it here.

Bina perfect

A it's 252 under I've got it.

Bina thank you

Q we've talked about insurance, and we've talked about licenses. Was there another category you
mentioned earlier of things that are normally in independent contractor agreements?

A indemnification

Q look through and tell me whether there's an indemnification provision here

A paragraph 5

Q can you pull that up? And is this a provision that well, who is indemnifying who in this
provision?

A both GCA and Dr. Murray are indemnifying producer

Q and what is I know it's a complicated legal term, and I don't want to get complicated.

A right

Q what generally is indemnification?

A it means their agreement that they're responsible to protect the producer in this case for their
negligent acts and willful misconduct.

Q and is this something else that's customary in independent contractor agreements?

A yes

Q let's go back to the demonstrative for a moment Mr. Trell, these things on the right-hand side is
there anything that is missing out of the draft Dr. Murray agreement?

A I'm sorry could you ask it again? Out of the right-hand side?

Q yes out of the column of things that we talked about earlier for independent contractors was
Dr. Murray previously working with AEG live, had he worked with AEG live before?

A no

Q was he known to the artist?

A yes

Q was he known in the industry?

A not the entertainment industry not our industry

Q so of those three he was known to the artist?

A that's correct

Q and did the draft agreement with him require licenses and permits?

A yes

Q did it require insurance?

A yes.

Q did it have an indemnification provision?

A yes

Q and were Dr. Murray's obligations laid out in the draft contract?

A yes

Q let's go back to the Dr. Murray agreement. Look briefly at paragraph 7. Now, we talked about
some of these provisions a moment ago. I want to ask about 7.2 and 7.3

A ok

Q I'm actually going to go in reverse order. Can you read paragraph 7.3 out loud?

A sure... Immediately by producer if the artist decides for any reason that the artist no longer
wants or needs the services of Dr. Murray.

Q and did you, was this a provision that you were involved in adding to this draft contract?

A yes

Q and what was your intent in adding a provision like this?

A to make its existence or continued existence expressly subject to the artist's desires and wishes
etc

Q now is there any of these provisions allow AEG live to terminate Dr. Murray for any reason, or
only for specified reasons?

A no only for specific reasons, correct

Q what about if the artist decides that he wanted to terminate Dr. Murray?

A 7.3 is providing that the artist can terminate this engagement for any reason at any time

Q now we talked a little bit about paragraph 7.2 yesterday

A uh huh

Q and this is a provision that Mr. Panish asked about right?

A yes he did

Q and is this a provision that's common in independent contractor agreements when you're
building up a tour?

A yes

Q and were you involved in the addition of this provision?

A yes

Q what was your intent in including this provision in the draft contract?

A the intent here with 7.2 is to provide the flexibility to the producer to terminate this agreement
should the concert series, as defined, be cancelled or postponed

Q now, why would AEG live be able to terminate the agreement if the tour were cancelled?

A well if the tour were cancelled, you wouldn't want an ongoing and continuing payment
obligation running to somebody rendering services for something that's not happening.

Q what was the idea behind this agreement altogether?

A the idea behind this agreement

Q right

A was to provide for Murray's engagement on behalf of the artist, to provide general medical
care in connection with the concert series.

Q and if the tour didn't go forward, would there be any reason for an agreement between AEG
live and Dr. Murray and his company?

A no

Q would -- would the cancellation of this agreement have any effect on whether Dr. Murray
worked for Michael Jackson, or vice versa?

Panish speculation no foundation

Court I'm sorry repeat your question

Bina I was just asking whether the cancellation of this agreement would have any effect on
whether Dr. Murray worked with Mr. Jackson one way or the other.

Panish it's expert opinion no foundation speculation. It's not they're not connected.

Court I don't know. I think it's a little vague. I'm not sure what you're asking.

Panish it's also vague too. Get that one too

Bina maybe it's the

The court the late hour?

Bina the afternoon heat

Q is there anything in this document that says if this agreement is cancelled, Dr. Murray can no
longer treat Michael Jackson?

A no of course not

Q now if the tour were cancelled would Dr. Murray's contract -- or let me ask it differently. Were
there other contracts that would also be terminated if the tour were cancelled?

A yes

Q would Karen Faye's contract have continued if the tour were cancelled?

A I'm sorry?

Q Karen Faye, Mr. Jackson's makeup artist

A right

Q if the tour were canceled, would AEG live have continued to pay Karen Faye?

A no

Q and if the tour were cancelled, would AEG live have continued to pay Kenny Ortega on Mr.
Jackson's behalf?

A only in accordance with however his agreement specifically read.

Q do you know whether his had a cancellation provision?

A I don't recall off the top of my head.

Q what about Travis Payne?

A no

Q now if there was no tour would Mr. Jackson make any money from the tour?

A no

Q is it

Panish I'm going to ....Never mind go ahead that's fine

Bina I'm actually ready to move into a new topic, so maybe we can take a break a minute
early?

Court let's go for another 15 minutes

Bina all right, your honor

Q Mr. Trell I'd like to turn now to some e-mails that Mr. Panish asked you about yesterday
relating to Mr. Jackson's condition at rehearsals

A ok

Q we talked yesterday about the person most knowledgeable category were you designated as
the person most knowledgeable about Michael Jackson's appearance at rehearsals?

A for our company yes

Q and what did you do in order to educate yourself to become the person most knowledgeable
about that issue?

A I took to trying to find out who it was that actually attended rehearsals from the company, and
then I spoke with those individuals about their observations and feelings in this regard

Q and what was your understanding let me ask differently who were the people you spoke with?

A initially I spoke with randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware. I subsequently learned that Amy
Morrison had attended one rehearsal date and I spoke with her as well

Q and from these conversations, did you have

A general understanding as to how Mr. Jackson appeared to these AEG live employees at
rehearsals?

Panish it's going to be vague and overly broad as to time

Court ok yes as to time

Q just over the entire period if there's differences at different times,

A yes generally their observations were generally consistent

Q and what were they?

A the observations were that but for the one day on the 19th, at which neither Mr. Phillips or Mr.
Gongaware were present, when Michael Jackson was at rehearsals he seemed fine and the
performances were terrific

Q and you said the day Mr. Jackson was ill. What day was that?

A June 19th

Q and is it your understanding whether any AEG live employees were present at that rehearsal?

A it's my understanding there were no AEG live employees present at that rehearsal on the 19th

Q and did you learn from your interviews with these AEG live personnel whether they personally
ever observed Mr. Jackson ill or unwell at a rehearsal?

A none of the individuals that I spoke with, the only individuals from our company who saw any
rehearsals saw Mr. Jackson ill at a rehearsal.

Q I want to quickly look back at a couple of the e-mails Mr. Panish showed you yesterday

A ok

Q and the first one is plaintiffs exhibit 302- 2 do you recall this being shown to you yesterday?

A yes

Q and this is an e-mail thread entitled.... Trouble at the front?

A right

Q and do you have an understanding as to whether or not this is the first e-mail in that chain?

A I believe it is the first

Q and who is it from?

A it's from John Hougdahl otherwise known as Bugz, to Paul Gongaware and randy Phillips

Q and does this e-mail indicate whether or not Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware were present
when these events were taking place?

A well he's writing to them to bring this to their attention so presumably they were not present

Panish I move to strike your honor, as nonresponsive to the question. It's also inconsistent with
what it says speculation

Court overruled

Q Mr. Trell let's turn to I'd like to go to the next page which is further up in this e-mail chain

A ok

Q there's if I recall correctly quite a few iterations of this but I want to I'm going to look at the
next page that one right there. Yeah. This is another e-mail we saw yesterday.

A yes

Q and this is from Mr. Ortega to Mr. Phillips?

A correct

Q and we looked at a lot of this e-mail yesterday with Mr. Panish I'd like to have you just focus
in at the moment on the last bit there starting with ....Finally.

A ok

Q can you just read that sentence aloud all the way through ,,,away? Actually, two sentences.

A finally, it's important for everyone to know I believe that he really wants this. It would shatter
him, break his heart, if we pulled the plug. He's terribly frightened it's all going to go away.

Q so while telling Mr. Phillips about Mr. Jackson's troubling symptoms is Mr. Ortega also
weighing in on the idea of the concerts and what their importance is to Mr. Jackson?

A yes

Q and what does he say?

A well, Mr. Ortega who was the tour director, is saying that ....I believe he is, Michael really
wants this, it would break his heart if it weren't to occur

Q I want to go down to the top of this page and just focus in on the header there one thing we
didn't look at in great detail yesterday is who these e-mails were sent to

A okay

Q now obviously we know Mr. Ortega, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Gongaware, and we talked about
Mr. Leiweke do you recall that?

A yes

Q do you have an understanding as to -- is an area where some of these e-mail addresses are
actually redacted so -- who Katz j. Is?

A yes that's Joel Katz

Q ok and do you have an understanding as to who fm Dileo is?

A that's frank Dileo

Q and who is Joel Katz

A Joel Katz is a lawyer with the law firm of Greenberg Traurig. He's very well known in the
entertainment industry. He works out of their Atlanta office.

Q did you have an understanding as to whether he was representing someone in connection with
Mr. Jackson and the "this is it" tour?

A as of this date, it was my understanding he was representing Michael Jackson.

Q so he's one of Mr. Jackson's attorneys?

A yes

Q and who is frank Dileo?

A frank Dileo is a former manager of Michael Jackson who came back into Michael Jackson's
life towards the end of our time here, and as of this date, June 20th, it was my understanding
frank was representing Michael in some capacity

Q did you know exactly what capacity?

A no, huh-uh

Q but your understanding was he was one of Mr. Jackson's representatives?

A yes

Q who is Michael Kane?

A Michael Kane is Michael Jackson's business manager

Q and who is John Branca? (editor would like to answer but will refrain :)

A John Branca is a lawyer at the Ziffren law firm he's also a very well-known --

Panish your honor I'm going to asked and answered. We went through all of this
yesterday, about who Mr. Branca was, who Mr. Katz was.

Court overruled

A the Ziffren law firm here in los Angeles Mr. Branca also had a past relationship with Michael
Jackson and Mr. Branca as of this date, it was my understanding he was also now representing
Michael Jackson

Q so on this e-mail chain are two of Mr. Jackson's attorneys, his business manager and somebody
who represented him in some capacity, you're not sure how?

A correct

Q do you have an understanding as to whether these other people saw Mr. Jackson regularly?

Panish no foundation.

Bina I'm asking his understanding.

Court sustained.

Q did you interact with any of these people in June of 2009?

A yes

Q which ones?

A I had interactions with frank Dileo and occasionally Joel Katz.

Q did you have any understanding as to whether Mr. Dileo or Mr. Katz saw Mr. Jackson
regularly during this time period?

Panish it's still inadequate foundation

Court sustained

Q in what capacity did you see Mr. Dileo or Mr. Katz, or interact with them?

A they would occasionally be in our offices here in los Angeles.

Q was that relating to the "this is it" tour or to something else?

A related to their representation of Michael and the "this is it" tour.

Q when you say "occasionally," do you have any idea of how occasionally?

A well, I ... Joel, since he's in their Atlanta office, he would be in if he happened to be in los
Angeles, so that was less frequent. Frank was in a little more frequently, but it's not like he was
there every day or several times a week. He would -- he would be in occasionally.

Q and did you ever attend any rehearsals with Mr. Jackson?

A no I did not

Q so you wouldn't be able to tell me whether or not these people attended any of the residuals?

A I do not know whether they attended any of the rehearsals

Q but they were all sent this e-mail?

A they all received this e-mail, yes.

Q now I want to zoom back out for a moment. Let's talk about some of the things that are
actually in this document. So can we go back to Mr. Ortega's e-mail at the bottom there?

A ok

Q in this e-mail Mr. Ortega describes symptoms that Mr. Jackson experienced on June 19th is
that right?

A yes he does that

Q to your understanding, did anyone at AEG live -- any AEG live employee ever personally
observe these symptoms in Mr. Jackson?

Panish objection no foundation.

Court overruled

A not to my knowledge no

Q and the symptoms are laid out there starting with the third sentence beginning with ...He
appeared quite weak?

A right, quite weak, fatigued, chilling, trembling, rambling and obsessing.

Q so concerning symptoms?

A yes

Q and does Mr. Ortega say what he thinks was wrong with Mr. Jackson, other than describing his
symptoms?

A can you ask the question again, please?

Q sure does Mr. Ortega anywhere in this e-mail indicate what, if anything, he believes might be
wrong with Mr. Jackson on June 19th, 2009?

A it appears that he thinks it's something psychologically based that he needs -- he should be
psychologically evaluated.

Q and then do you see Mr. Branca's question there at the end?

A ...Do we know whether there is a substance issue involved?

Q have you seen any e-mails where anyone said definitively that there was a substance issue
involved?

A no

Q do you know whether anyone ever knew anyone at AEG live ever knew whether there was or
was not a substance issue?

A no

Q let's look at exhibit 318-1, which is another one that was shown yesterday do you remember
seeing that e-mail Mr. Trell?

A yes I do

Q and does Mr. Phillips indicate in this e-mail he knows what's wrong with Mr. Jackson?

A no he indicates that he does not know.

Q and does he suggest some possibilities?

A he asks chemical or physiological.

Q and we talked about those yesterday?

A right

Q so now we have psychological, chemical, physiological as possibilities?

A right

Q were you here last week I know that you've been in the courtroom sometimes when Mr. Payne
testified?

A I was here when Travis testified yes

Q do you recall him testifying that he thought maybe Mr. Jackson had a bad cold or the flu on
June 19th, 2009?

A I recall him testifying that he had cold or flu-like symptoms

Q have you ever seen anyone ever definitively state what exactly was wrong with Mr. Jackson on
June 19th, 2009?

A no the only thing that seems consistent is the chilling. Everybody seems consistent that he was
chilling, or cold; but no one definitively has stated or is stating at this time what it is that was
going on

Panish I'm going to move to strike that answer as nonresponsive to the question if anyone
said whether they definitively knew what was wrong.

Bina your honor, I believe the answer was responsive to that question.

Court I'll overrule the objection.

Bina your honor, I have another e-mail, but it's probably going to take more than a minute
to go through.

Court: ok then let's take ten minutes

Break over

Q Mr. Trell, when we left off I was going to turn to another of the exhibits that plaintiffs' counsel
showed you -- I think it was yesterday, which is exhibit 678- 204. Do you recall seeing this?

A yes

Q now, Mr. Trell yesterday you were asked about whether Mr. Phillips about conversations Mr.
Phillips May have had with Dr. Murray do you recall that?

A yes

Q and does this e-mail reference one of those conversations?

A it makes reference to randy having had a lengthy conversation with Dr. Murray.

Q can you tell from the e-mail whether this conversation was a telephonic conversation or an in-
person conversation?

A no, I don't think you can tell whether that was in person or on the phone.

Q I want you to just look at the fourth line. Maybe it isn't as much information as I think it is,
but --

A oh. Thank you.

Panish still no foundation.

Court what is the question? Is there a question pending?

Q can you tell from the face of the e-mail whether it's a phone conversation or an in-person
conversation?

Court: okay overruled.

A it appears to be a phone conversation, as he references "and was speaking to me from the
house where he had spent the morning with M.J."

Q in your person most knowledgeable role when you were educating yourself about the
relationships between AEG live and Dr. Murray during that time period, did you speak to Mr.
Phillips about interactions he had with Dr. Murray?

A yes Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware.

Q and do you have any understanding as to whether Mr. Phillips ever had an in-person meeting
with Mr. Jackson ...Or with Dr. Murray without Mr. Jackson being present?

A no it's my understanding there were two meetings that Mr. Phillips attended at which doctor
Murray attended, but Michael Jackson was there at both meetings, is my understanding.

Q and do you know when those two meetings took place?

A well, I know there was the one on the 20th that included randy, Kenny Ortega, Dr. Murray and
Michael; and then there was one -- it's my understanding there was another one that was earlier
in the month of June, but I -- I don't know the date of that meeting.

Q now as a side note, I wanted to ask you about the time of this e-mail. This is just something I
noticed yesterday.

A ok

Q what time does it say?

Panish I object to the narrative in the question, your honor.

The court: just ask the question.

Q what time does this e-mail state?

A 8:48 P.M. On June the 20th.

Q and just look at the last sentence there. do you have any understanding as to whether this e-
mail with the time of 8:48 P.M. Is accurate or not?

Panish there's no foundation.

Court I don't know what you mean by .... Whether the time is accurate?

Panish how would he know? No foundation for this witness.

Court the computer ....Well ok

Bina the issue being e-mails are printed at different places and sometimes they have
different time stamps. I'm just trying to find out when this might have been sent.

Court I'll sustain the foundation.

Panish there's no foundation for this witness

Bina let's go down to the next one.

Q what's the time on this e-mail?

A well, 1320, which would be 1:20 on June 20th.

Q okay. Go back up to the first e-mail can you review what Mr. Phillips is stating here about his
conversation with Dr. Murray.

A Mr. Phillips indicates that Dr. Murray said that Michael is not only physically equipped to
perform that discouraging him to will hasten his decline instead of stopping it "Dr. Murray also
reiterated that he is mentally able to, and was speaking to me from the house where he had spent
the morning with M.J."

Q now, do you know whether Mr. Phillips -- I think you just said a moment ago that he met with
Mr. Jackson and with Dr. Murray on June 20th.

A sorry could you ask the question again, please?

Q do you know whether Mr. Phillips met with Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson on June 20th?

A yes, I do know they did meet on the 20th.

Q do you know if anyone else also attended that meeting?

A it was Murray, Michael, Phillips, Ortega.

Q Kenny Ortega?

A Kenny Ortega, randy Phillips, Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson.

Q and so you were not present for that meeting?

A no

Q in your person most knowledgeable duties, did you come to have an understanding of what
happened there?

A I spoke with randy about it, yes.

Q and what is your understanding of what happened at that meeting, just very briefly, generally?

Panish this is going to go on -- foundation as to this, and hearsay

Court well, he is the person most knowledgeable tasked with that --

Panish but that doesn't make it -- it's fine when they question. It's only for the other side
under 2025.

Court overruled

A at the meeting, firstly, Michael indicated that he was fine, just fine. Secondly, Dr. Murray
scolded Kenny Ortega for even expressing a concern, and stated very sternly that he was
handling Michael Jackson's medical care, and that Michael was fine

Q and did Mr. Phillips describe to you how Mr. Jackson appeared at that June 20th meeting?

A I don't recall

Q do you know whether Mr. Jackson attended any "this is it" tour rehearsals after June 20th,
2009?

A well, the 20th, 21st and 22nd were off and he rehearsed, as everyone has heard, on the 23rd
and 24th

Q and were any AEG employees present at the rehearsals on June 23rd and June 24th?

A yes

Q which ones on which days?

A it's my understanding randy and Paul Gongaware were present on the 23rd and 24th; and one
of those two days, she couldn't remember which one it was, Amy Morrison was present. That's
the day that Kevin Mazur was there shooting pictures for getty images, so whatever day that was
the day she was there.

Q it was one of those two days, but you don't know which one?

A right

Q and do you have an understanding as to how Mr. Jackson appeared physically at those
rehearsals based on the AEG live employees' statements to you?

A he appeared fine and the rehearsals were terrific

Q now, after that rehearsal, the second rehearsal on June 24th, 2009, did Mr. Jackson rehearse
anymore?

A no

He passed away the next day

Q and you testified at the very beginning today about after Mr. Jackson passed away, there were
some meetings with some of his business advisors. Do you recall that?

A yes

Q were you involved in those meetings?

A yes I was

Q and how did you come to be involved in those meetings?

A well, I was very involved in the "this is it" tour project, and I'm the general counsel for the
company, so when the meeting was called at Mr. Branca's offices, I was asked to attend.

Q and I know we talked about it this morning, but can you just refresh who all was at that
meeting?

Mr. Panish: asked and answered today, twice

Court overruled just quickly

A sure

Q just very quickly. I don't --

A both Dr. Tohme and frank Dileo were there, Michael Kane was there, his business manager,
John Branca was there, John McLain who is the other executor of the estate along with Mr.
Branca was on the telephone on a speakerphone, Joel Katz was there, and other lawyers from the
two firms that Mr. Katz and Mr. Branca worked for were there, and I was there. Kathy Jorrie
was there; randy; Paul; and Bruce black.

Q now I'd like to quickly show an exhibit plaintiff showed you yesterday 677-203 we talked a
little bit earlier about Dr. Tohme. I think I promised I'd come back to him.

A ok

Q your understanding, if I understood your testimony, was that Dr. Murray....Dr. Tohme had
been terminated by Mr. Jackson at some point in early May 2009?

A right

Q and did you ever have an understanding as to whether Mr. Jackson and Dr. Tohme's
relationship changed again?

A yes it was my understanding Dr. Tohme came back into representing him in some capacity.

Q and is that the reason why Dr. Tohme was at that meeting?

A yes

Panish excuse me I'll object there's no foundation for that

Court sustained

Panish move to strike

Court the answer is stricken

Panish: we've already gone through this morning.

Bina I don't think we've gone through this document, your honor.

Panish yes we did

Bina I'm trying to move as expeditiously as possible. I just don't want to leave out
anything that was covered...Very briefly

Court ok

Q do you remember being asked about this document yesterday?

A yes

Q and there was a big back and forth, if you'll recall, as to Dr. Tohme's role. Do you recall that?

A yes

Q did Dr. Tohme ever tell you, you personally, that he was an officer of the Michael Jackson
company?

A yes he did

Panish hearsay

Court sustained

Panish move to strike

Court the answer is stricken

Bina your honor I'd like to briefly respond on the hearsay issue

Court why don't we finish this. We can talk about it later.

Bina it relates to this document. The issue that came up on direct examination was.... Or
cross was that plaintiffs were saying that he put this in knowing it was a lie, so I think it
goes directly to his knowledge and therefore is not hearsay but is admissible for the
witness's understanding.

Mr. Panish: I didn't say that, number 1.

Almost goes to sidebar, questions continue...

Q in this document, it says that Dr. Tohme Tohme is an officer of the Michael Jackson company?

A yes

Q did you believe that to be true at the time this document was entered into?

A yes

Q and as you sit here today, do you have any knowledge as to whether it was true or not true,
other than what was in the document?

A no I have no knowledge of whether it was true or not true

Q and it says here in paragraph 3 the undersigned, Dr. Tohme Tohme, represents and warrants
that he is an officer of artistco; is that right?

A yes

Q did Mr. Tohme sign this document?

A Dr. Tohme signed it on behalf of the Michael Jackson company yes

Q okay. Now, what was the purpose of this -- let me ask, were you involved in drafting this
document?

A yes

Q and what was its purpose?

A its purpose was to obtain Dr. Tohme's acknowledgment of the production costs incurred to date
as Dr. Tohme for some period of time at the beginning and then there at the end was representing
Michael Jackson in some capacity.

Panish move to strike. There's no foundation about the end.

Court there's no foundation --

Panish no foundation for this witness.

Bina your honor, I asked why he created the document and what its purpose was.

Panish then it's nonresponsive.

Court motion denied. That's his belief

Q did you -- was Dr. Tohme the only manager that Mr. Jackson had in this time period?

A no from the time period that we entered into the tour agreements through June 25th, or the --
you know, the date of -- of this, June 28th, or whenever, there were two people that were there
that represented Michael Jackson in some management capacity, Dr. Tohme and frank Dileo.

Q and did AEG live have any similar for this one with Dr. Tohme?

A we did a similar document with Mr. Dileo where he signed a declaration with respect to the
same budget production costs that were attached to this document.

Q and do you know what became of these documents? Were they were provided to any of Mr.
Jackson's other representatives?

A they were provided to the estate.

Q and what was the purpose in providing them to the estate, if you know?

A it was just covering the time period at issue through both gentlemen. Ultimately the estate
conducted its own audit and investigation of the -- and review of the production costs, and
confirmed the same.

Q and were the production costs -- production advances ultimately approved by Mr. Jackson's
estate?

A yes, they were

Q briefly I just want to circle back on a couple of things that I missed and I should be done.

A ok

Q does AEG live have a company handbook?

A employee handbook?

Q yes

A yes

Q and is that handbook given to employees?

A it's given to employees when they're hired, new employees, yes.

Q is it given to independent contractors when they're retained in connection with tours?

A no

Q I want to ask you quickly about a form that Mr. Panish asked about earlier

A ok

Q and that's exhibit 678-177.

Do you recognize this?

A yes

Q is this a document created by AEG live?

A no

Q what is it?

A it's a document created by this fiasco co to be used in connection with the hiring of employees.

Q and is this a document that's given out to employees -- new employees of AEG live?

A yes

Q is it ever given out to independent contractors retained to work on tours?

A no

Q and I just want to look at the last sentence here about credit history. Does AEG live do credit
checks on all of its employees? And I'm talking about employees here, not independent
contractors.

Panish I'm going to object it's been asked three times today.

Court I think we've gone over this.

Panish yes we have

Bina we haven't gone over this profile form, your honor. I've got literally just one question
on it.

Court okay

Bina I'm trying to finish.

A credit histories, as it says, May be requested, but it is only when it's substantially related to
the responsibilities for the position at issue for employees.

Bina all right and I think that's all I have

Panish can you put that exhibit back up, please. Thank you.


***********redirect examination by Panish************

Q now, sir, you -- it's referred to in the AEG documents that Dr. Murray was in a consulting role,
isn't it, sir?

A I'm not sure what you mean by "the AEG documents."

Q well, have you seen documents, as the person most knowledgeable, of Dr. Murray as --
referred to as a consultant?

A I'd ask you to show me the document that you're referring to.

Q no have you seen, as you just testified about all the documents you reviewed -- counsel kept
asking you, "have you seen this? Have you seen that?" have you seen any documents where Dr.
Murray is referred to as a consultant, yes or no?

A I don't recall

Q and, sir, you gave a lot of answers that you were pretty sure about right?

A yes

Q and you told us that you were very, very involved in the "this is it" tour, right?

A yes

Q and you told us all about your meeting with Michael Jackson yesterday didn't you, sir?

A my meeting at the house when we signed the contract is the only time that I met him, yes

Q ok so you only met Michael Jackson one time in your whole life right?

A that's right

Q and the one time that you met Michael Jackson, I've heard it today at least ten times, was on
January 26th, 2009, when the contract was

Signed... Isn't that true sir?

A yes

Q and you're as sure about that as all the testimony we heard for the last six hours from you,
right?

A I'm sure the contract signing is the only time I met Michael Jackson

Q no sir, you told us ten times, and counsel had it in her questions, that on January 26th, 2009,
you met Michael Jackson, and he signed all of those agreements. You told us all about that,
didn't you, sir?

A that's my recollection yes

Q and you told us you're sure because you'll never forget that moment right?

A I won't forget meeting Michael Jackson

Q no. On January 26th, 2009, at the 100 Carolwood address in Beverly hills, California, correct?

A that's where the meeting took place, yes

Q and you're as sure about that, it occurred on January 26th, the day the contract was signed, as
all the testimony you've given under oath in this court, isn't that true sir?

A that's the date I believe we signed the contract

Q no. Well, are you sure about that? Because you testified about it 11 times so far. Were you
just estimating that, or did you say -- and counsel asked you in the questions, "and it was January
26th when you signed, and it was January 26th --" you're absolutely sure about that, aren't you,
sir?

A that's my understanding

Q okay. Just as you are about everything else you've said in this case, right?

A yes

Q and sir, Michael Jackson.... You liked him, right?

A I liked him in -- in what way are you asking?

Q well, you told us how you felt about meeting him, and how nice he was, and he had a firm
handshake, and he was engaged and enthusiastic. You went on for 15 minutes about that
yesterday, didn't you?

A I hardly think I went on for 15 minutes, but he seemed very personable when I met him, I
thought it was interesting that he got up and walked over and greeted me at the door.

Q and you said you were excited to meet him, didn't you, sir?

A I don't recall if I said I was excited, but sure. You know... It was exciting to meet Michael
Jackson, sure.

Q well sir, at AEG is it the policy to talk in derogatory terms about the artist that you're going to
do huge tours with?

A is it a policy?

Q yes

A no, of course not

Q is it appropriate for a lawyer at the firm at the company to speak derogatory about an artist that
they've entered into contracts with and they're going to enter into contracts with to make millions
and millions of dollars?

A is it appropriate?

Q yes

A no

Q you wouldn't think as a member of the bar that a lawyer for AEG should refer to an artist like
Michael Jackson in derogatory terms, would you, sir?

A look, I think people have their own impressions and thoughts and feelings about Michael
Jackson

Q ok well is that how you felt about him, derogatory about him sir?

A you know, I May not have necessarily agreed with some of the life choices that Michael
Jackson made. I certainly had immense respect for him as a performer and entertainer. My
chance meeting, my one meeting at the house, he was very personable, there was a real positive
energy in the room, like I testified to, and, yeah, I won't forget meeting him that day.

Q ok sir who is Ted Fikre?

A Ted is the general counsel of AEG

Q and he reports to Mr. black, the lawyer in charge of the Anschutz group that reports directly to
Mr. Anschutz, right?

A that's correct

Q and Mr. Fikre and you would e-mail back and forth during the day, wouldn't you, sir?

A well, Ted is the person who hired me, and the reason I have the position that I have today. We
e-mail each other, yes.

Q and Mr. Fikre e-mailed you that him and you thought Mr. Jackson was a freak, isn't that right,
sir?

A I don't recall the "him and you" part that you're referring to.

Q ok did Mr. Fikre say to you that Mr. Jackson was a freak?

A I recall an e-mail where he made reference to that, Mr. Fikre.

Q okay. Well, let's look at exhibit 886-1 that's you right there isn't it sir?

A yes

Q okay. Let's look at that, and let's talk about you and the lawyer in charge of AEG talking about
your meeting with Michael Jackson, right? Let's put it up there.

A right, I let Ted know I was going to Carolwood at 5:00 P.M.

Q ok let's start at the bottom Paul Gongaware writes to randy Phillips and says "M.J. Still on
today?" right?

A right

Q and that's the day that you met Mr. Jackson and the contracts were signed, right?

A right

Q and you've been telling us now 12 or 13 times that that meeting, as sure as you are of
everything else, was on January 26th, 2009 isn't that right, sir?

A that's what I testified to yes

Q ok tell us what day the meeting really was on sir

A okay it was on the 28th

Q so as sure as you were, just like all your other testimony you were wrong about that weren't
you sir?

A I was wrong about the signing date yes

Q but you told us that 12 times under oath, didn't you, sir?

A I don't recall how many times I referenced the 26th, but I referenced the date we signed the
contract.

Q ok and then it said... Well, you referenced it quite a bit today sir... And you just did when I
questioned you. So let's talk about that January 28th, not the 26th right?

A ok

Q do you want to change your testimony under oath now about that, sir?

A I didn't have the date, necessarily, in my calendar. It appears from the e-mails it was the 28th.

Q but you testified all about it extensively. You do understand when you testify under oath what
that is don't you sir as a lawyer?

A yes I do

Q and when counsel asks you a question and says "and the meeting on January 26th," counsel is
supposed to not misrepresent the truth, are they sir?

A I don't think they're misrepresenting the truth. There was a document signing at the home. It
was on Wednesday the 28th, not Monday the 26th.

Q ok well let's look sir at 5:00 P.M. At 100 Carolwood drive, "you and Shawn -- you and
Shawn," referring to Mr. Gongaware, are instructed to be there by the CEO. Of your company,
right?

A right

Q and what time was that e-mail at?

A 12:48

Q ok let's look at the next e-mail sir

A ok

Q and who was that e-mail sent from?

A I sent that to Ted

Q Ted so right away, ....Ted, F.Y.I., ........ And you wanted to tell your friend Ted that you were
going to meet with Michael Jackson, didn't you, sir?

A I think I was letting Ted know I was heading over there to sign the contract. That would be
information that Mr. Fikre would want or like to know

Q because Mr. Fikre is on the board of AEG, isn't he sir? We talked about that when I questioned
you, who was on the board. Do you remember that?

The witness: I don't know that

Q Mr. Fikre was on the board of AEG, and he still is to this day isn't he, sir?

A that's my understanding

Q and he's above you in the company, and he reports to Mr. black, who reports directly to Mr.
Anschutz, isn't that true sir?

A that's true

Q and let's see what time did you send Mr. Fikre that e-mail at sir?

A 1:09

Q ok and how long did it take him to respond do you know?

A I will need to see the e-mail to know

Q ok let's see it how long did it take him to respond?

A he responded at 1:11

Q three minutes later.... Two minutes later you and a lawyer who reports to Mr. black, who
reports to Mr. Anschutz... And he told you, question, "does this mean you get to meet the freak?"
that's what your general counsel of AEG, who is going to do a multi, multimillion dollar deal
with the artist Mr. Jackson that's how he referred to Mr. Jackson isn't that sir?

Bina objection argumentative.

Court overruled.

A that's how he referred to him yes

Q and he's in charge he's the general counsel for all of AEG.. This is a man that you hoped to
make millions and millions of dollars off isn't it sir?

A well we hoped to have a successful tour, yes

Q millions and millions of dollars isn't that right, sir?

A I don't know how much money to be made

Q and this is the kind of respect that your lawyer shows to this artist referring to him as a freak.
Isn't that right, sir?

Bina again your honor I just ask that the witness be permitted to complete his answers
before the next one comes out

Court overruled

Panish answer please

A could you ask that question, again, please?

Panish sure if you'd please read it back.

(the question was read.)

A you'd have to ask Mr. Fikre about that

Q well, you wrote back and you didn't say "don't call him a derogatory term" did you sir?

A I said I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Q sir, you didn't say, "don't say that about Mr. Jackson we're working with him in a big project
that we want everyone to make money on." did you say that?

A no I didn't say that

Q did you say "don't talk about people like that. That's not a nice thing to say"? Did you say that
to him?

A no I didn't say that either

Q did your mom ever tell you if you don't have something nice to say about someone, don't say
it?

Bina your honor objection argumentative

Court that is argumentative.

Q well, sir, you wrote back, apparently, "not sure how I feel about that. Interesting for sure, but
kind of creepy." that's what you thought as the general counsel for the defendant in this case
about Mr. Jackson, isn't that true, Mr. Trell?

A that's what I wrote

Q and it's your job to protect the financial interest of AEG live isn't it sir?

A it's my job to oversee the legal affairs of the company

Q which protects the financial interest of AEG live and AEG and the Anschutz company, owned
and controlled by Mr. Philip Anschutz, isn't that true sir?

Bina objection compound

Court overruled

A financial and otherwise all legal matters

Q so that's a yes?

A it involves financial matters, yes

Q for all of those companies, not just AEG live, but AEG, it goes right up to Philip Anschutz at
the AEG Anschutz corporation, right?

A well, my position is with AEG live sir

Q sir is Mr. Anschutz on the board with Mr. Fikre, the man that called Mr. Jackson a freak? Are
they on the board together?

A I don't know actually

Q you don't know who's on the board?

Bina objection vague as to board

Panish the board of AEG

A well there's recently been some changes as you're well aware so as of today I'm not sure who is
on the board of AEG

Q by Mr. Panish: is Mr. Anschutz on the board of AEG?

A I presume so but I don't know

Q and Mr. Fikre is on the board of AEG isn't he sir?

A that's my understanding

Q ok has Mr. Fikre told Mr. Anschutz that he goes around referring to Mr. Jackson as a freak a
person that you're entering into a contract with to do a world tour?

Bina objection argumentative and lacks foundation

Court he's asking does he know overruled

Bina your honor he didn't ask does he know he asked... I mean I guess he can ask does he
know, but...

Court does he know. Ask him whether he does know or doesn't know.

Q have you ever told Mr. Philip Anschutz that his general counsel of AEG referred to Mr.
Jackson as a freak?

A no

4pm Court Adjourned for the day