KATHERINE JACKSON V AEG LIVE August 19

th
2013
Dr Gary Green
(Sports Medicine)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury):
Judge: What did you want to do first? Make appearances, please.
Mr. Panish: Good morning. Brian Panish for Plaintiffs.
Mr. Boyle: Good morning, your honor. Kevin Boyle for Plaintiffs.
Ms. Cahan: Good morning. Kathryn Cahan for Defendants.
Mr. Boyle: To answer your question, your honor, I think there are five things they wanted to talk to
you about today. I'm the least prepared for the Van Valin depo. Put that last.
Judge: That was a long one.
Mr. Boyle: Yes, it was long.
Judge: Took me a long time to do it.

Mr. Boyle: It was a hard one.

Judge: Well, maybe we don't have to do it today. Is it something we have to do today?
Ms. Cahan: We'd prefer to do it today, if possible, but I'm fine leaving it last. If we run out of time,
we can address it next time we have an opportunity.
Mr. Boyle: I can start it. But at the end, I'll say there are a few things I haven't gotten to.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Cahan: If your honor has a preference, we're happy to work in that order. It would be David
Adams, Jeffery Adams, the Shimelman motion, and there is also an issue that's come up with respect to
Dr. Metzger we need to discuss with you.
Judge: Jeffrey Adams may be the one I sustained a lot of objections to, and I kept saying I wonder
why I keep sustaining them. I'm sustaining them to both sides, and I'm thinking am I missing something
or are they missing something?
Mr. Boyle: Based on the court's rulings, which you basically ruled about 99 percent was hearsay or
irrelevant, and our position would be that's correct in general of this witness. I don't see what probative
value this witness in general adds. If they are going to insist on designating things from him that the
court is going to allow, I think there are a few things we'd want him to say as well. But I'll let Ms.
Cahan start.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you. So, your honor --
Judge: Remind me a little bit of background.
Ms. Cahan: Jeffrey Adams is a security guard, who worked with Mr. Jackson primarily in Las Vegas
in that time period after Mr. Jackson had returned to the U.S., 2008 or so -- 2006, 2007, 2008. He's the
one who introduced Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson. When we had dealt with the deposition of Dr.
Gordon, who is the plastic surgeon in Las Vegas, who had seen Mr. Jackson before he left the country
and after he came back, there was some testimony about what did he know about Dr. Murray? What
kind of a person was he? What's his standing in the community? Jeffrey Adams's knowledge of Dr.
Murray who had treated him and his father and knew a lot of people in the many community, we think,
is an important counterpoint to Dr. Gordon who said, "You know, I don't get out much, but I haven't
heard of this guy, and some of what he was saying seemed a little fishy to me."
Judge: Some of what who said was fishy?
Ms. Cahan: Dr. Gordon -- there is a portion, I think it's pages 169 to 177 of Dr. Gordon's deposition,
which is testimony that Plaintiffs designated and which was allowed is about, you know, Dr. Gordon is
asked "What did you know about Dr. Murray?" He says "Well, he's a Cardiologist, not a plastic
surgeon. I don't get out that much, but I didn't know about him beforehand " --
Judge: This is when Mr. Jackson appeared with Dr. Murray, and Dr. Murray doing all the talking.

Ms. Cahan: Right. Jeffrey Adams on the other hand has a long history with his family of being a
patient of Dr. Murray. His father is patient of Dr. Murray's, and he's the one who introduces Mr.
Jackson to Dr. Murray and, you know, sort of vouch for Dr. Murray and establish that relationship in
2006. We think that's an important thing for the jury to -- it's a piece of the picture for the jury to
understand because it goes to Mr. Jackson's understanding of Dr. Murray, his background, why he
would be an appropriate doctor, and therefore, then Mr. Jackson vouches for Dr. Murray with AEG
Live. So it goes to whether there were red flags, whether there were things that would have made Mr.
Jackson or anybody else suspicious about Dr. Murray at the time as opposed to, you know, hindsight as
everyone is looking back and has a different perspective.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, first of all, they called Dr. Gordon, so it doesn't matter who designated
specific material. We can designate for completeness. Dr. Gordon was their witness. If they now want
to call another witness to counter their other witness, I mean, I don't know if that's an appropriate
reason to call Jeffrey Adams. All Dr. Gordon said was "I didn't know who Dr. Murray was." You know,
big deal. Now they are calling Jeffrey Adams whose dad was a patient of Dr. Murray to say oh, well --
Jeffrey Adams, who is not a doctor, right? He was a security guard and friend of Dr. Murray to say,
"Oh, Dr. Murray seemed like a great doctor." I mean, this is a non-expert just saying what he thought.
They could probably then go find one of many of Dr. Murray's patients to say they liked Dr. Murray. I
don't think any of that is relevant. That's character evidence on a non-point in the case. I just think this
guy had such tangential involvement in any of this. I don't see why any of them would be played.
Judge: Maybe the introduction. I don't know why all the preamble about Adams's relationship --
Ms. Cahan: Maybe --
Judge: Such as it is. I mean, it seems his dad had a bit of a relationship than he did. He said, "He
treated my dad."
Ms. Cahan: And him since the late 1990s as well. If we can look at some specific examples, it might
help to illustrate why we think this is relevant, particularly in light -- the fact he's not a doctor actually,
I think, is very important here because neither our Defendants, neither is Mr. Jackson, you know. Dr.
Gordon -- what Dr. Gordon thought on the one hand versus what lay people like Mr. Jackson and Mr.
Adams and Defendants think on the other hand is significant sort of in and of itself. So the -- the fact
that Mr. Adams thought Dr. Murray was a good doctor and that's why he recommended him to Mr.
Jackson and Mr. Jackson was happy with his, you know, the services he was rendering we think is
significant and relevant.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, it's not a disputed point that Mr. Jackson thought Murray was a good doctor. I
mean, we're not disputing any of that point that Mr. Jackson suggested Dr. Murray to AEG. So I don't
know why some lay witness, his opinion that he thought Dr. Murray was a good guy who is also a
friend of Dr. Murray, as you can see from the later designation, is just kind of an out there point.
Judge: It sounds more like character evidence than anything else.
Ms. Cahan: There is character evidence from Dr. Gordon as to Dr. Murray. I think either they both
should be in, or they both should be out. If Plaintiffs want to withdraw that designation, we might be
able to remove some of Mr. Adams.
Judge: What is the designation?

Mr. Boyle: I'm not exactly sure. I think Ms. Cahan said before something about Dr. Gordon not
knowing who Dr. Murray was.
Ms. Cahan: It's pages -- their designation is from pages 169 to 177 of Dr. Gordon's testimony where
he's -- the Plaintiffs designated, you know, have you ever heard of his company? Had you ever heard of
him? Had you ever heard of him having any practice in Las Vegas?
Judge: But he's asking the doctor that question. He's not asking some member of the community or a
patient. He's asking the doctor a question.
Mr. Boyle: A doctor --
Judge: It might be a little different in terms of somebody's reputation in the community. Somebody's
competence within the community. I mean, lay people aren't really competent to do that.
Mr. Boyle: He doesn't even testify about the competence. Dr. Gordon, you know, he has an
interaction with Dr. Murray. Dr. Murray gives him a check to do a -- Dr. Murray pays Dr. Gordon to do
a procedure on Michael, and then there is a series of questions. Had you met Dr. Murray before? Did
you know who he was? Had you heard of his business? No, no, no. That's not talking about the
competence of Dr. Murray. So now to use that as a stepping stone to get into this lay character
evidence, I don't see how it works.
Ms. Cahan: I think --
Judge: Character or competence. Even as to competence, I'm not sure that that's appropriate.
Ms. Cahan: Well, your honor, with respect to the testimony of Dr. Gordon, I actually think it's less
relevant with a plastic surgeon who says he doesn't sort of travel in, like, the medical social circles in
Las Vegas, knows or thinks about Dr. Murray, then this sort of patient population that Mr. Jackson and
potentially people like Defendants inhabit. If they want to withdraw the theory of designations about,
you know, Dr. Murray and what Dr. Gordon thought about Dr. Murray, knew about Dr. Murray, the
assumptions that one could make about Dr. Murray's practices, then, you know, I think there are some
things that could come out for Mr. Adams as well. Right now there is this imbalance where you have a
doctor who we think is actually less relevant to sort of talk about --
Judge: He says he doesn't know anything about him, right? Basically -- isn't that what Adams says?
Mr. Boyle: He doesn't know anything about him.
Ms. Cahan: He says he didn't think it added up, and the whole situation seemed very odd.
Judge: It seemed odd because he had been -- Jackson had been his patient before. Murray comes in
and does all the talking. And what seems odd to him was that Jackson had been his patient before, yet
Jackson wasn't doing any talking. Murray was doing all the talking. It seemed unnecessary for Murray
to do all the talking when Jackson had been a patient before. At least that's how I took the designation,
what was meant by that.
Ms. Cahan: There is that, but there is also separately testimony about him thinking it was odd that
Dr. Murray said he had successful practices in Las Vegas and Houston but was willing to leave those to

go on tour with Mr. Jackson. He's asked a series of questions about up until the time Michael Jackson
had passed away, had you ever heard of Dr. Murray having a practice in Las Vegas? What did you think
about that? You were skeptical of him. His story didn't add up in terms of his practices. And so, if you
have that on the one hand, I think having somebody who says, you know, "My family and I knew Dr.
Murray for decades; we went to him as patients; he was prominent in the community; he's somebody
who I trusted; I had no idea that there would be an issue here when I recommended him to Mr.
Jackson" is a necessary sort of counterpoint to that.
Mr. Boyle: Dr. Gordon is basing it on the interaction he had with Michael and Dr. Murray. They
designated at length his discretions of Michael and what was going on there. Then Dr. Murray is doing
all the talking for Michael at least under one theory. Dr. Murray is writing the check. I don't see why
Dr. Gordon's impressions of the whole situation aren't, you know -- I think the court's prior ruling on
that for Dr. Gordon we argued at length last week was correct, and I don't see how that bears on Jeff
Adams, who is not a doctor.
Ms. Cahan: We actually didn't argue about any of this because they sort of go together, and I think
they are either both in or both out. Dr. Gordon was asked, "As far as you know, before Mr. Jackson
passed, did Conrad Murray have any reputation within the medical community in Las Vegas?" He
makes clear that he has no foundation. He says "I'm not a Cardiologist. I don't have a hospital practice.
I have my surgery center. I do all my work there. If I'm not out there, I'm not the social butterfly at the
hospital having lunch with the guys. I'm fairly private. I'm off on my own in my own environment."
Then they designated all this testimony around that where he's saying "He seemed a little weird to me. I
hadn't heard of him." It creates this impression that Dr. Murray is this fly by night un-reputable person
who is -- you know, sort of comes out of nowhere, isn't known in the community, doesn't really have
patients and treat patients, and that's clear from Mr. Adams's deposition that that's not the case.
Mr. Boyle: Gordon doesn't say any of that. Gordon doesn't say any of that. He doesn't say Murray is
some fly by night. He just says he doesn't know him. That's what he says. I don't see why --
Judge: And the interaction was odd.
Mr. Boyle: And the interaction was odd.
Mr. Panish: What he knows in the community goes to the weight. He's a physician.
Judge: I think I'm going to persist on my ruling sustaining the objection. I did find some of them
relevant. I think it was just at the point where there is an introduction between Jeffrey Adams and
Michael Jackson to Murray. That was -- I believe I kept those in.
Mr. Boyle: I think you did keep those in. We would be willing, you know, probably to stipulate that
to avoid the time of playing it. I could talk to Ms. Cahan about that. If they are going to then play what
has been allowed in by the court, there is a couple I'd like to argue, your honor.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Boyle: This is going to be without -- on page 116, 10 to 116, 12 --
Judge: Can you tell me what page.

Mr. Boyle: Of the ruling page?

Judge: Yes.
Mr. Boyle: Sure. That would be page 10. Then again --
Judge: What part of 116, 10 through 12?
Mr. Boyle: 10 through 12. Very short. There was an objection based on foundation, and it was
sustained.
Ms. Cahan: Right. The preceding question is "Did you ever observe any interaction between Dr.
Murray and Michael?" There was other testimony where he said he would see Dr. Murray's car there
sometimes, but he wouldn't see Dr. Murray. I think it's clear there is no foundation there.
Mr. Boyle: My point was going to be to the extent any of this other stuff was coming in about what
Adams knew about Murray and Michael, any of that, it seems like that could come in, too, because he's
close to Murray. But if those aren't coming in, I don't need really need to push that one. I'm just not
exactly sure what's coming in, and what's not coming in.
Judge: I don't know. Maybe my ruling -- maybe you need to go back and reconsider some of the
things based on the rulings I just made.
Mr. Boyle: I think that's right. I think if we had a script now of what was in now, and what was out...
Judge: I mean, the prior statement "Did you ever observe any interaction between Dr. Murray and
Michael?" "No." "Would you describe Dr. Murray as Michael's personal physician?" "No." But
he'd have no foundation -- well, unless he was told, unless he was told. But I don't think that's
anywhere in here.
Ms. Cahan: Right.
Judge: That's why I sustained the objection. It didn't seem there was any foundation for his
conclusion that Murray wasn't Mr. Jackson's personal physician. Is there something else?
Ms. Cahan: Do you have others?
Mr. Boyle: I don't know yet. Maybe one.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, I do think -- I appreciate your ruling with respect to Dr. Gordon and your
rationale for this. I do think a little bit of foundation as to how Mr. Adams knows Dr. Murray and such
that he came to introduce him to Mr. Jackson is appropriate. So the designation I'd suggest covers that
best is at pages 75 to -- 75 to 78. There was an objection from 75 to 76, and it's page 6 of the chart. He's
talking about very briefly, you know, the fact that he had a patient relationship with Dr. Murray, the fact
he seemed to him to be a good doctor at the time he recommended him to Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Boyle: That's exactly what I think the court's ruling comes out. For example, page 75 lines 24,
the question is "And in all that time you spent with Dr. Murray, did you ever suspect that he was not
a competent doctor?" answer, "No." so he's testifying about his impressions of Murray's competence.

Judge: I thought you were going to ask to put in something about Murray being Adams personal
physician or having treated his father or something.
Ms. Cahan: Right. That is there at 75, beginning at line 8. He knew him socially beginning in the
'90s. He says "Maybe early 2000. I don't know the exact date. That's when he became my personal
doctor and my father's personal doctor." question, "And from that point forward, you had regular
contact with him from 2004?" answer, "yes." question, "Would you say you were close to Dr.
Murray?" answer, "Yes."
Mr. Boyle: If they want to pick some intro, like you said, your honor, to show the relationship, that's
fine. The problem is interspersed throughout pages 75 through 77 are comments on his competence.
There is a question at page 76, line 17, "Did you ever suspect that he was writing prescriptions to
anyone that he should not have been writing prescriptions for?" answer, "No." I mean, I don't see
how that's relevant. How there is foundation for that. If someone asked me do I suspect any of my
doctors are writing prescriptions for other people, I can't answer that question.
Ms. Cahan: I'm not arguing to get that back in. It's just the portion from 75, 8 to 23. I think it's
appropriate to lay a little foundation as to, you know, how Mr. Adams even knew Dr. Murray to be
introducing him to Mr. Jackson.
Judge: There may be another place in here.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, if the court -- if the court is inclined to allow him to testify about the
introduction and also inclined to hear testimony about how he knows Dr. Murray, Mr. Adams, then I
really have no problem with that.
Judge: "With that" meaning which?
Ms. Cahan: 75, 8 to 23?
Mr. Boyle: Yeah. I don't know if the last question in there is "Would you say you were close to Dr.
Murray" matters. I think 8 through 20 is fine, page 75, lines 8 through 20.
Judge: Okay. So that -- okay. The way it's broken up here on the chart --
Ms. Cahan: There was only an objection as to part of that designation, so now we're at part of it is
coming back in.
Judge: Which is the part coming back in?
Ms. Cahan: 75, 8 to 20. So it will now run 75, 8 to 20 and 76, 25 to 78, 8.
Judge: So 75, 8 to 20 is overruled, I guess.
Ms. Cahan: Right. Sustained as to 75, 21 to 76, 24.
Judge: Okay.

Mr. Boyle: Your honor, as long as we're on that exact page, I was a little confused about the necessity
and hearsay problems of page 77, lines 8 basically to the end of the page. It talks about a -- Jeff Adams
talks about a friend of his who may have been Michael's security guard, a friend calling him named
John Basheer and saying something. First of all, I think that's hearsay. Second of all, I don't see the
relevance to any of this, particularly now with what we're limiting Jeff Adams's testimony to.
Ms. Cahan: That was not objected to in the chart, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: Yeah. It should have been.
Ms. Cahan: It's a fresh objection. But it's talking about how -- it's putting together how Mr. Adams
came to work as security for Mr. Jackson. So just -- it's the bare essentials to establish how Dr. Murray
knew Mr. Adams. How Mr. Adams worked for Mr. Jackson, and how Mr. Adams connected Mr.
Jackson to Dr. Murray. It wasn't objected to at the time the chart was done.
Judge: Okay. Well, it is hearsay, but it's kind of a late objection.
Ms. Cahan: It's not offered for the truth. The fact is he was then hired to do security for Mr. Jackson.
Judge: Is it really relevant though? Does it really matter?
Mr. Boyle: Your honor --
Judge: It's sort of a consumption of time.
Mr. Boyle: It's also hard to do these objections in sort of a vacuum of what's ultimately going to be
coming in. We don't know -- if it's going to be a big full thing, we're fine with the fuller story. This is a
limited purpose.
Judge: I severely limited his testimony.
Mr. Boyle: I agree.
Judge: I don't know what it will look like once it's played on the video --
Mr. Panish: I think the point is on making objections, you're kind of in a vacuum. If the court
sustains a bunch, then the other parts should come out. I mean, it's like a conditional situation.
Judge: Well, that's why I suggested earlier. Now that I've ruled and sustained quite a few objections,
maybe you should go back and see if you want to re-work some of them.
Ms. Cahan: We did, your honor. I'll just note with respect to that, not only did Plaintiffs not object to
that testimony but on 78, they counter-designated all this stuff about who was a Muslim, and who is not
a Muslim, and who lives where.
Judge: Which seems to be irrelevant.
Ms. Cahan: I do agree. It's irrelevant. That was properly excluded. This is a new objection.

Judge: Something that wasn't brought to my attention.

Ms. Cahan: In fact, they were proponents of even more testimony on this ground.
Mr. Panish: But now --
Judge: Do you want to review some of these?
Mr. Boyle: What I'd suggest is we have -- based on the court's rulings, we have the script made up.
Then we can see the script, only the testimony that's going to be played based on the court's ruling.
Then it will be easier to determine if we have any problems. The things that don't fit in are more
glaringly obvious when you have the script as opposed to the depo.
Ms. Cahan: We did that over the weekend to prepare for this. We want to play a lot of these
depositions on Wednesday. We're quite short on days for the rest of August and September. We don't
want to not have video ready to play.
Mr. Panish: They have plenty of videos to play.
Ms. Cahan: We have one video.
Mr. Panish: Which one?
Ms. Cahan: Dr. Gordon.
Mr. Panish: You're not going to run out of witnesses.
Mr. Boyle: If they have the script all ready, which it sounds like they do, if they can email it to me, I
can look at it at lunch and see if we have an issue.
Mr. Panish: How long is this testimony based on the court's rulings?
Ms. Cahan: Under an hour.
Mr. Panish: It's that much?
Ms. Cahan: Yes.
Mr. Panish: What is the exact time? Do you have the script here?
Ms. Cahan: I don't have it with me.
Judge: Well, they still have to --
Mr. Boyle: It sounds like they made the script if they have -- the way we've been -- the tech person
for whoever is offering the testimony is making the script. We've been sharing them. If they could share
the script with me, I can look at it.
Ms. Cahan: What we've been doing is color coding copies of the deposition with the court's rulings,

et cetera, going through them in order to prepare for all these arguments. There are a couple of others --
I'm happy to send a script over to Mr. Boyle. There are a couple others I want to address while we're
here. Page 8 of the rulings, page 99, line 2 to page 102, line 3 of the testimony.
Judge: 99, 2 to 102, 3?
Ms. Cahan: Yes. Your honor, there was a generic objection to hearsay. Your honor sustained two
portions of the testimony there.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Cahan: Page 100, line 12 to 101, line 6.
Judge: Let me see what I did here. Can you tell me about that conversation between you and Dr.
Murray. Okay.
Ms. Cahan: That is what -- the vast majority of this is what Mr. Adams told Dr. Murray, so I don't
think that that should be excluded as hearsay. The only portion from Dr. Murray is him saying, you
know, "I'm going to go to the house." but everything that Mr. Adams himself says he said to Dr.
Murray, I think should not be excluded as hearsay.
Mr. Panish: How is it not hearsay?
Ms. Cahan: It's his deposition statement repeating what he said in the phone call. I don't understand.
Mr. Panish: It doesn't matter if it's in the deposition. It's still hearsay. What he said outside of the
deposition, if he said it -- it's his statement out of court out of a deposition which would be considered
court. It's definitely hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: He's recounting in his deposition what he said to Dr. Murray in a phone call. I don't
think that's hearsay.
Mr. Panish: It's absolutely hearsay. How can it not be?
Ms. Cahan: Under what evidence code section?
Mr. Panish: Hearsay. It's an out-of-court statement. How is that not hearsay?
Judge: You are offering it to what?
Ms. Cahan: That this is him introducing -- this is how Dr. Murray meets Mr. Jackson for the first
time and the relationship begins. He's say, "You know, can you do me a favor and go to somebody's
house and take care of his children?"
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: Evidence code 1200 says hearsay is the evidence of a statement that was made other
than by a witness while testifying at the hearing. It's clearly hearsay.

Ms. Cahan: It's his statement while testifying where counsel is --

Mr. Panish: No, no. That's not the same as -- it's his statement made at another time that he's now
testifying about. That's absolutely hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: Then no one could ever say what they told to anyone in another conversation. That's
clearly -- I don't even know how to address that argument really because it doesn't -- it's entirely
inconsistent with the hearsay rule and everything we've done. The whole point is to keep out out-of-
court statements. To the extent this is a sworn statement under oath, it's then going to be played to the
jury, it's not an out-of-court statement. It's his own statement susceptible to cross-examination.
Mr. Panish: The statement that he makes to Murray is out of court. The statement in the deposition is
different. It's absolutely hearsay. He could say "I had a conversation with Dr. Murray," blah, blah, blah.
That's not hearsay. But when he says what he relayed in the statement, it's absolutely hearsay under
evidence code section 1200. It says --
Ms. Cahan: It is not.
Mr. Panish: -- an out-of-court statement while testifying. That is absolutely something that he said --
it's like you're at the light, and you said, "Oh, I told him the light was green." And then you say in the
deposition "I told him the light was green." That's hearsay. "What color was the light?" "It was green. I
saw it." But I told someone something out of court is hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: A statement that a witness makes while testifying at a hearing, which this deposition, if
played at trial, would be while testifying at a hearing, is not hearsay.
Mr. Panish: That statement was not made at a hearing or in the deposition. It was made before.
Judge: I'm trying to think if there is another way that it can be admitted. Perhaps if it is to show some
action.
Ms. Cahan: It shows that that is what caused Dr. Murray to go to Mr. Jackson's house, meet him, and
become his physician. I'm not conceding it's hearsay because I don't think it is, your honor.
Judge: What I'm trying to say, even if it is, maybe there is some other purpose for which it can be
admitted, particularly if we're talking about a chain that explains conduct.
Ms. Cahan: Right. This is the phone call that caused Dr. Murray to go to Mr. Jackson's home and
meet him.
Judge: Right. All right. I'll overrule -- I'll reverse my ruling sustaining the objection.
Mr. Boyle: That's 100, 12 through 101, 6?
Judge: Right.
Mr. Panish: You're letting in what Dr. Murray said, too?
Mr. Boyle: That would be on line 23 --

Ms. Cahan: All he said is "I could maybe get there by. I don't know the exact time." And that's not
offered for the truth.
Judge: Okay. Yeah, that part can come in.
Ms. Cahan: Then related to that at the bottom of 101, line 24 to 102, line 3, there is a follow-up
conversation that doctor -- that Mr. Adams has with Mr. Mohammed, who relays a statement by Mr.
Jackson, saying just that, you know, confirming that the visit took place, and he said, "thanks for
referring Dr. Murray."
Judge: Well --
Ms. Cahan: I don't think --
Judge: Maybe --
Ms. Cahan: That's not being offered for the truth, your honor. It's being offered to show that Dr.
Murray did go to see Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Jackson did -- you know, the plan for Dr. Murray go to Mr.
Jackson's home occurred.
Mr. Boyle: No, your honor. The answer is he was -- they are offering it for the truth because,
according to this, Mr. Mohammed is saying that Murray is a great man. He really liked him. I don't
even know if that's saying -- that Michael said Murray was a great man. But if it's that, then we have
another layer of hearsay.
Mr. Panish: It's double hearsay.
Mr. Boyle: And it's irrelevant.
Judge: Wait a minute. How does that show that he actually went?
Mr. Panish: It doesn't.
Judge: It says he really liked him.
Mr. Panish: Who? Who?
Judge: He said Mr. Jackson was pleased with him. Thanks for referring Dr. Murray.
Mr. Boyle: So it's Jackson allegedly to Mohammed to -- I mean, that's...
Ms. Cahan: We're not offering it for -- we're not trying to get it in as Mr. Jackson's non-hearsay
statement. We're saying we're not offering it for the truth of what Mr. Jackson believed about Dr.
Murray at that time but just to show that in fact the, you know, the visit by Dr. Murray did take place.
Mr. Panish: How do you get around --
Judge: Wait a second. Don't you get that in any way at the bottom of 102? He said -- what did Dr.

Murray say?
Ms. Cahan: That was sustained, your honor.
Mr. Panish: How do you get around Mr. Mohammed's statement being hearsay? You've got multiple
layers of hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: We're not offering it for the truth.
Mr. Panish: It goes three layers.
Judge: But the problem is the truth is what? I'm not sure it's what you're trying to use it for.
Ms. Cahan: We're offering it to show that Mr. Adams understood that Dr. Murray had in fact gone to
see Mr. Jackson, not for anything qualitative about Mr. Jackson's experience with Dr. Murray but the
fact that the visit occurred and that they had met at that point.
Judge: Mr. Adams' understanding, I don't know if that's relevant.
Mr. Boyle: We all know they did end up having a meeting. I don't know why what Mr. Adams's
understanding of what Mr. Mohammed said matters at all. There is really no point in it despite it being
multiple levels of hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, I'm happy to set that aside because I just realize that the next one that I
wanted to address does sort of get the same point. This is a statement of Mr. Jackson, so I think it
would be non-hearsay as to Defendants. That's at page --
Judge: I thought there was something in there that indicated that. Maybe I was pointing to the wrong
spot.
Ms. Cahan: That's at page 103, lines 4 to 17. That's what --
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Cahan: -- Mr. Jackson said directly to Mr. Adams, confirming there had been a visit. So that
your honor had sustained, but I think that that would be appropriate non-hearsay.
Judge: I sustained that?
Ms. Cahan: Yes. Page 9 in the chart.
Judge: 4 to 17?
Ms. Cahan: Yes.
Judge: The problem -- see, what happens is sometimes you have objectionable and non-
objectionable in one designation. If I don't break it out --
Ms. Cahan: Here, I think actually the statements from 4 to 17 are all things that Mr. Jackson said

directly to Mr. Adams. So I think Plaintiff -- Defendants are entitled to use those as non-hearsay
statements.
Judge: Mohammed told him. Mr. Mohammed told Michael that this was the guy that --
Ms. Cahan: Right. Mr. Mohammed is telling -- is explaining why Mr. Jackson told Mr. Adams,
"Hey, thanks for referring him" Because Mr. Mohammed said, "Jeff Adams is the guy who referred Dr.
Murray to us."
Mr. Boyle: It does say --
Ms. Cahan: It says "Michael said that Mohammed had told him" -- Mr. Mohammed had told
Michael that this is the guy that referred Dr. Murray to him. And then Michael said, "I want to thank
you very much for referring the doctor. I appreciate that." that's all Mr. Jackson's statement. Mr.
Jackson is relaying the reason he's telling Mr. Adams "Thanks for referring him." like, "Hey, Mr.
Mohammed said you're the guy who sent us Dr. Murray. Thanks. Appreciate it."
Judge: Maybe that makes more sense now.
Ms. Cahan: So that's overruled, your honor, 103, 4 to 17.
Judge: Yes. I think you explained it. Makes it clear.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: If that was the conversation he had directly with Mr. Jackson, then that seems okay.
Judge: Now that she explained it that way, it's clear to me.
Ms. Cahan: And then --
Judge: That takes care of the problem that you're referring to on the 102 -- page 102 problem.
Ms. Cahan: Yes, your honor. And then I think that is it for this one although there are some -- I do
think that I should confer with Plaintiffs' counsel about some counters that were conditional on
designations that have now been excluded. I do think we should share the script and talk about what we
might agree comes out based on that.
Judge: This is one of those that you need to meet and confer further.
Ms. Cahan: Yes, your honor. Then I don't know if you have a preference as to -- I think probably Dr.
David Adams would be next as Mr. Boyle indicated he wasn't ready to talk about.
Mr. Boyle: Just to finish Jeff Adams, there is also -- there was some testimony here where Jeff
Adams testifies that Dr. Murray told him that AEG owed him money. And so I would argue -- I mean,
to the extent in the Dr. Gordon arguments, when defense argued that Murray was acting as an agent of
Michael somehow, under that, that would seem to be able to come in, that Dr. Murray told Jeff Adams
that AEG owed him money.

Ms. Cahan: I believe what Mr. Boyle is referring, although if he shows me the page, I'm happy to
take a closer look, is a post-def conversation when Mr. Adams was working as security for Mr. Murray.
Certainly, there is no agency relationship. This is not a situation where Dr. Murray is standing next to
Michael Jackson conferring with another doctor about medical care. This is after Mr. Jackson passed
away, Dr. Murray saying to Mr. Adams "AEG owes me money." I don't think it's an analogous situation
at all.
Judge: So I sustained the objection, I'm sure. Okay. I'm going to -- Mr. Boyle, I'm just going to
suggest that you and Ms. Cahan get together and revisit these rulings in light of the substantial
revisions that have been made. If you have issues after that, I will address them.
Mr. Boyle: Thanks, your honor.
Ms. Cahan: And then David Adams should be a quick one, Dr. David Adams. He is, while everyone
is getting there shuffling papers, he is an Anesthesiologist in Las Vegas who worked with Dr. Gordon in
the 2008, 2009 time frame, and he was asked by Mr. Jackson and Dr. Murray about potentially going
on tour to London as well to help Mr. Jackson with sleep.
Judge: He was asked by?
Ms. Cahan: Mr. Jackson and Dr. Murray.
Judge: It would be that second man or that second physician that --
Ms. Cahan: Potentially. It's a little vague. But he was -- he's an Anesthesiologist who worked with
Dr. Gordon, and he was approached by Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson about potentially going on tour as
well.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Cahan: The first one I wanted to address with your honor is on page 2 of the chart, page 54, line
16 to page 56, line 12 of the transcript.
Judge: Was this the one that is in two places?
Ms. Cahan: Yeah. This is the -- I will not -- I'm not responsible for this two separately bound
volumes that go back and forth. It's pretty cumbersome to work with. I appreciate your honor taking the
time to go through and rule on the designations. This here is a designation about the fact that Dr.
Adams never charged Michael Jackson for anesthesiology which isn't his normal practice, and he
basically was hoping he would get referrals from Mr. Jackson that would make up for not charging Mr.
Jackson. It's what you allowed with Dr. Gordon that physicians gave Mr. Jackson sort of special
treatment. They bent their rules or deviated from their standard of procedure in taking care of him. It
was a relevance objection that was sustained. I do think it's relevant. I think your honor ruled on these
before we discussed Dr. Gordon, and I'd say it's an analogous situation.
Judge: What was it that I said about Dr. Gordon?
Ms. Cahan: There was that piece of testimony about Dr. Gordon saying normally he requires
payment in advance of any procedure, but he didn't do that for Mr. Jackson. Then it took some time to

get paid.
Judge: Right. He was talking about --
Ms. Cahan: It was Mr. Jackson's assistant.
Judge: This is similar?
Ms. Cahan: This is also a piece of testimony about a physician deviating from their normal policies
and procedures when taking care of Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, I mean, we disagreed on the Dr. Gordon statement, but the court ruled that
came in about Dr. Gordon specifically testifying my normal procedure was to do something. Here, I did
something else. In this testimony of Dr. Adams, he doesn't say that he's deviating from his normal
practice. He's just saying, hey, here is a patient. I thought I'd get referrals, so I didn't charge him. He
doesn't say that's something he never ever does as far as I can tell.
Ms. Cahan: Page 55, lines 17 through 23. He says "I'm not the type of person that would, you
know, jack my prices up or -- you know, just this kind of caught me off guard because normally I
just bill the insurance company. So in this case, I just told him 'I'll do it for free. Just give me your
referrals.'"
Mr. Boyle: That was his payment here, that he decided to do it for referrals instead of billing the
insurance company. I don't see how it's deviation. How it's relevant to anything as to this case.
Ms. Cahan: Then at page 56, lines 6 to 9, he's asked whether Mr. Jackson had insurance. And he
says, "I don't know whether he had insurance or not because I never asked him" because he was -- I
mean, I think it's quite clear he doesn't normally just go around performing anesthesia for free all the
time.
Judge: He's not even clear it goes to insurance. He says "All my plastics are basically cash paid."
Ms. Cahan: Right. But he says on 55 he normally bills the insurance company. He doesn't just do
anesthesia for plastic surgery. He does it for other types of procedures as well.
Mr. Boyle: I don't see how that's relevant at all, your honor. There is not -- they didn't ask him that
question to put it in that Dr. Gordon category that there was deviation from his standard of practice. He
says "Hey, I'll do it for free. Give me your referrals."
Judge: Okay. Well, it doesn't sound like he does it -- well -- did he do that for others?
Mr. Boyle: It wasn't asked.
Ms. Cahan: He didn't bill him for any of the four procedures. And he said, because he figured the
referrals and the patients that he'd get from him would be worth more than the money he would charge
for the procedures. He normally bills insurance. You know, in this case he didn't even ask whether he
had insurance because he was doing it for free.
Mr. Boyle: He testifies that his plastic surgery patients are cash pay. So what. He's taking cash. In

this case, he's taking a referral.

Judge: Overrule it. I'll change my ruling.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you, your honor. Next is page 5 of the chart, page 100, line 1 to 102, line 20 of
the transcript. There, Plaintiffs objected to a phone call from Dr. Murray telling Dr. Adams that Mr.
Jackson wanted to speak with him in person. We're not offering that for the truth of the matter asserted
but rather for the effect on the listener, Dr. Adams, because it shows why Dr. Adams agreed to meet Dr.
Murray and Mr. Jackson at Dr. Murray's office on a Sunday afternoon. This is also in the same time
period that we've established with Dr. Gordon that Dr. Murray was acting as Mr. Jackson's agent and
spokesperson for medical issues in coordinating his care. So I think it comes in two different ways.
Mr. Boyle: Again, your honor, relaying a conversation on the phone he had with Dr. Murray. It seems
like it's hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, the facts that Dr. Murray is acting as a spokesperson there is quite evident at
page 100, beginning at line 19, where he says my client -- he said, "'My client wants to talk to you or --
yeah, my client wants to talk to you.' I said, 'okay. Put him on the phone.' he says 'he would like to
talk to you in person.' and I told him -- I still told him I still wouldn't come to his house. I says
'where can we meet?' he says 'I've got an office.' I say 'where is your office,'" et cetera, et cetera. He
agrees to meet at the office. Then there is some additional conversation about the timing of this very
unusual Sunday meeting that Dr. Adams comes to Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson --
Mr. Boyle: We don't know if Dr. Murray was acting on Michael's behalf on that call.
Judge: The only problem with that is it's not clear if Mr. Jackson is actually there.
Mr. Boyle: In fact, you know if Adams says "Put him on the phone," and Murray then says -- doesn't
do that.
Judge: He says "Put him on the phone." He says "He'd like to talk to you in person." So he doesn't
put him on the phone. "I told him -- I still told him I still wouldn't come to his house."
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, to be clear, we do think it comes in because of the time. It's about
coordinating Mr. Jackson's medical care at the time Dr. Murray is acting as Mr. Jackson's agent.
Separate and apart from that, Dr. Murray, you know, there is a non-hearsay purpose for offering the
testimony because it shows why Dr. Adams would agree to basically leave church and go meet with
Mr. Jackson at Dr. Murray's office that Sunday. It does provide context, your honor, for the sort of
weirdness of the meeting that then transpires because, you know, he goes on to say about on page 102,
he says, at line 9, "You know, he's always so private. But I'm figuring that, you know, he has a heart
problem and, you know, because why would he call me on a Sunday morning," et cetera. It goes to
Dr. Adams -- you know, he says "But with Michael, I said, well, if he has a heart problem, then I'm
going to be there."
Judge: Where is that?
Ms. Cahan: Toward the end of the designation, page 102, from lines 9 to 20. He basically says
"Normally I wouldn't meet on a Sunday. Any other time, I'd say 'Go to an Emergency Room. I'll see
you on Tuesday.'" But it's Mr. Jackson, and he's private, and it's a Cardiologist calling him. He's

concerned there is a heart problem and makes sort of a big exception and agrees to this meeting.
Judge: Cardiologist calling him. Is he a Cardiologist?
Ms. Cahan: Dr. Murray.
Judge: No, Adams.
Ms. Cahan: No, he's an Anesthesiologist which is why he was confused and thought it was strange.
Judge: That is weird. Adams says "I think he's got a heart problem" even though a Cardiologist is
calling him. "So I'd better go in because Michael may be having a heart attack even though he's in the
presence of a Cardiologist." It's weird. Anyway...
Ms. Cahan: We think it's context for the jury to understand.
Mr. Boyle: If that's going to come in, I don't see how the remainder of that couldn't come in 102, 21
through 103, 6. I mean, that's -- you know, I think none of this should come in. It's all conversations not
with Michael but with other doctors. I mean, you know, they want to put in these choice parts of
hearsay to try to insinuate it was Michael behind it all. Maybe it was Murray. That's why hearsay
shouldn't come in. You can't cross the speaker on it.
Ms. Cahan: It goes to the understanding as to why he'd agree to a Sunday meeting when normally
it's not something he'd ever do.
Mr. Panish: He's agreeing to the meeting because he's not trusting Murray, the Cardiologist who is
supposed to be taking care of him.
Judge: Yeah. Well, I think probably either none of it comes in or it all comes in because clearly there
is some problems there.
Ms. Cahan: I'm just looking, your honor, to see if that's out where we'd pick up and whether there
would be enough context for the jury to understand. It looks like 104 --
Judge: It's not clear to me who is speaking on behalf of Michael Jackson at that time.
Ms. Cahan: That's fine, your honor.
Judge: Just because Mr. Jackson isn't present or directing the phone call in any way, although maybe
here he does appear with him at the office, and that's obvious, but it's not that obvious in this call.
Ms. Cahan: That's fine, your honor. We can move on. There is just a few others. The next is at -- on
page 7 of the chart, 119, 9 to 120, line 7 of the transcript.
Judge: What is it, 120 --
Ms. Cahan: 119, 9 to 120, line 7. Annoyingly, you're going to have to switch between the two
transcripts here because half is in one, and half is in the other. 119, 9 to 120, line 7. This is Dr. Murray's
statement that as to what Dr. Adams would be doing if he came on tour in terms of helping Jackson get

his rest and that Jackson would need a little more than Ambien and alcohol to get to sleep. It's not
coming in for the truth of what Mr. Jackson needed in order to sleep, but to show Dr. Adams's
understanding of what he was being asked to do on tour, especially because he ultimately said he was
on board and would go. I think it's necessary to understand why he, as an Anesthesiologist, was being
asked to go to London, what services he would be rendering to Mr. Jackson. The part about what Mr.
Jackson needed in order to sleep, I don't think that would be -- the hearsay statement I don't think that is
necessary for this.
Judge: How far into 120 are you asking?
Ms. Cahan: Well, it was sustained up to line 7, and then -- so 7 is a question, line 9 the objection.
There is another designation that starts and then another objection was overruled. So, I mean, I think
it's up to line 7 would be appropriate. The question and answer from line 1 to line 6 on page 120 is
about what Dr. Adams said back to Dr. Murray, so I don't think there is a hearsay issue there.
Judge: What is -- Mr. Boyle, what is your position?
Ms. Cahan: The objection is written, while Mr. Boyle is looking, hearsay as to statements by Murray
are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. We're not offering them for the truth but rather for their
affect on Dr. Adams, and Dr. Adams response. I was actually surprised the Plaintiffs didn't want this
part in.
Mr. Boyle: Well, I mean, your honor, if the court overruled our 120, 9 through 121, 11, that can come
in. I mean, it seems like the prior would be okay, I guess. I mean, it is hearsay but...
Judge: How is it not offered for the truth?
Ms. Cahan: The statements that Dr. Murray -- it's the statement -- the only statement -- there are two
statements of Dr. Murray here on page 119. The first one is question at line 9, "Did he tell you what
you were going to be doing?" answer, "Helping Michael get his rest, and that didn't sit well with me
because I wanted to know exactly what he wanted me to do." Then he says, "Did you ask him that?"
He talks about what he asked. And then at page -- line 23, it says "And what was his response?"
answer, "And his response was that he needs a little bit more than that, in other words more than
Ambien and alcohol to sleep." And then Dr. Adams said, "Well, that made me uncomfortable." Later,
he says "I was on board anyway." And so it's not offered for the truth of what Mr. Jackson needed to
sleep, but it's offered for what Dr. Adams understood he would be asked to do in London if he were to
agree to this offer and join the tour. In other words, give Mr. Jackson something more than Ambien and
alcohol for sleep. At first he says that makes him uncomfortable, and then later he says he'd do it. It's
affect on the listener and, you know, his understanding in accepting an offer. Plaintiffs -- it sounds like
Plaintiffs counsel is --
Mr. Boyle: Can Ms. Cahan and I talk about this one? Maybe when I see it in context. I mean, if we
need a ruling, I'd go with the court's ruling. It's clearly offered for the truth. "Did he tell you what you
were going to be doing?" You know, this is what they were -- you know, this is apparently what Murray
was asking Dr. Adams to do.
Judge: That's what it seems like to me.
Ms. Cahan: So the only statement there that's being attributable to Dr. Murray that's being

potentially offered for the truth as to something is that Mr. Jackson needed something more than
Ambien and alcohol, wanted something more than Ambien and alcohol to sleep. I mean, Dr. Adams's
understanding of why he, as an Anesthesiologist,
was being asked to go on tour, what services he would be rendering there.
Judge: He's told what he was going to be doing. He's just... Mr. Boyle, what is it -- what do you
think? I think it's offered for the truth. But then again --
Mr. Boyle: Yeah, I can't think of any other non-truth reason it would be offered.
Ms. Cahan: Affect on the listener of Dr. Adams why he would accept or decline an offer to go on
tour.
Judge: If you look at 121 at the bottom, "That's what I was going to ask. So you never spoke with
him again after that?" answer, "Never." question, "Did you text him after that?" answer, "I text him
basically, you know, 'What's going on? I'm on board' and no response." So, I mean, I don't know if
he was declining or --
Ms. Cahan: I think that he's saying he would go. There is that whole conversation that I think your
honor excluded about, you know, what Dr. Adams would charge to go on tour. Dr. Adams says he can
get -- they were sort of haggling over price. Dr. Adams says well, if you can find somebody who'll do it
for 20,000 a month but is that really the person you want -- if that's the kind of medical care you want
--
Judge: 200,000.
Mr. Boyle: To the extent the challenge passage is -- you know, his offer to apparently, you Know --
so whether he accepted an offer, it's not clear that an offer was even made here that he was accepting. I
don't see an offer ever being made to Dr. Adams.
Ms. Cahan: He said he asked for terms. He asked for three years. They haggled on price. Then he
sends Dr. Murray a message saying basically "I'm on board. I'll do it" which suggests to me that, you
know, they would -- he would be willing to work out whatever price would be acceptable. Maybe at
that lower price, he'd be willing to do it for.
Judge: And so, since this never came to fruition, what's the point of offering it now?
Ms. Cahan: Well --
Judge: Since he's haggling back and forth, how long is the tour going to be? How much money is he
going to get paid? What am I expected to do? It's all very amorphous. He calls back and says "I'll do
it," and nothing comes of that. What is it being offered for, to show...
Ms. Cahan: It goes to show that, as of this time period in I believe this is April 2009, there is a plan
at that point to have an Anesthesiologist come to London and give Mr. Jackson something more than an
Ambien and alcohol to help him sleep and that someone agreed to do that. Whether he would have
ultimately gone on the tour or not, had the tour progressed, we don't know. There is obviously an
intervening...

Judge: But then that's for the truth, isn't it?

Ms. Cahan: Well, it's not -- it's not for the truth of what Mr. Jackson actually needed to sleep. It's for,
you know, the plan of bringing an Anesthesiologist to London.
Judge: I'm going to sustain the objection to all of it. I don't know -- it looks like my rulings are kind
of sustained, overruled, sustained. I mean, basically it sounds like it's all objectionable. You may want
to go back and look at it.
Mr. Boyle: All sustained as to the Murray phone call with Adams?
Judge: Yes.
Ms. Cahan: So 119, 9 to 120, 7? 120, line 7? You're maintaining that ruling that's sustained?
Mr. Boyle: I think she was doing that and also sustaining more.
Judge: Well, any of the phone calls that have to do with Murray and -- is it Dr. Adams?
Mr. Boyle: Yes.
Judge: Dr. Adams.
Ms. Cahan: The portion from 120, line 9 to 121, line 11 is all what Dr. Adams said. The objection
there was hearsay. I don't think that that's hearsay. I don't know why that would be kept out even if your
honor is inclined to strike the portions to exclude the portions of the testimony as to what Dr. Murray
said to Dr. Adams.
Judge: Okay. So you want in the portion -- you want a portion of the conversation?
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, as I'm looking at this, there is a -- there are two statements by Dr. Murray in
that initial 119 to 120. It's 119, line 9 to 11. Question, "Did he tell you what you were going to be
doing?" answer, "Helping Michael get his rest." And then question at line 23, "What was his response?"
answer, "And his response was that he needs a little bit more than that." I think those are the only two
things that are hearsay. In the recounting of the conversation, those are the only two things that should
come out. It will make it a little choppy, but I think the rest of it is important enough that we should
keep it in.
Mr. Boyle: I'm confused. Now they are arguing 129 through 121, 11 should be in?
Ms. Cahan: Not all of it. The court was sustaining the hearsay objections which don't -- there was a
blanket objection made but not all of it is objectionable as hearsay. We'd want to keep in the parts that
--
Judge: The basis for the objection was that it was offered for the truth. If you read the rest of the
conversation, that appears to be the case as well. But, Mr. Boyle, if you have a different take on it, it
seems to me it is.
Mr. Boyle: Yeah, it's --

Judge: "I have to shut down my practice." I want to get paid so much money. I mean --
Ms. Cahan: That's all Dr. Adams's understanding, his intent, his own plan of what he wanted to do.
It's not a hearsay statement by Dr. Murray.
Judge: I don't know how you'd make sense of it though without the context of the entire
conversation. Mr. Boyle, what do you think? I'm inclined to keep it all out, but if you think portions of
it should come in...
Mr. Boyle: I don't see how we can pick and choose. If it's all the conversation, it seems like it should
all be out if it's hearsay.
Judge: Okay. It's all --
Mr. Boyle: If they really want the part in where they told him it was going to be a world tour, I'm
okay with that part.
Judge: It's open ended. "We don't know how long this tour is going. We might go to other countries
after that."
Mr. Boyle: I have a feeling they're not going to want that in.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, his plan, his agreement to go to London, his agreement to treat Mr. Jackson,
all of that is his own understanding. I don't think that that's hearsay. This is, again, assuming that your
honor is not inclined to treat this as a conversation where Dr. Murray was acting as Mr. Jackson's agent
in arranging his healthcare for the tour in the same time period when he is going to Dr. Gordon with
him, coordinating that care, reaching out to Dr. Adams, asking about coordination of care in that
respect. I mean, we'd continue to assert that that's -- Dr. Murray is acting as Mr. Jackson's agent for the
purposes of this conversation for arranging his medical care in London with Dr. Adams.
Judge: Well, I'm going to sustain the objection. But if you decide -- meet and confer and come up
with something else, then come up with something else. I have no problem with it.
Ms. Cahan: Just so that the record is clear, your honor, can we specify what pages and lines you're
sustaining objections to.
Judge: I think it was 119, line 9 through 120 -- I think to the end of 121 because at the top of 122 it
says "Were there any further communications back from Dr. Murray after that point?" answer,
"No."
Ms. Cahan: So 121, 25.
Judge: Or you could go to 121, line 20. The question is "That's what I was going to ask, so you
never spoke with him again after that?" answer, "Never."
Ms. Cahan: So your honor is sustaining the objection from 119, line 9 to 121, line 18?
Judge: Yes. You can meet and confer if you decide there is something in there, Mr. Boyle, that you

want to compromise on. It seems to me that's a hearsay statement offered for the truth.
Mr. Boyle: I think the court has already sustained 121, 13 through 18, right, on page 8 of the rulings.
Ms. Cahan: It looks like we're not going to get to Dr. Van valin. I just wanted to -- briefly on the
Shimelman motion. I wanted to briefly raise what's happening with Dr. Metzger. We had --
Mr. Boyle: I had a couple to argue on Dr. Adams if we can finish that now. I'm a little confused. Let's
go page 130 -- let me find the court's ruling, page 8 of the court's rulings 133, 19 through 134, 2.
Judge: 130 --
Mr. Boyle: 133, line 19 through 134, line 2. I think this is --
Judge: "I think you said earlier that Michael gave you the impression that, if he wanted
something, he would get it regardless of what it was. Did you say something in substance."
Ms. Cahan: Pure hearsay. They can't testify as to Mr. Jackson's statements.
Mr. Boyle: Here is the situation. This is a witness being offered by Defense. They designated a part
about what Dr. Adams's impressions of Michael Jackson were. We are now counter-designating the
reason he got those impressions and that needs to come in for completeness. It's their witness. What
Michael said is not hearsay. It's clearly --
Judge: It's not saying anything Michael said. I think you said earlier that Michael gave the
impression.
Ms. Cahan: He alluded to that.
Mr. Boyle: He alluded to that. Then look at line 24, "Did he say who he would get it from?"
Ms. Cahan: That's hearsay.
Mr. Boyle: Answer, "The promoters."
Ms. Cahan: So what is -- I'm not sure why Plaintiffs believe this is necessary. What designation the
Defendants made Plaintiffs believe this is necessary to counter.
Mr. Boyle: I think on page 115 -- yeah, page 115, 17 through 22.
Ms. Cahan: 115, 14 to 16 was sustained.
Judge: "The promoters would give him whatever he wanted"?
Mr. Boyle: Michael Jackson is saying that.
Ms. Cahan: That's an objection that was sustained, your honor. I don't know why they --
Judge: That's being offered -- yeah, sustain that objection.

Ms. Cahan: So the counter would then be equally -- he's saying they needed only to correct the
misimpression, but it's not coming in.
Mr. Boyle: 115, 19 through 115, 22 we objected to that. That was overruled.
Ms. Cahan: Were you talking about 115, 14 to --
Mr. Boyle: No. Talking about 115 -- so the problem, your honor, on page 115, it's giving the
impression that Michael gets -- doctor saying "I got the impression that Michael gets whatever he
wants." in other words, Michael is going to get whatever he wants, right.
Judge: From the doctor.
Mr. Boyle: Then we say -- we asked him in the depo, "Well, what gave you that impression?"
"Well, Michael told me the promoters would give him whatever he wanted." If they are going to get in
his impression that Michael gets whatever he wants, how can we not get in what gave you that
impression? I mean, otherwise, it's totally -- the meaning is completely flipped on its head, and the jury
is left with a false impression of what Dr. Adams's impression was. It seems like this is a perfect
completely designation. They are calling the witness. What Michael says wouldn't be hearsay anyway,
right? I mean --
Judge: No, it's hearsay because it's being offered from your side.
Mr. Boyle: But for completeness though. This is their witness. They don't have to call this witness.
Mr. Panish: Taking it out of context.
Judge: It's a little bit taking it out of context because really what it sounds like, without that
statement, is that Michael gets from doctors whatever he wants. Then there is this promoter statement.
I'm going to sustain the objection.
Ms. Cahan: As to what?
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, what I'd ask then is I think 115, 19 through 22 should also be sustained. I
mean, you can't have one without the other. I mean, that's what --
Judge: Okay. So you're saying it leaves a false impression.
Mr. Boyle: Right.
Judge: Okay. I'll agree with that. So that's out.
Ms. Cahan: We should strike it from 17 to 22. Otherwise, there is an unanswered question that
would be allowed in.
Judge: I'm sorry. What portion?
Ms. Cahan: They asked about 19 to 22, but there is a question at line 17. There would now be a

question without an answer. It should come out 17 through 22.

Mr. Boyle: That's probably correct.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Boyle: In fact, our designation should say 17, not 19. Furthermore, there is additional reason for
the court's ruling I think that should be sustained is the answer is not responsive to what the question
was anyway. The question was -- it doesn't matter. The question was did he say he'd been hired by Mr.
Jackson, and then the answer was not in response to the hiring. It was just that Michael gets what he
wants.
Ms. Cahan: Very briefly, your honor. I don't want to keep your staff. We've provided designations for
Dr. Metzger. Plaintiffs had countered, and then we talked on Friday about what was coming up. We
mentioned that that was one that was left to be filed. Over the weekend, Plaintiffs counsel said that they
don't think that Dr. Metzger can be called by deposition because of how they interpret the treating
physician rule under 2025.620. Then they said this last night. Mr. Boyle emailed me and said Plaintiffs
were planning to call Dr. Metzger live. So they don't think we can do deposition designations. Frankly,
I didn't understand that.
Mr. Boyle: Here is our point. One, based on what they are articulated as the treating physician rule,
it's our understanding that Mr. Dr. Metzger is now retired. He's no longer a treating physician. I'd been
informed that his medical license lapsed. Ms. Cahan tells me that isn't the case. Regardless, we'd say
he's not a treating physician. Two, he lives in L.A. He's been out of town. We wanted to call him. He's
been out of town. We just found out he's coming back in town and can be called. So I don't see the
point of playing his deposition testimony when he can come here live.
Judge: So --
Ms. Cahan: That's not our interpretation of the treating physician statute. Plaintiffs apparently were
trying to put words in my mouth on Friday in the transcript when they kept -- I didn't understand why
they were raising the issue of Dr. Slavit and whether he was being played as out of state or under the
physician rule. It's quite apparent now they were trying to do that because they were working on this
argument with Metzger. They had 13 weeks in their case. If they wanted to call Metzger live or
preserve the testimony or do it by video, it's something they could have raised at that time. The
Defendants are entitled to put on the case they want to put on. If there is some basis, after the
deposition is played, for him to be called as a live witness in rebuttal, that's something your honor can
deal with when it arises.
Judge: What is the rule on treating physicians?
Ms. Cahan: The rule on treating physicians, as we interpret it, is that under 2025.620(d), treating --
the deposition of treating or consulting physicians is treated like other expert witnesses and can be
played at trial by any party. Dr. Metzger was Mr. Jackson's treating physician for decades. We did the
proper notices for his deposition indicating that we reserved the right to play it at trial over live
testimony. There was never an objection to that. There is nothing in case law or statutes that suggest to
me that someone retiring, even if that's true -- I mean, as of the time of his deposition, he was still
seeing patients. He's currently still licensed. I went to the medical board website over the weekend. I
don't think that there is any authority at all to suggest that a treating or consulting physician somehow

is excepted from the rule if he or she decides to retire at some point.

Mr. Boyle: That's a different position than they'd been arguing with me outside the court. That's why
-- inside the court. Regardless, two things. One, if the court recalls, when she kept asking us about
resting, Mr. Panish said you need to talk to Ms. Chang about that. Ms. Chang -- whatever happened,
happened. Ms. Chang is coming at 1:30. I think, if you talked to Ms. Chang, Ms. Chang would have
told the judge she'd been trying to get a hold of Dr. Metzger. That was part of the issue. Ms. Chang
would have said we need to include that into our subject to rest. Ms. Chang now got a hold of the
doctor. Furthermore, I think it's pretty clear that Metzger had completely retired. He's no longer a
treating physician. There is no case law on what that statute meets as far as I can tell. What the defense
is representing the legislative history is it's to prevent a treating physician from being called away from
their patients to testify at trial. That's what they had said.
Ms. Cahan: No, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: Regardless, whether he's called in our case in chief, or we can call him in our rebuttal
case, he's going to come in here live. Based on the rule that they enforced and argued about Dr.
Finkelstein, where we wanted to both play Dr. Finkelstein and call him in live, they strenuously
objected to that. The court went in their favor that with these treating doctors, it's one -- you know. So
here, this is a witness --
Judge: This is different in that they are calling by depo, and you're going to call live. I think in that
situation, you were going to call depo and live. That's the same party attempting to do that.
Ms. Cahan: Exactly. I think if you'd view a case that talks about what a treating physician means
under the CCP, Schreiber vs. Kiser 22 cal.4th 31. It's a 1999 supreme court of California case. They are
talking about CCP 2034, which talks about having to pay expert witnesses. That's sort of the
companion role for 2025.620.
Mr. Panish: No. That case is about opinions, standard of care.
Ms. Cahan: Can I finish, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish: That's what it's about.
Ms. Cahan: I'm glad you've memorized the case, but I'd like to read for the record. There in that
case, and it's at page 33, it's talking about the background of the case. The Plaintiff designated as expert
witnesses seven treating physicians. They were physicians who treated her after a car accident. And the
case goes on to say, discussing what the court of appeal had done with it, saying the court stated the
ordinary role of a treating physician is to give percipient testimony regarding what he observed,
concluded and did. Once a treating physician offers opinion testimony regarding causation, he exceeds
the ordinary role and becomes a retained expert under the meaning of 2034. Although the ccp does not
say treating physician means x or y, it's clear that the case law interpreting treating physicians, as
discussed in the CCP, are that a treating physician is somebody who rendered diagnoses and treatment
to a patient which Dr. Metzger did for Mr. Jackson for 30 years.
Judge: You want to use his deposition, and you want to do what? You want to call him in rebuttal?
Mr. Panish: Can Ms. Chang come at 1:30 or at the end of the day? She'll be mad at us. She -- before

you decide, may she address the court on this issue?

Mr. Boyle: On her long efforts to try to get Mr. Metzger. The court will just be doing extra work.
There is going to be extensive designation argument on Dr. Metzger. If Dr. Metzger gets in here,
presuming they can use his depo to impeach him, however they want to do it. I mean, if they are even
going to want to play it after that, I don't know.
Ms. Cahan: Since April 2nd there has not been a peep about Mr. Metzger being someone they
wanted to call and weren't able to. We've heard about the Karen Faye issue --
Judge: What if I allowed the Plaintiffs to reopen their case in chief to call Dr. Metzger? That way, we
don't have to go through the designation. Then, you can cross, and it's --
Ms. Cahan: I'd like some offer of proof from Plaintiffs as to their efforts to try to get Dr. Metzger to
come in during the first four months of their case.
Judge: I'm saying rather than going through -- it sounds like it's going to be an extensive designation
and counter-designation.
Ms. Cahan: We've already done the designations, your honor. We've gotten counters.
Mr. Panish: We've got a lot of objections.
Mr. Boyle: It will be as complex as Van Valin. I asked them not to file those yet, but they did it.
Ms. Cahan: We did not.
Mr. Boyle: I objected to it being played, and you had it filed this morning anyway.
Judge: Why didn't you alert --
Mr. Boyle: There is only so much we can deal with. Ms. Chang was handling certain things, and
she's mad at us right now.
Ms. Cahan: We were talking Friday afternoon. We have the counters. We were providing it Monday.
Mr. Boyle: I didn't know -- to counter what Ms. Cahan is saying we were laying a trap, I didn't know
Mr. Metzger had retired as of Friday afternoon. Ms. Chang said he retired, and she thought his medical
license had lapsed. This is all new.
Mr. Panish: We can talk when we finish the witness Dr. Green today.
Judge: In the interest of expedience, I'm thinking maybe it would be better to call him live and get it
done that way as opposed to depos and designation, counter-designation, but maybe I'm just being
selfish because that means I don't have to go through rulings on your objections and we can just do it
live. I'll take it up in the afternoon.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you, your honor.

Judge: Thank you.

(Lunch)
(The following proceedings were heard in open court, outside the presence of the jury:)
Judge. Good afternoon, counsel. Did you want to talk about Shimelman now?
Mr. Panish. Can we after the witness? I mean, he only can come today.
Judge. That's right. Okay.
Mr. Panish. I think my understanding was Dr. Green had a limited availability.
Ms. Bina. Yes, he needs to finish today or he'll have to come back at a much later time.
Judge. I think you mentioned that to me.
Mr. Panish. I don't know if I mentioned it, but I know Ms. Bina mentioned on Friday that Dr. Green's
partners or something were going out of town, he was covering, and he really needed to
Ms. Bina. He needs to finish today, which I think he should, based on what Mr. Bloss told me estimate
wise.
Mr. Panish. At the end, we'll deal with whatever else you want to deal with.
Mr. Putnam. Is that okay, your honor?
Judge. Yes. I think we did at the end of the morning defer that to after green. Okay. Then you can call
Dr. Green.
Judge. Thank you. We have Dr. Green on the witness stand, and he's on cross.
Continued cross-examination by Mr. Bloss:
Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Green.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Dr. Green, when we last were together, we were talking about the events of June 20th, 2009. Do you

remember that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And before we get into that, could you just tell me a little bit about what you did over the weekend
to prepare today?
A. I reviewed my testimony from over the from Friday. I also had a chance to review some of the
materials that I've listed previously in my materials that I did, and I also met with my attorneys.
Q. And what materials did you look at?
A. The materials that were provided that I listed before that I listed up until this time.
Q. Do you have a list of that, by the way; a printed list of the materials that you've been given?
A. I'm not sure if I have a printed list.
Q. You didn't bring that?
A. I did not.
Q. Okay. Anything else you looked at?
A. No.
Q. All right. Dr. Green, we were talking, I think, on Friday about the phone call between Mr. Phillips
and Dr. Murray on June 20th. You remember knowing of that phone call?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And did you read Dr. Matheson's testimony at trial here where he testified that it did not appear that
Mr. Phillips had a full recollection of everything that Murray and Phillips talked about during that 25-
minute telephone call?
A. What was the question? Sorry.
Q. Do you remember Dr. Matheson testifying at trial withdrawn. You read Dr. Matheson's trial
testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And do you remember Dr. Matheson testifying that it did not appear that Mr. Phillips had a full
recollection of everything that was discussed in that phone call?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you agree with that, don't you?

A. Yes, it appears that from Mr. Phillips' testimony that he does not have a full recollection of that
conversation.
Q. So there was something that was talked about. Most likely there was something talked about in that
telephone call that Mr. Phillips wasn't able to tell us about, right?
Ms. Bina. Objection; calls for speculation.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Could you repeat the question? Sorry.
Q. it's most likely that there was something that was discussed in that 25-minute telephone call that
Mr. Phillips wasn't able to tell us here in court, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know that when Mr. Phillips was first asked about that telephone call, he said it was
substantially shorter, correct?
Ms. Bina. Objection; asked and answered multiple times on Friday.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. and he said it was about two or three minutes long, right?
Ms. Bina. Same objection.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Yes, I believe that his first recollection was that it was quite a bit shorter.
Q. and then he was shown some phone records and it established that the phone call was 25 minutes
long, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have no idea of what Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray talked about during that 25 minutes,
right?
Ms. Bina. Objection; asked and answered.
Judge. Sustained. Just
Mr. Bloss. If I may, your honor, my question was whether Mr. Phillips was able to testify.
Q. For the purposes of your opinions, Dr. Green, did you make any assumptions at all about what they

discussed in that telephone call?

A. Well, I think that while Mr. Phillips wasn't able to recall specifically the contents of the
conversation, he did write an e-mail just after that that may have some information as to what was
discussed in that conversation.
Q. Okay. For the purposes of your opinions, sir, are you making any assumptions about what was
discussed during that telephone call?
A. Well, again, I would assume that his e-mail that he wrote just after that where he referenced a
lengthy conversation that he wrote just after the conversation, that has some relevance to this to what
was in the conversation.
Q. Now, Mr. Phillips did not say, did he, that that's what they talked about when he testified here in
court, correct?
A. No.
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Sorry. With the interruption, can you please ask the question again?
Q. Mr. Phillips did not testify in court here that that's what was discussed in the telephone call, did he?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. And so are you assuming for the purposes of your opinion that Mr. Phillips did not put any
pressure on Dr. Murray in that telephone call?
A. There's no evidence that there's no evidence that Mr. Phillips put any pressure on Dr. Murray in
that phone call.
Q. My question, sir, was, are you assuming for the purposes of your opinion that Mr. Phillips was not
putting any pressure on Dr. Murray in that telephone call?
A. And what I said was I have not seen any evidence to suggest that there was any pressure put on him.
Mr. Bloss. Your honor, may I
Judge. Yes. Just answer the question.
A. Okay. Can you ask the question again, please?
Q. are you assuming for the purposes of your opinion that Mr. Phillips did not put any pressure on Dr.
Murray in this 25-minute telephone call that he doesn't remember the content of?
A. Yes, I am.

Q. And, Dr. Green, when you reviewed Mr. Phillips' you reviewed Mr. Phillips' trial testimony,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you reviewed Mr. Phillips' deposition testimony, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Both in order to come to a factual understanding of the situation so you could express the opinions
that you've talked about on Friday?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you notice any areas, Dr. Green, where Mr. Phillips testified inconsistently between his
deposition and his trial testimony?
Ms. Bina. Objection; vague as to "testified inconsistently."
Judge. Sustained.
Q. if there were any inconsistencies, Dr. Green, between the testimony of a witness, how do you
reconcile those for the purposes of your expert testimony?
A. The way I would reconcile that is, first of all, to see if any of them related to my opinions in this
case; and I wanted to make sure that my that they did not change the opinions of my case. And in this
case, my opinions are the same as I'd stated the other day.
Q. Okay. And so is it fair to say, then, that any inconsistencies that you noticed in any witness's
testimony were not material to any of your opinions?
A. No, I don't think that characterizes what I what I said.
Q. Are you aware of any single fact, Dr. Green, that is inconsistent with the opinions you've expressed
here on Friday?
A. None that I have that I recall offhand.
Q. All right. Not a single fact of all of the thousands of pages you've looked at is inconsistent with your
opinions?
A. Again, I think what you have to realize is an opinion is you're looking through all the facts, you're
looking through all the facts that you that you reviewed, and to determine if there's anything that if I
anything that would change my opinion; and no, there was nothing that I found that would change my
opinion.
Q. All right. There is not a fact my question was not whether it would change your opinion, my
question was whether there is a single fact that you're aware of in this case that is inconsistent with

your opinions.
A. Not that I that I can recall at this time.
Q. Now, you claimed you said on Friday I think you offered the opinion that AEG Live did not direct
medical care of Mr. Jackson. Correct?
A. There was a cough during that. Could you repeat the question? I didn't hear the entire question.
Q. Sure. I think you said on Friday, if my notes are correct, that you claim that you offered the opinion
that AEG Live did not direct medical care of Mr. Jackson.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that's based on the testimony of Mr. Phillips, Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Ortega?
A. That's based on the entirety of the evidence that I reviewed.
Q. Well, I said on Friday, sir, at page 14472 you were asked, "what's that based on?" by your counsel,
and your answer was, "that's based on the testimony of randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware and Kenny
Ortega." is that still your position?
Ms. Bina. Objection; improper impeachment, your honor. If he's trying to say he said something
different on Friday, he needs to show it to me first and actually have it read into the record, not take
pieces out of the transcript.
Judge. Overruled. He's asking did you say these are the three people who overruled.
Q. you said on Friday, sir, that your opinion was based on the testimony of randy Phillips, Paul
Gongaware and Kenny Ortega, right?
A. That was part of my testimony. I'm certainly familiar with what I said; but if there's a specific thing,
I'd like to see the please refresh my memory, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
Q. Okay. We can bring it up. 14472, lines 6 through 16. And when you were asked that question, what
is your belief actually, your counsel asked why don't you believe that supports the claim that AEG
Live directed the medical care. You were asked what's that based on. And what was your answer on
Friday?
Ms. Bina. Again, your honor, I'm going to object to improper impeachment. These are different
questions. The question today is, "what are all your bases for your belief that AEG Live didn't direct
the medical care?" and this was dealing with a specific fact.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, can we get legal objections from counsel instead of stating these coaching for
the witness?
Judge. Overruled. You may
Q. Dr. Green, you said on Friday that the basis of your opinion in that respect was the testimony of

Mr. Phillips, Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Ortega, correct?

A. In response to, "what is that based on?" that's what I said. But then the next question is, "have you
seen any testimony that's suggests the contrary?" and I said, "I have not," which, again, is suggesting
that there might have been other information that I may have seen.
Mr. Bloss. Your honor, I move to strike the second half of that. I really
Judge. Motion denied.
Q. is your testimony that AEG Live did not control the medical care of Mr. Jackson based on Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Ortega's testimony, yes or no?
A. This time you just said "controlled." do mean direct or control? Because you just said two different
things from your previous question.
Q. I'm sorry. Direct.
A. Okay. Could you please restate the entire question so I can be clear what you're asking?
Q. The basis for your conclusion that AEG Live did not direct the medical care of Mr. Jackson is based
on the testimony of randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware and Kenny Ortega, right?
A. Not solely, but that's true.
Q. And you said something different on Friday, right?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge. Sustained. The testimony is what it is.
Q. did you say that on Friday?
A. Can I answer?
Judge. I think it's been asked and answered. It's been shown.
Q. did you, sir?
A. In addition, I said I've not seen anything else to suggest the contrary, so that's true.
Q. Okay. Now, Dr. Green, you're aware, are you not, that there was an e-mail that Mr. Phillips sent I'm
sorry that Mr. Ortega sent to Mr. Phillips before the meeting between the time of that telephone call
and before the meeting? In fact, you just referred to it. I think it's exhibit 307.
A. Yes.
Q. And exhibit 307, I'll have a copy for you in just a moment, but you were referring to this as the e-
mail where Mr. Phillips said to Mr. Ortega related some of what you thought might have been the

contents of the telephone call between Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray.
Ms. Bina. I'm just going to object; vague. The transcript first said 307 was an e-mail from Ortega to
Phillips, and then from Phillips to Ortega. I don't know what we're talking about.
Judge. Why don't we just show the e-mail.
Ms. Bina. I want to make sure we're talking about the same document.
Mr. Bloss. I'm going to approach, Dr. Green.
Q. And forget the highlighting, obviously; but you've seen that e-mail before, haven't you?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And that's the e-mail that you were mentioning between Ortega and Phillips relating to the telephone
call with Dr. Murray?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And then if you if you go down to the e-mail that led to this one, Ortega told Phillips, did he
not, "I honestly don't think he is ready for this based on his continued physical weakening and
deepening emotional state"? Right?
A. Yes, I see what you've highlighted there, yes.
Q. Okay. And then Mr. Phillips, in response, wrote to Ortega and said "you cannot imagine the harm
and ramifications of stopping the show now," right?
A. Yes, I see that you've highlighted that on my paper here.
Q. And Phillips also said to Ortega "don't be an amateur psychiatrist," right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And this, as I understand it, anyway, followed the telephone call between Dr. Murray and
Mr. Phillips?
A. It appears to, yes.
Q. Now and then the meeting happened at Carolwood between Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray and Mr.
Jackson and Mr. Ortega, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And do you have a recollection for the purposes of your opinion what happened at that meeting?
A. Yes. Well, there are several accounts of that meeting. But, yes, I do have a recollection of what
happened at that meeting.

Q. Did Phillips and Ortega express the need for Murray to continue as the primary care doctor?
A. I don't recall that specifically.
Q. You have no recollection of their expressing to Dr. Murray their concerns about Michael Jackson's
health and the need for Dr. Murray to continue in his role as the primary care doctor?
A. You know, that sounds really familiar; and I recall reading that; but if you have a specific passage
that you're referring to, I'd be happy to review that.
Q. Is that your recollection of what happened?
A. That is that is my recollection.
Q. Now and you testified a little earlier on Friday, I believe, that you believe that Murray told AEG to
"stay in your lane"?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that, you believe, shows his independence?
A. I believe that was one fact that I referred to that demonstrated his independence.
Q. Now, is it your recollection for the purposes of your opinion that that direction by Murray to "stay
in your lane" was made both to Phillips and Ortega?
A. It was made to to the people at the meeting, yes.
Q. Now, do you remember Mr. Phillips testifying that Dr. Murray said that to Ortega, not Phillips?
A. Again, there's some confusion as to that; but yes, it seems like that was probably to Mr. Ortega.
Q. Right. And so and the reason that that was to Mr. Ortega was that Dr. Murray, as you understand it,
was angry with Ortega?
A. Again, there's several different recollections of this meeting and so it's a little bit of a dispute as to
exactly what occurred at the meeting.
Q. Mr. Ortega anyway, you know that Mr. Ortega testified here that Dr. Murray had the wrong idea
about what had happened at rehearsal the day before, right?
A. Again, from Mr. Ortega's testimony, it certainly says that there was discrepancies as to how he
remembered it versus other people had remembered that meeting.
Q. And he said Mr. Ortega testified that he was shocked by Dr. Murray's reaction, right?
A. Again, this is Mr. Ortega's recollection, which does not is not consistent with other people's
recollection at that meeting.

Q. Right. And do you credit Mr. Ortega's testimony for the purposes of your opinion?
A. I looked at every all the information, I certainly consider as my opinion.
Q. And when there's an inconsistency, how do you resolve it for the purpose of your opinion?
Ms. Bina. Objection; asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. The way I resolve it is to, first of all to look at the information from the different areas and to
determine whether that has any change with my opinions that I offered in this case. And in my in my
opinion in this case was it did not detract from the fact that the health interests were aligned, and that
there was no conflict of interest that led to his poor medical care.
Q. you're aware that Mr. Ortega testified that he was flabbergasted by the way he was treated by Dr.
Murray, right?
A. Again, I don't recall the exact words that he used; but I do recall that Mr. Ortega was surprised at the
meeting.
Q. And Mr. Ortega said that Dr. Murray told him don't be an amateur psychiatrist or physician, right?
A. Again, that's memorialized in this e-mail that happened sort of after that, and it seems that that's
consistent with that with that conversation.
Q. Maybe you misunderstood my question. My question was whether Dr. Murray said to Mr. Ortega at
the meeting, "don't be an amateur psychiatrist or physician."
A. Again, according to Mr. Ortega, my recollection is that that's what he said.
Q. And that's the same direction that he got from Mr. Phillips a little while earlier after Mr. Phillips
talked to Dr. Murray on the phone?
A. That's in the e-mail from Mr. Phillips to Mr. Ortega.
Q. And for the purpose of your opinion, do you understand that Dr. Murray was asked by Mr. Phillips
and Mr. Ortega what was wrong, and he said he did not know?
A. Yes, I'm aware that Mr. Phillips said that.
Q. And Mr. Ortega said that, too, right?
A. And that would be consistent with a doctor not releasing confidential information without a release.
Q. Well, did is there one word of evidence, Dr. Green, that Dr. Murray refused to release information
without a release from Mr. Jackson?

A. There's no evidence that he had a release to discuss anything.

Q. That wasn't my question, doctor.
A. Sorry. Maybe you can repeat it.
Q. Mr. Phillips asked Dr. Murray what's wrong with Jackson, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did Dr. Murray say, you know, "Mr. Phillips, I'm sorry, without a hipaa-compliant release, I
just can't offer that to you because it would be a violation of federal privacy laws"? Is there one word
of evidence that that was Dr. Murray's response?
A. There's no requirement that Dr. Murray would have had to say that.
Q. Dr. Green, stick with my question. Did Dr. Murray say that?
A. There's no evidence that he said that.
Q. In fact, there's evidence, isn't it, from Dr. from Mr. Phillips that he said, "maybe Mr. Jackson has
the flu, I don't know," right?
A. That was one thing that was offered, but he didn't
Q. To Mr. Phillips?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that's not consistent with refusal to provide information in the absence of a release, is it?
A. That's pretty vague.
Q. Oh, I understand; but it's isn't it you're aware, aren't you, that Dr. Murray never offered any
conclusion as to what the health situation was of Mr. Jackson?
A. And as I said, he was not allowed to, and no, he did not.
Q. You have absolutely no basis for saying he was not allowed to, do you, Dr. Green?
A. Only that when he was asked by the insurance people to provide information, he refused to provide
the information because he didn't have an authorization.
Q. That's a week later?
A. That's correct.
Q. At the June 20th meeting, you have absolutely no basis for saying that Mr. Jackson refused to allow
Dr. Murray to tell Phillips about his health situation, do you?

A. All I know is that Dr. Murray didn't disclose any information about Mr. Jackson's condition.
Q. He said, "I don't know"?
A. He did not disclose any specific information about Mr. Jackson's condition.
Q. And now I do want to withdrawn. Is it important for the purposes of your opinion that you believe
Mr. Phillips did not put any pressure on Dr. Murray at that meeting?
A. Could you repeat the question?
Q. Is it important for the purposes of your opinion that you believe Mr. Phillips did not put any
pressure on Dr. Murray at that meeting?
A. Only in that there does not seem to be any evidence that Dr. Murray was pressured; and even if there
had been any evidence of being pressured, it does not change my ultimate conclusion, which is that it
was ultimately up to Dr. Murray to make a decision in the best interest of his patient, and he did not do
that.
Q. Can you answer my question?
A. I thought I did.
Mr. Bloss. Your honor, could I ask
Ms. Bina. The question was answered. He said "only in that," and he clarified exactly how it was
relevant to his opinions.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, I asked a very simple question.
Judge. Why don't we re-read the question.
(the question was read.)
Ms. Bina. And the answer, your honor, is that it was important "only in that," and explained how it was
important.
Judge. Read back the answer.
(the answer was read.)
Judge. The answer is stricken.
Q. can you answer my question?
A. No, it did not change my ultimate opinion in this case.
Q. I didn't ask if in; changed your opinion, Dr. Green.

A. What did you ask me?

Q. I'm asking if, for the purposes of your opinion, you are assuming that Mr. Phillips did not pressure
Dr. Murray at that meeting.
A. And my answer was it really doesn't matter one way or the other.
Q. Okay. So even if Mr. Phillips made a threat to Dr. Murray that, "if the tour is canceled or postponed,
you're going to lose your job," that makes no difference to your opinion?
Ms. Bina. Objection; assumes facts not in evidence, improper hypothetical.
Judge. Overruled.
A. You're asking me to assume that you're asking me to assume that Mr. Phillips pressured Dr.
Murray. It still does not take away Dr. Murray's obligation to his patient to provide the best medical
care.
Q. could you answer my question?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, asked and answered.
Judge. The answer is stricken. He's not answering the question. Answer the question
A. I tried to. Can you please re-ask the question?
Q. even if Mr. Phillips made a threat to Dr. Murray that, "if the tour is postponed or canceled," it
makes no difference to your opinion?
A. And what I said is that assuming that he made that threat, that does not change my conclusions.
Q. Okay. Because now you would agree, wouldn't you, that Mr. Phillips did not testify in this case that
he did put any pressure on Dr. Murray at that meeting? Correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you are aware, are you not I think you said earlier there are different versions of that meeting,
are there not?
A. Yes, there are different recollections of the exact details of that meeting.
Q. And Mr. Ortega, for example Mr. Phillips said that he was at the meeting for about 10 or 15
minutes, correct?
A. I didn't understand your question. You have said Mr. Ortega, Mr. Phillips.
Q. I'm sorry. Mr. Ortega said that he was at the meeting with Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray for 10 or 15
minutes?

A. That's correct.
Q. And then he said that he left, right?
A. Again, there's a discrepancy as to how much time all the people were there.
Q. Okay. I just want you to stick to my question. Mr. Ortega
Judge. Just focus on what he's saying. He's saying is this what Ortega said. He's not asking if other
people said other things. He's asking you if this is what Ortega said.
A. Yes. That's
Mr. Bloss. I'm sorry. Are you done?
A. Go ahead and re-ask it.
Q. Mr. Ortega was consistent in saying, as you recall it, that he was there for 10 or 15 minutes?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the testimony, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. That's my recollection.
Q. and Phillips and Mr. Ortega testified, did he not, that when he left Mr. Ortega, Mr. Randy Phillips
was still in the room with Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson, correct?
A. I believe that was his testimony.
Q. And Phillips said that the meeting lasted about an hour or an hour and a half, correct?
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. And Ortega said he was there, as we said, for 10 or 15 minutes, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've credited Mr. Phillips' testimony as to what happened at that meeting for the purposes of
your opinion, have you not?
A. No. I believe what I said was I read both testimonies and I read both of them and I took both of
them into account.
Q. So you do not credit Mr. Phillips' testimony as true as to what happened at those meetings for the
purposes of your opinion?
A. As I said a few minutes ago, there's two different accounts, and I read both of them, and I'm not in a

position to determine which one was more accurate.

Mr. Bloss. All right. I'd like to play, please, page 28, lines 1 through 16, of your deposition.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I think that if this is going to be read, it should at least go to line 20, because I
don't actually believe it's inconsistent.
Judge. I'll have to look at it, unless you agree to read it to line 20.
Mr. Bloss. I don't have the transcript right in front of me, your honor.
Ms. Bina. Apparently, we don't agree, your honor.
Judge. All right. I'll take a look. Just show me.
Ms. Bina. I just think it should be read down to line 20, not stop at line 16.
Mr. Panish. Do you have the transcript, your honor?
Judge. I'm going to ask them to place it up on the screen.
Mr. Putnam. To be clear, they want 1 through 16, and we're asking for the next one.
Ms. Bina. And this is referring to deposition testimony that was asked today about trial testimony; so to
that extent, it's not proper impeachment, either.
Judge. I'll look at it. Did you read through line 24?
Ms. Bina. I'm fine going through line 24, your honor. I just think the testimony is consistent.
Judge. You can read through line 24.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, your honor.
(The following videotaped deposition testimony was played:)
Q. And how many meetings, as you understand it, did he have with Dr. Murray in June?
A. I believe there were two.
Q. Okay. And what's your belief based on?
A. The belief was based on randy Phillips' deposition as well as supported by other other testimony,
as well.
Q. All right. And do you credit Mr. Phillips' testimony as to what happened at those meetings for the
purposes of your opinion?
A. Can you repeat the question?

Q. Yeah. Do you credit, accept, Mr. Phillips' testimony as true as to what happened at those meetings
for the purposes of your opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you have relied on his version of the events as to what happened at those meetings for the
purposes of your opinion?
A. Not solely.
Q. Okay. I'm just asking you are assuming for the purposes of your opinion, you are crediting his
testimony?
A. I am.
Q. Is that correct? You credited you accepted Mr. Phillips' testimony as true for the purposes of your
opinions?
A. Not solely.
Q. I'm just asking if you I'm not asking what your opinions are based on, I'm asking whether you
accepted Mr. Phillips' testimony as true for the purposes of your opinions.
A. And Mr. Phillips testified under oath, so yes, I credit his
Q. Okay. Well, everybody testified under oath, didn't they?
A. That's why I said that it's not just solely his I looked at both opinions, and both of the both of the
observations that were offered at the trial, not just not just Mr. Phillips.
Q. Well, Mr. Phillips testified in the criminal trial of Dr. Murray, did he not, that, "we all left together,"
right?
A. I believe he did.
Q. And Mr. Ortega said that's not true, correct?
A. There are two different opinions as to what happened from two people who were at the meeting, and
I have no way of resolving which one is more accurate.
Q. And if Phillips' story is withdrawn. If Ortega's testimony is true, then Phillips was at the meeting
for an additional hour or more alone with Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson, correct?
Ms. Bina. Objection; calls for speculation.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Yes, for the purpose of your question, if you'd like, I can assume that Mr. Phillips was correct in his

testimony.
Mr. Bloss. That wasn't my question, sir.
A. What was your question?
Q. my question was if Mr. Ortega is correct in his testimony. If Mr. Ortega left after 10 or 15 minutes,
and Mr. Phillips stayed behind, and as Mr. Phillips said, he stayed for an hour and a half okay? And if
that is true, if Mr. Ortega is accurate as to how long he was at the house, then Mr. Phillips was there
alone with Mr. Jackson and Dr. Murray for over an hour, right?
A. Assuming that we believe Mr. Ortega's testimony, then yes, that would be correct.
Q. And we have no record, do we no recollection by Mr. Phillips of what happened after Mr. Ortega
left because he says he and Ortega left at the same time?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. now, you is it your belief that Mr. Ortega and Mr. Phillips were giving information to Dr. Murray
at that meeting I think you correct me if I'm wrong, but he said the same about withdrawn that
Mr. Phillips and Mr. Ortega were giving Dr. Murray information about Jackson's health situation at that
meeting the same way a family member might?
A. That would be my assumption, yes.
Q. Is that what you believe?
A. Again, I was not at the meeting, so I'm basing it on the information that I reviewed.
Q. And in other words, you believe that they were looking out for Mr. Jackson's best interest like a
family member?
A. That appeared to be from the e-mails, that appeared to be the purpose of the meeting, that is
correct.
Q. Now, at the time of the meeting, were you aware that there was information from at least two people
who worked on the tour, on rehearsals, that there should be a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And there was at least two people who offered the opinion that they believed Mr. Jackson was
dying?
A. I don't remember if it was one or two, but there was that opinion was expressed.

Q. One was Karen Faye. You said you read her deposition, right?
A. Yes, I read her deposition.
Q. And the other one, Alif Sankey?
A. Yes, I read her deposition.
Q. And she said that she said the same thing, that she believed that Mr. Jackson was dying, right?
A. Again, I'm not I'm familiar with that. I'm not sure whether one was talking to the other or repeating
what some of the other people had said. But yes, in general, that is true.
Q. And Mr. Branca sent an e-mail to Mr. Phillips saying "I have the right therapist, spiritual advisor,
substance abuse counselor who could help, recently helped Mike Tyson get sober and parole," right?
A. Yes, I believe Mr. Branca did write that.
Q. And Mr. Phillips responded to that "now is not the right time to introduce a new person into his
life," correct?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the document.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I'm familiar with that document. If you'd like to show me the entire document, I'd be happy to look
at it.
Q. so you don't remember Mr. Phillips wrote "John now is not the right time to introduce a new
person into his life"?
A. I recall that he wrote that as part of an e-mail, I don't believe that's the entire e-mail.
Mr. Bloss. May I approach?
Judge. You may.
Ms. Bina. May I see what you're showing him?
Mr. Bloss. 304, dash, 1.
Judge. Before you show the witness, you should give it to counsel.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, there's several e-mail chains here from different days.
Q. have you had a chance to look at that, Dr. Green?
A. Yes, I have.

Q. And Mr. Phillips did write what did he write?

A. Do you want me to read the entire e-mail?
Q. Just that part that I highlighted.
A. You highlighted the last sentence actually, the last sentence of the e-mail, you've highlighted, and it
was and it says "John now is the right time to enter a new person into his life."
Q. I think you misread that, didn't you, Dr. Green?
A. I'll try again. "John, now is not the right time to introduce a new person into his life."
Q. All right. Now, Dr. Green, I asked you some questions about your at your deposition about an e-
mail from a fellow named Mr. Hougdahl, right?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. And there's actually several e-mails from Mr. Hougdahl, correct?
A. There are.
Mr. Bloss. All right. Now, you there is one e-mail, exhibit 321, dash, 1 if I can approach, your honor.
Judge. Yes, you may.
Q. where Mr. Hougdahl wrote to Mr. Phillips on June 19th, 2009?
Judge. I'm assuming defense counsel has this?
Ms. Bina. Yes, I have this one, your honor. Mr. Boyle gave it to me.
Mr. Bloss. We'll stay on top of that, your honor.
Mr. Boyle. Trying a new system here.
Mr. Panish. Give it to them ahead of time.
Q. Mr. Hougdahl, anyway, wrote, Dr. Green, "I have watched him deteriorate in front of my eyes over
the last eight weeks," right?
A. Let me is it on the second page or first?
Q. First page.
A. Yes, I see where you're referring.
Q. And Mr. Hougdahl, anyway, wrote "my layman's degree tells me he needs a shrink to get him
mentally prepared to get onstage," correct?

A. Yes, that's above that, yes.

Q. Right. Now, at the time you agreed to testify as an expert witness on behalf of AEG Live, were you
given this e-mail?
A. I don't recall.
Q. At the time you were deposed, Dr. Green, isn't it true that the first time you'd seen it is when I
handed it to you at your deposition on April 1st?
A. I believe it may have been.
Q. That's true, isn't it, sir?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
A. One of the things in my deposition was there were several e-mail chains that were in a different
order than I had seen them before, so I when you asked me that, I wasn't sure if I had seen it in this
order or I had seen it exactly as you displayed it.
Q. did you read an e-mail by a fellow named John Hougdahl that talked about Mr. Jackson's
deterioration over the last two months before April 1st at your deposition?
A. I don't recall.
Mr. Bloss. Okay. I'd like though play, if I could, line page 38, line 23, through 39, line 1.
Ms. Bina. Fine. Actually, your honor, I think that should be refreshed first. He testified he doesn't recall
if he reviewed it before that date, so
Mr. Panish. He said he didn't.
Judge. All right. Refresh his recollection.
Q. Dr. Green, when I asked you that question back on April 1st, if you'd look at line 23 to 25 on the
page I just pointed to you on the first
Judge. No. Let him read it to himself.
Mr. Bloss. I was just identifying the answer, your honor. They're on different pages.
Judge. Just let him read it first.
A. Okay. I had a chance to read it.
Mr. Bloss. All right.

Q. And does that refresh your recollection, Dr. Green, that when I asked you that question at the time of
your deposition, you said what did you answer at the time of your deposition?
A. At the time, I said that I did not read it prior to the deposition.
Q. And you also, then, did not consider it for any purposes of your opinions as you testified on April
1st, 2013, correct?
A. That's correct.
Mr. Bloss. Now, Dr. Green. If I can approach, your honor, I'll just recover that.
A. Thank you.
Q. Dr. Green, you've testified I think you stated on Friday that you reviewed Dr. Matheson's trial
testimony.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you reviewed Dr. Matheson's deposition testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you reviewed all the materials that Dr. Matheson brought to his deposition?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And he brought a series of articles, did he not, that he said that he got off of Medline?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you know what Medline is, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what's Medline?
A. It's a medical information service that posts journals that have been peer-reviewed.
Q. And you considered you reviewed those and considered those for the purposes of your opinion, did
you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Now, you offered withdrawn. You offered a definition of conflict of interest on Friday.
Do you remember that?
A. I do.

Q. And I think you said that a conflict of interest very simply is when at least two parties have differing
interests or different goals and desires. Is that your definition?
A. I believe that's what I said on Friday, that's correct.
Q. All right. And did you rely on any particular source for that deposition withdrawn. Did you rely on
any particular source for that definition?
A. Can you define what you mean by a "source"?
Q. Sure.
A. Treatise, a scholarly paper, a research paper, a textbook a I relied on what I what I have read over
the course of my career as a doctor and as well as my own experiences.
Q. Okay. Anything specific you can point to?
A. No.
Q. You're aware, aren't you, that Dr. Matheson referred for the purposes of his testimony to, among
other things, a a book called "conflict of interest in medical research, education and practice," right?
A. I believe that was one of the articles that Dr. Matheson brought to his deposition.
Q. And that's something published by the institute of medicine of the national academies, right?
A. I don't have that offhand, but I would take your word for it.
Mr. Bloss. Okay. Well, why don't we bring up exhibit 1094, dash, 1.
Ms. Bina. Is this previously admitted?
Mr. Panish. No. It's reviewed by him.
Mr. Bloss. Your honor, this is not I'm not offering this as a full exhibit, this is a 721
Ms. Bina. Is this one that Dr. Matheson brought okay. Sorry.
Mr. Bloss. May I approach, your honor?
Judge. Yes, you may.
A. Thank you.
Judge. My understanding is that he reviewed the materials that Dr. Matheson reviewed.
Ms. Bina. Right. Your honor, this is not I don't know if this is the document as Dr. Matheson brought
it to his deposition. This appears to be a PowerPoint slide.

Mr. Bloss. They're excerpts from the document Dr. Matheson brought.
Ms. Bina. I'm not sure it's the one that was actually the exhibit to Dr. Matheson's deposition, and it was
quite a lengthy document. I'm not sure whether this is something he's ever seen before.
Mr. Bloss. It's the same document, your honor, that was marked as an exhibit at his deposition.
Ms. Bina. Like this?
Mr. Bloss. Of course not.
Mr. Putnam. So this is a version of what it was excerpts?
Judge. Okay. So these are excerpts. That's fine.
Ms. Bina. As long as you assure me that every piece of this was presented at the deposition, that's what
I'm not sure of.
Mr. Boyle. It's all from the same article.
Ms. Bina. It's not the same thing. Do you have the article?
Mr. Panish. You do.
Mr. Bloss. Dr. Green, I just want to first of all, can we bring up, your honor can we show 1094, dash,
1, the cover sheet?
Judge. Okay.
Q. this is one of the articles that Dr. Matheson brought to the deposition, right?
A. I believe it was, yes.
Q. And you looked at it to prepare for your testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And
Judge. If it's really, truly excerpts, then we should represent to the witness it's just excerpts.
Mr. Bloss. Fair enough. I'm just asking the title of it at this point, your honor.
Judge. All right.
Mr. Bloss. And then the rest of it, yes, is excerpts.
Judge. Okay. I just want the witness to to be fair to the witness in terms of what you're showing.

Mr. Bloss. Absolutely, your honor. I actually have an electronic copy of the full version here with me,
your honor, if the witness wants to look at it.
Q. Dr. Green, do you know what the institute of medicine of the national academies is?
A. I know what the institute of medicine is, yes.
Q. What is it?
A. It's a governmental agency in Bethesda.
Q. And what's its function?
A. Its function is it has a variety of functions, the national institute of health. The national institute of
medicine has a variety of functions.
Q. Dr. Green, I'd like you to look at the second page, 1094, dash, 2. This is an excerpt from the
lengthier document.
A. By the way, just for clarity, you gave me two copies. Are these both the same?
Judge. One is probably mine. Thank you.
Q. Dr. Green, this is the definition that Dr. Matheson testified about when he testified back in June, is
it not?
A. I believe it was.
Q. All right. This is not the same definition of conflict of interest that you testified to, is it?
A. It's not the same formal definition, that's true.
Q. And at least Dr. Matheson's the material here says "conflicts of interest are defined as
circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest
will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest," right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what do you understand "primary interest" to be for the purposes of that definition?
A. The primary interest as they define this here is to mainly as it applies to this case is it applies to the
welfare of the patient.
Q. And what do you understand "secondary interest" to be for the purposes of this definition?
A. Again, what this seems to say is secondary interests include things beyond the welfare of the patient,
such as financial interests.

Q. All right. And if I could ask you to look at 1104 withdrawn. Dr. Green, do you agree with this
definition of conflict of interest?
A. Yes, I agree that that is a reasonable definition of conflict of interest.
Q. All right.
A. Not the only definition, but it's certainly a reasonable definition of conflict of interest.
Q. It was the one that was adopted by the institute of medicine, anyway, right?
A. From this document, that's correct.
Q. And specifically by the committee on conflict of interest in medical research education and practice,
right?
A. That's correct.
Mr. Bloss. All right. Now, another article that Dr. Matheson brought is exhibit 1100; and specifically
11- an excerpt on 1104, dash, 1. Bring up 1104, dash, 1, not to the witness yet.
Ms. Bina. Are you sure the entire thing was brought to the deposition?
Mr. Bloss. Absolutely. May I just have a moment, your honor?
Judge. Yes
Mr. Panish. Your honor, if counsel wants to talk, we should do it on the side.
Ms. Bina. I don't know that we need to go to sidebar, your honor. There's a question about whether this
was actually an exhibit to Dr. Matheson's deposition.
Judge. Do you have the deposition?
Mr. Panish. Your honor, if we're going to have a debate, we should do it either at the break or on a
sidebar, not in front of the jury.
Ms. Bina. I think in the interest of time; if all we're relying on is that one page, I don't have an issue
with it, just continue on with the examination.
Judge. Let's continue, then.
Q. do you recall this, Dr. Green, 1100, and then the excerpt at exhibit 1104 is another article that Dr.
Matheson brought to his deposition?
A. Yes. And this would be this is the complete article?
Q. Right.

A. Yes, I see this.

Q. And that, in 1104, dash, 1 withdrawn. You reviewed this from Mr. Dr. Matheson's deposition?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. If we can bring up 1104, dash, 1. And this is another definition of conflict of interest, is it
not?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And do you agree with this one, as well?
A. Yes, I I agree this is also another reasonable definition of a conflict of interest.
Q. Okay. Can you just read it into the record, please, Dr. Green?
A. On the first page that you set here?
Q. Yes.
A. "conflict of interest refers to," quote, "a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning
a primary interest, such as a patient's welfare or the validity of research, is unduly influenced by a
secondary interest, such as financial gain."
Q. And you agree with that?
A. Yes, that's a reasonable definition of conflict of interest.
Q. Now, also, do you agree, sir, that the severity of a conflict of interest depends on, one, the likelihood
that professional decisions made under the relevant circumstances would be unduly influenced by a
secondary interest, and two, the seriousness of the harm or wrong that could result from such an
influence?
A. Are you reading from this?
Q. No; I'm reading something else.
A. Okay. Could you repeat that? It was kind of a long thing.
Q. I'll tell you what. I'll show you the exhibit and see if you accept it.
A. That will be better.
Q. That will be 1094, dash, 3. Actually, you already have 1094, dash, 3. Yes.
Judge. At the bottom right, it should say 1094.
Mr. Bloss. It's part of that ten-page stapled part, Dr. Green. Everything with a 1094 is

Judge. There you go. It begins "the severity "

A. So you're skipping from this article to the other article?
Mr. Bloss. Correct, going back to the institute of medicine article, 1094, dash, 3 identifies principles
for assessing withdrawn 1094, dash, 3, identifies principles for identifying and assessing conflicts of
interest.
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you agree that this is a valid principle for determining the severity of a conflict of interest?
A. Can you give me one minute just to finish reading this?
Q. Absolutely.
A. Yes, in general, I would agree with that.
Q. Okay. Could you please, Dr. Green, just read that into the record?
A. Yes. "the severity of a conflict of interest depends on, one, the likelihood that professional decisions
made under the relevant circumstances would be unduly influenced by a secondary interest, and two,
the seriousness of the harm or wrong that could result from such an influence. "the likelihood of undue
influence is affected by the value of the secondary interest, its duration and depth, and the extent of
discretion that the individual has in making important decisions."
Q. And as you understand it, financial interests are one such secondary interest; is that correct?
A. Yes, financial interests can be a secondary interest, that's correct.
Q. And you're aware that Dr. Matheson testified at trial that there is additional research about how to
analyze the severity of conflicts of interest, correct?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And if I can direct you to page 1094, dash, 9, another excerpt from the institute of medicine book,
this is this is a table setting forth criteria for assessing severities of conflicts of interest, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Dr. Matheson applied this these criteria, did he not, in his testimony?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled.

A. Yes, he mentioned these criteria.

Mr. Bloss. All right.
Q. Have you attempted to apply these criteria for the purposes of your opinion?
A. I don't believe that I formally did this, but I did review the documents and the articles that Dr.
Matheson brought to the his deposition, and I so did I review those as part of my decision, yes.
Q. Okay. And that includes the full institute of medicine article?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, Dr. Matheson testified, did he not, that the literature says that financial interests are the most
powerful eroding force in a conflict of interest situation, right?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And, now, you testified withdrawn. Do you agree with that?
A. Could you repeat the question?
Q. Yes. Do you agree that the literature says that financial interests are the most powerful eroding force
in a conflict of interest situation?
A. That does is what's in some of the articles that Dr. Matheson said. I believe it did say that. In my
experience, however, I've seen physicians do things for all sorts of reasons in addition to financial
interests.
Q. I'm just asking you what the research shows, right?
A. I believe that was more of an opinion than the research, and that is one article that says that, but
there are a great deal of secondary interests as mentioned in these articles that can be responsible for
conflicts of interests.
Q. Okay. My question was simply whether the literature says that financial interests are the most
powerful eroding force in a conflict of interest situation. Do you agree with that or disagree?
Ms. Bina. Objection; asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled. Agree or disagree?
A. I'm not aware that there's any way to rate the most powerful conflict of interest.
Judge. So is that disagree?
A. I would disagree.
Mr. Bloss. Okay.

Q. You agree that research published by the institute of medicine shows that conflicts of interest do
have an effect on medical decision making?
A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
Q. And you agree with that?
A. I am aware that that's what studies have shown.
Q. Now, by your own do you agree with it, Dr. Green?
Ms. Bina. Objection; vague. The original question, your honor, was
Judge. Sustained.
Q. do you agree you agree that research published by the institute of medicine shows that conflicts of
interest do have any effect on medical decision making?
Ms. Bina. Objection; asked and answered.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish. It's foundation.
Judge. Overruled. He's answered.
Q. do you believe that conflicts of interest have an effect on medical decision making?
A. I believe they can.
Q. Now, is it your position that financial conflicts in and of themselves do not lead to compromised
healthcare?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And are you aware that there was substantial research brought by Dr. Matheson to his deposition
that shows the effect of financial conflicts of interest?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the documents.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I believe you've just asked me two different questions.
Q. the materials that Dr. Matheson brought to his deposition, that you told us you read right? There
are substantial there are studies within the materials he brought that talk about the effect of financial
conflicts of interest, right?

A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And one article that Dr. Matheson brought was a report by the task force on financial
conflicts of interest in clinical care of the American Association of Medical Colleges. Do you
remember that?
A. That was one of the articles, I believe.
Mr. Bloss. All right. And that's exhibit 1102, with an excerpt at 1104, dash, 5.
Ms. Bina. So 1104 is more than one document?
Mr. Bloss. Yes.
Judge. Is this a new one?
Mr. Bloss. You have 1104, your honor. I think it's part of the second definition of conflict of interest I
offered.
Ms. Bina. I'm just confused, your honor, because Dr. Matheson brought a stack of articles and they
seem to have little different bits and pieces in different PowerPoints. Is 1104 all from this article?
Mr. Bloss. 1104 does not need to be stapled together.
Judge. I don't have 1102, so
Mr. Bloss. Right here.
Judge. Okay.
Ms. Bina. So just for the record, is 1104 clips of various documents that Dr. Matheson brought to his
deposition?
Mr. Bloss. Yes.
Ms. Bina. Is there any way to identify where they came from?
Mr. Bloss. I've been doing it through the witness.
Judge. Well, let's clarify. It's my understanding from what I've heard that exhibit 1100 1104 are clips
of 1100.
Ms. Bina. That's what we thought, your honor.
Mr. Bloss. No.
Mr. Boyle. 1104, dash, 1, is; and 1104, dash, 2, is. 3, 1104-3 is; and 1104, dash, 5, is from 1102, dash, 1
1102.

Ms. Bina. So 1102, dash, 5 is an excerpt from this 46-page document entitled "in the interest of
patients." what is 1104, dash, 4, from? Sorry. I'm just trying to figure out what's what.
Judge. That's okay.
Mr. Bloss. I'm not there yet. It's coming.
Mr. Boyle. But I can tell you it will be from 1101, dash, 1, "conflicts of interest" by Robert D.
Greenberg, m.d.
Judge. Just so I'm clear, 1104, dash, 1, through 1104, dash, 3, all come from 1100?
Ms. Bina. Yes.
Judge. Then 1104, dash, 5, came from 1094?
Ms. Bina. No; from 1102, your honor. It's a 46-page document entitled "in the interest of patients,
recommendations for physician financial relationships and clinical decision making."
Judge. And then 1104 comes from?
Mr. Boyle. 1104 comes from another article that we haven't handed up yet, but we can. 1104, dash, 4,
comes from exhibit 1101, dash, 1.
Judge. Okay. Just so we're clear.
Ms. Bina. Entitled "conflicts of interest, can a physician serve two masters."
Judge. That's fine.
Mr. Bloss. All right.
Q. Dr. Green, now that you've had a chance to look at some of these, 1102 is this study by the
American Association of Medical Colleges, correct?
A. I don't believe this is a study, I believe there is a review article of recommendations for a physician
if I'm reading this correctly, the title of it is "recommendation for physician financial relationships in
clinical decision making." it's not what I would call a study. These seem to be position statements.
There does not appear to be a study.
Q. It says it's a report?
A. You said a study.
Q. I understand. I'll rephrase my question. It says it's a report?
A. It's a report which summarizes basic position statements, correct.
Q. All right. And if I can direct your attention to 1104, dash, 5, which is an excerpt from 1102

A. Yes.
Q. Now, this is a an excerpt that says talks about psychological research on how financial interests
can distort decision making. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And it's summarizing psychological research, as you understand it, correct?
A. Yes. This is not the original article, and this is really not a very good way of reviewing an article
because this is summarizing a report of something else. In medicine, when we try to look at something
when I look at an article for patient care, I want to see the original research. I want to see what the
study actually showed because it often can be distorted as it goes to summarizing and other ways. So
while I certainly will be happy to rely on this, this is not the optimal way to review an article
Q. Well, you've had all of Dr. Matheson's articles, the ones he brought to his deposition, for about four
and a half months now, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you go to any of the underlying research to review it?
A. No, I did not. I tried I tried to rely on the exact same information that Dr. Matheson had.
Q. Okay. And do you do you agree or disagree that the psychological research shows that when
individuals stand to gain by reaching a particular conclusion, they tend to unconsciously and
unintentionally weigh evidence in a biased fashion that favors that conclusion?
A. From a basic psychologic point, that is I would probably agree with that.
Q. And at the bottom of that sentence, it says the research explains how even well-intentioned
individuals can succumb to conflicts of interest and why the effects of conflicts of interest are so
insidious and difficult to combat. Do you agree with that or disagree?
A. I agree that research does show that individuals can succumb to conflicts of interest. I do agree with
that.
Q. All right. Now I want to direct your attention to another article, Dr. Green. There's an article, exhibit
1100, two excerpts, 1104, dash, 2, and 1104, dash, 3.
A. So, again, you're jumping around from different articles?
Mr. Bloss. I am.
Ms. Bina. I thought 1104 and dash, 3, were from exhibit 1100.
Mr. Bloss. I don't think I said that.

Ms. Bina. You did. You just told all of us that 1, 2 and 3 were from 1100.
Mr. Boyle. I may have said that.
Mr. Bloss. 1101 is an article "conflicts of interest, can a physician serve two masters." I'll give it to you
in a second, your honor. And there are two slides out of that, 1104, dash, 2, and 1104, dash, 3.
Ms. Bina. Are you sure, Mr. Bloss? Because it looks like 1104 is based on that article, based on the
many articles behind these clips. This one comes from these three; and then this one, which Mr. Boyle
says came from that, appears to be
Mr. Bloss. I'm sorry. It's 1104, dash, 4. But, in any event, I'll give you the full article, Dr. Green.
A. So it's not 1104, dash, 2, that this comes from?
Mr. Bloss. Right.
Judge. Mr. Bloss, I may ask you to reorganize these.
Mr. Bloss. I think this is almost the end of them, your honor; but I'd be happy to do that.
Judge. In other words, put the slides with the appropriate articles.
Mr. Bloss. That's fine. I can maybe
Ms. Bina. Just for the record, we can say what page of the articles they came from in case we ever need
to find these again.
Mr. Bloss. I'll do that at a break, your honor.
Judge. Let's finish this, and then we'll go through that. Okay.
Q. exhibit 1100, Dr. Green, that's another article Dr. Matheson brought and said that he relied on?
A. I believe he did.
Q. And you reviewed that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Now if I could ask you to have pulled up 1104, dash, 4.
A. Okay.
Q. You've got that in front of you?
A. I do.
Q. And this is a description of how some conflicts of interest are worse than other conflicts of interest,

correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And there's a sentence there some conflicts are worse than others, but money is recognized as
corroding professional responsibility most often and most aggressively. Do you see that?
A. I do see that first sentence.
Q. Do you agree with that?
A. I agree I agree that money can be that, although if you look at the citation there, you it cites
reference five, and reference five is actually not from a study, reference five is just called "money and
the medical professional" from the institute of ethics, and that appears not to be a research project, that
appears to be just a position paper.
Q. Okay. You haven't read that, though?
A. I have not, but that does not appear to be a research article.
Q. You would disagree with the statement in this article money is recognized withdrawn. You disagree
with the statement in the article some conflicts are worse than others, but money is recognized as
corroding professional responsibility most often and most aggressively?
A. I agree that it can be I agree with the statement that it can be a corroding influence. I don't agree I
haven't seen enough literature to say if that's the most often and most aggressive, so I would not agree
with that second part of that without looking at further research.
Q. So you just don't have an opinion about that today one way or the other?
A. Again, I have an opinion that money can certainly corrode professional responsibility. I'm not sure
it's the most often and most aggressive.
Q. When you say you're not sure, does that mean you believe it is not or you believe it is or you don't
know?
A. I believe I'm not sure.
Q. Okay. If I can go back now to the institute of medicine booklet, 1094, dash, 6?
A. Your honor, I may need a bigger desk.
Judge. Right here. Use this.
Mr. Bloss. At least you have a desk.
A. Can you tell me again which that is?
Mr. Bloss. 1094, dash, 6. It's another excerpt from the institute of medicine article, Dr. Green.

A. Okay.
Q. what's written there is a financial interest does not have to be great for the influence to be undue.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Do you agree with that?
A. I agree that influences can be it's very hard to grade influences; but yes, a financial interest does
not does not have to be great for it to be undue, yes.
Q. And do you agree that when a secondary interest has inappropriate weight in a decision and distorts
the pursuit of a primary interest, it is exerting undue influence? Do you agree with that?
A. Let me re-read this one more time. Yes, it does I would agree that it can exert undue influence.
Q. Now I'd like to direct your attention, please, to page 10 of that document, 1094.
A. Okay.
Q. That states "in assessing the likelihood of undue influence, it is reasonable to assume that the
greater that the value of the secondary interest is, e.g., the greater the size of the financial gain is, the
more probable is its influence." did I read that correctly?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. And do you agree with that?
A. I don't think that this is based on studies, I think this is based on common sense that the greater the
value that someone has to gain from secondary interest what I agree with in this is it's probable is it's
influence. It does not say that it's definite, it says it's probable.
Q. Okay. More likely than not?
A. Probable.
Q. Right. Is that the way you understand "probable"?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. Now, Dr. Green, there are such things, are there not, as conflict of interest policies?
A. Yes, there are.
Q. Institutes can adopt conflict of interest policies to reduce the likelihood of a secondary gain
influence in having an effect on a primary goal, right?

A. Yes, I agree that institutions have developed those.

Q. And, in fact, you yourself have been involved in developing such conflict of interest policies, have
you not?
A. I don't believe that I've ever drafted a specific policy that says "conflict of interest." I don't believe
I've ever done that.
Q. Well, you are the what is your position with major league baseball?
A. I'm the consultant on performance-enhancing drugs and their medical director.
Q. Okay. As their medical director, have you been involved in creating a policy relating to how
concussions among major league baseball players are treated?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And the team physician, if a major league baseball player is concussed, has certain obligations to
that player, does he not, he or she?
A. Can you repeat that question there?
Q. Yes. If a baseball player gets a concussion, the doctor, the team doctor, has obligations to the to the
player, right?
A. Yes, he would.
Q. Right. The same obligations that any doctor would have?
A. That's correct.
Q. The and the in that situation, though, Dr. Green, where a player is held out because of a
conclusion, does the team doctor have the unilateral right to return the player to play?
A. No.
Q. And, in fact, that's because you, as the medical director of major league baseball, drafted a policy,
correct?
A. Yes, we have a policy on return to play for a concussion.
Mr. Bloss. And if I can show you exhibit 1093.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I have no objection to the witness being asked about this to the extent it's
relevant; but it's hearsay, and I don't know it's relevant to be admitted into evidence.
Mr. Panish. He was involved in the preparation of this document and he brought out in direct his work
with MLB.

Ms. Bina. That doesn't make every document of major league baseball relevant to the case.
Judge. True. And I don't know if all of this document is related. Let's take it a piece at a time.
Q. Dr. Green, you recognize what I gave you, exhibit 1093?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. This is the major league baseball policy on the assessment and management of concussions suffered
by major league baseball players?
A. I haven't had a chance to review it all, if this is the exact document that we have; but I will assume
that it is for your purposes.
Q. Is there anything that appears to be incomplete or inconsistent with your recollection?
A. I don't have a date on this on this one, so I'm not sure we've updated the policy over the years, so
I'm not sure which year this was, and we've gone through various iterations. So this one this was
apparently one policy, and I'm not again, we've gone through different variations on this.
Q. Did you write this?
A. I do not believe I wrote this.
Q. Who did write this?
A. Again
Q. If you know.
A. There's not enough information here to determine that.
Q. Has it always been the case under the major league baseball players withdrawn. Has it always been
the case under major league baseball policy that a team doctor cannot return a concussed player to play
by his or her own decision?
A. No.
Q. Since this this policy was adopted in what year in some form?
A. I would have to check, but I believe it was 2010 or 2011.
Q. All right. So relatively recently?
A. That's correct.
Q. Since it was adopted in 2010 or 2011, isn't it true that major league baseball, you, have to review the
team physician's actions?

A. That's correct.
Q. You have to make a determination whether you believe that the team physician is adequately
protecting the patient the player's interest?
A. That's not exactly the case.
Q. Well, that's the decision you're reviewing the decision by the team physician to return the player to
play, correct?
A. My position in this is really an administrative position. It's to I don't examine the patient or do a
physical exam or talk to them. It's really more of an administrative position to ensure that the up-to-
date most accurate concussion protocols are followed.
Q. You do have the right, do you not, under the major league baseball concussion policy, to decline a
team physician's request to have a player return to play, correct?
A. If we feel that they have not met the administrative burden, then yes, that's correct.
Q. And I did ask you at your deposition that under the current policy, even if the team physician who
has the responsibility to keep the player healthy believes that the player is healthy enough to return to
play, that decision still has to be reviewed by you, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it's true that it does, right?
A. That's correct. And in addition to sorry. In addition to the players' association, as well.
Q. Right. The union doctor gets to look at it, too.
A. That's correct.
Q. And if you and the union doctor disagree, it can go to a third doctor?
A. In that case, both groups have identified physicians that the person can go to.
Q. Now, is it fair to say that part of the reason why major league baseball has not given the team
physician unilateral authority to return a player to play is because there's a potential conflict between
the team physician and and the team and his responsibility to the player?
A. That would be a very, very small part of it.
Q. It is a part, is it not, Dr. Green?
A. In sports, one of the things that separates sports is the fact that there's competition; and the fact is
that it's not about not trusting the team physician, it's about competition, that all teams play by the same
rules.

Q. Okay. And is the answer to my question yes, in part, that is because of the potential conflict of
interest between the team physician and the team?
A. Yes, in very small part.
Q. And when I asked you that at your deposition four months ago, you didn't say "in very small part,"
did you?
A. I said "in part."
Q. Right. And that's the truth, isn't it, sir?
A. Not a conflict of interest for the physician, it's a conflict of interest for the clubs that are trying to
gain competitive advantage. And so in baseball, we have rules for everything in terms of how you wear
your socks, how you do everything. That's not that's because it's a competitive sport where they keep
score. It has to do with the competitive balance.
Q. Well, Dr. Green, I asked you whether this policy was because there was a potential conflict between
the team physician, his role being employed by the team and his responsibility to the player, right?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. And your answer to that was, "in part"?
A. "in part."
Q. Okay. And I asked you also the current policy is that even if the team physician, who has
responsibility to keep the player healthy, believes the player is healthy enough to return to play, that
decision still has to be reviewed by you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you make your own independent judgment not burdened by any potential conflicts of interest to
the team?
A. I make my decision based on the most up-to-date concussion policies because these concussion
policies are changing frequently and I want to make sure, as the m.l.b. Medical director, that we are
following all of the most up-to-date concussion policies in this very controversial area.
Q. You make your own independent judgment not burdened by any potential conflict of interest to the
team, correct or incorrect?
A. Yes, in an administrative role.
Q. And part of the reason for that policy was because of the potential that the team physician has a split
duty, split interest?
A. No, it's not.

Q. Well, when I asked you at your deposition, Dr. Green, in part, because of the potential the team
physician has a split duty in part
A. In part. That's not the main reason.
Q. Okay. And I asked you also so that there is an umbrella organization that has no split duties to take
an outside objective look at it and make a decision?
Ms. Bina. Objection; improper impeachment, your honor.
Mr. Panish. Just play it.
Mr. Bloss. We can play it if the court please. I was trying to move it
Ms. Bina. It's not proper to ask the witness here's what he asked you at your deposition, you know, do
you agree or disagree with it now. He should ask the question, get the answer, and if it's in conflict
Judge. Right. So ask the question.
Mr. Bloss. That's what I was trying to do.
Mr. Boyle. When he does it that way, they say he has to show it to him.
Judge. And he does if he says he doesn't remember.
Ms. Bina. Just ask it directly rather than, "did I ask you this question in this way at your deposition?"
Mr. Bloss. I'll rephrase, your honor.
Q. Is part of the reason for that policy, the concussion policy, so that there is an umbrella organization
that has no split duties that can take an outside, objective look at it and make a decision?
A. In part, that's the case.
Q. And your employment, you say that you're a team sports team physician for Pepperdine?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have a contract with Pepperdine?
A. I do.
Q. Is any part of your employment as a team physician for Pepperdine dependent on decisions to return
athletes to play?
A. Could you be more specific?
Q. Yeah. In other words, is there anything that that has any any part of your employment contract
include language concerning returning athletes to play?

A. One of my responsibilities is to return athletes to play. It's not in my contract. But part of my
responsibility is to evaluate athletes and decide when they're safe to go back to play. So yes, that is.
Q. Okay. And if now, I think you said on Friday if my notes are correct, you said one of the most
insidious or dangerous things in a conflict of interest is secrecy.
A. That's correct.
Q. And you believe that to be the case, right?
A. I believe that secrecy is a very strong problem in conflicts of interest.
Q. And you said when one party does not know what the other party's motivations are or what's guiding
them, that's the most dangerous type of conflict of interest. Do you agree with that?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you testified on Friday that everything was out in the open as it related to the relationship
between Murray and Jackson, correct?
A. I testified that there were no secret arrangements.
Q. Okay. Now, at the time and you've seen exhibit 343, have you not?
A. I don't have the exhibits memorized by number.
Mr. Bloss. That's fair. I'm asking Mr. Boyle I'm trying to give him a hint, your honor.
Judge. You're missing your cues.
Mr. Bloss. We're not quite seamless with this yet, your honor.
Ms. Bina. You can ask him by title, he might know whether he's seen it or not.
Q. 343, Dr. Green, is the document signed by Dr. Murray relating to Mr. Jackson and AEG Live,
right?
A. Yes, I have seen this.
Q. Okay. Now, are you aware this is the version that Dr. Murray actually signed, if you look at page 6,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, are you aware that at the time this was presented to Dr. Murray that Mr. Jackson was
represented by one or more lawyers?
A. I believe there was some confusion of that; so yes, I believe he was represented by at least one or

two lawyers.
Q. Okay. And which one of Mr. Jackson's lawyers or representatives was provided a copy of this
document that Dr. Murray signed?
A. I don't have any information as to who was provided that.
Q. Do you have any information that any of Mr. Jackson's representatives, lawyers, or Mr. Jackson
himself was aware that AEG Live and Murray were negotiating an agreement for services that AEG
Live could terminate if the tour was postponed?
A. That was kind of a long question. Could you please repeat that?
Q. Okay. And I'm sorry. You were probably reading, so you've got split attention. Which one of Mr.
Jackson's representatives or Mr. Jackson himself was aware that AEG Live and Murray were
negotiating an agreement that AEG Live could terminate if the tour was postponed?
A. I'm not aware of that, and I'm again, this was not signed by Michael Jackson or any of his
representatives, so I don't know that they would have had an opportunity to review this before it was
signed.
Q. Right. So as of June 24th, 2009, you don't have any information, do you, that Mr. Jackson or any of
his representatives was aware that Murray and AEG Live were negotiating a an agreement that
included the term that it could be canceled if the tour was postponed?
A. Sorry. I'm just having trouble following your question. Could you repeat that one more time? I'm
sorry.
Q. That's okay. As of June 24th, 2009, do you have any information that Mr. Jackson or his
representatives were aware that AEG Live and Dr. Murray were negotiating an agreement that included
a term that it could be terminated if the tour was postponed?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. And also, sir, isn't it true that in the conflict of interest analysis, disclosure of individual and
institutional financial relationships is a critical but limited first step in the process of identifying and
responding to conflicts of interest? Do you agree with that?
A. Is that one of the articles that you mentioned?
Q. I'll get there. Do you agree with that or disagree with that?
A. I'd like to see it. It's hard to hear you just read three sentences and not see it. If you'd like
Judge. He's just asking if you agree or disagree with the principle regardless of any article, just the
principle.
A. Can you please state it again?

Q. do you agree that disclosure of individual and institutional financial relationships is a critical but
limited first step in the process of identifying and responding to conflicts of interest?
A. Yes, in general, I would agree with that.
Q. All right. Now, I think you testified on Friday that you thought it was impossible for Dr. Murray to
be influenced by the term of the agreement allowing for termination if the tour was postponed.
A. No.
Q. I'm sorry. It was you said that it was impossible for Dr. Murray to be influenced by something he
didn't have any knowledge of.
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. He certainly had knowledge of it as of June 15th, did he not?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that was the day after Mr. Gongaware sent an e-mail saying "we have to remind Dr. Murray
who he's working for"?
A. Yes, and that was yes. That was two and a half months after he ordered the Propofol.
Q. That wasn't my question, sir.
A. Well, you're asking me to put that in context you took out of context what I said in my testimony,
so I think you have to include the entire amount.
Mr. Panish. I'm going to move to strike his volunteering information and ask the court please, so we
can finish, to ask the witness to answer the question, stop volunteering information, and maybe we can
finish.
Judge. Motion granted. The answer is stricken. Just focus on the question that's being asked.
A. Okay.
Q. at the time Mr. Gongaware sent an e-mail to Ortega saying "we have to remind him who he's
working for"
A. Yes.
Q. That related to Dr. Murray?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then the next day, Dr. Murray got the first draft agreement, correct?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the record.

Judge. It may.
Ms. Bina. It's June 16, I think, not 15.
Mr. Bloss. That's fine. Day or day after, it's not that important.
Ms. Bina. Just a clean record, your honor.
Judge. Okay.
Q. within a day or two June 14th, we agree Mr. Gongaware sent an e-mail saying "we have to
remind Murray who he is working for," right?
A. Correct.
Q. And what's expected of him, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And within two days, Murray gets the draft agreement with AEG Live, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that agreement had a provision in it saying that the tour withdrawn. That agreement had a
provision in it saying that the agreement could be terminated if the tour was postponed, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So he certainly knew about that provision as of June 16?
A. That was my testimony.
Q. All right. And and he certainly knew about that provision on June 19th when Mr. Jackson showed
up at rehearsal incapacitated?
A. When Mr. Jackson was sick on the 19th, yes, he did he was aware of it at that time.
Q. And he certainly was aware of it on June 20th when he had the meeting with Mr. Phillips and Mr.
Ortega, right?
A. Every day after June 16th, yes, he would have been aware of it.
Q. Including June 24th and 25th when he gave a fatal dose of Propofol to Mr. Jackson, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, I think you testified also on Friday that Mr. that Dr. Murray ordered Propofol before AEG
Live ever heard of Dr. Murray. That was your your conclusion from the evidence, right?

A. That's correct.
Q. Now, when I deposed you in April, you didn't offer that opinion, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You weren't even given a copy of the police investigation before April 1st, were you?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the evidence.
Mr. Bloss. I'll rephrase.
Q. The only part of the police investigation you were given was Dr. Murray's statement to the police,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. No no other the financial investigation by detective Martinez, you didn't get that?
A. That's correct.
Q. The dates of anybody ordering Propofol, you didn't get that?
A. That's correct.
Q. That was provided to you for the first time after April 1st?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you said on Friday all of the events on the slide that you had the Propofol on were before AEG
Live had any knowledge of Dr. Murray even existing, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you also opined that negotiations between AEG Live and Dr. Murray began you said it's not
exactly clear on the date, however, it seems like it was late April or early may, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you're aware, aren't you, that there's an e-mail, exhibit 175, dated may 6th from Gongaware to
Woolley saying "done at 150," right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you believe for the purposes of your opinion that Murray and AEG Live had no contact before
April 6th when Murray ordered the Propofol for the first time?
A. Yes, I am.

Q. And you read Mr. Gongaware's withdrawn. So your understanding is the first contact was late April
or early may between AEG Live and Murray?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you read Mr. Gongaware's trial testimony, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And he said his first conversation with Murray was two to five weeks before May 6, did he not?
A. I recall I'm familiar with that. I'm not I don't recall specifically. If you'd like to refresh me, I'd be
happy to take a look at that.
Mr. Bloss. Okay. If I can I think I have a copy electronically, your honor, that I can just show the
witness.
Judge. Okay. You may. We're going to take a break at 3:15.
Ms. Bina. I may have a completeness objection to this testimony, depending on what he's planning on
showing, anyway, so maybe we should take a break.
Mr. Panish. It's trial testimony.
Mr. Bloss. 5187, lines 3 through 14, of the trial testimony.
Judge. Well, before we play it, let's take a break. Okay. 15 minutes. (the following proceedings were
held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors:)
Judge. Completeness?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, if you recall, Mr. Gongaware at first said he thought it was a couple of weeks;
and then he said it could have been two, three, five, he wasn't sure. Then the next day, he he said he
remembered it was he remembered some things that happened before or after, but he couldn't place it
exactly in time. The next day then, your honor, he clarified that it happened after auditions, which we
then could date to a specific point, April 15. So his final testimony was it happened between April 15
and May 5th, the issue being that Mr. Gongaware's testimony on the subject was that
Judge. was is all over the place.
Ms. Bina. It was a bit confused but coalesced because he originally said two to three weeks. He said
two to three weeks for four years; then plaintiffs were like could it have been three, four, five? He said,
"I don't have a specific anchor." then when he was given the anchor, he said, "you know what? I can
say now for certainty "
Judge. All right. Play it all, then.
Mr. Bloss. The jury can credit any of those.

Mr. Putnam. It actually wasn't all over the place, your honor.
Mr. Panish. It wasn't?
Mr. Putnam. No; your questioning was.
Judge. Play it all.
Mr. Bloss. It will be impossible to put it together, your honor. I'll just ask him if he's relying on any
particular version for his testimony and leave it at that.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, they said they were going to go for about 25 more minutes. Could we go a
bit longer today so we can finish him?
Ms. Bina. If they finish within just if necessary, can we go to 4:30? I'm hoping not to need it.
Judge. Yes.
Ms. Chang: just so you know, at the end of the day, I'm here to talk about scheduling.
Judge. Okay.
(18-minute recess taken.)
(the following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors:)
Judge. You may continue.
Mr. Bloss. Thank you.
Q. Dr. Green, for the purposes withdrawn. You're aware that Mr. Gongaware testified as to several
different dates as to when he first communicated with Dr. Murray, right?
A. I'm aware that in his testimony, he was not 100 percent clear as to he had different recollections,
would be a better idea.
Q. Fair enough. And some of those recollections were before April 6th, 2009, correct?
A. I believe in some of his recollections, it was two to five weeks before the phone call, which would
have encompassed April 6th.
Q. And, in fact, the end of march, right?
A. Right, the beginning of the beginning of April, the end of march, that's correct.
Q. Okay. And some of them were that the first communication with Dr. Murray was after April 6th,
2009?

A. That's correct.
Q. And is it fair to say, then, that you are crediting his testimony that the first contact between
Gongaware and Murray was after April 6th, 2009, for the purposes of your opinion?
A. Yes, in looking at his various recollections, I think the one that I thought was most accurate was
when he identified April 15th, which is when the choreography audition was going on.
Q. All right. So you, as an expert witness, decided that one version of what Mr. Gongaware said was
truthful and the other was not?
A. Given that the other ones were vague, I relied more on the one that seemed to be more accurate.
Q. All right. And is that part of your expertise as a sports medicine doctor, to determine the veracity of
versions of timelines?
A. Not as a sports medicine doctor.
Q. Okay. Mr. Dr. Green, I asked you some questions on Friday about an event between Mr. Jackson
and a nurse named Cherilyn Lee where Mr. Jackson told withdrawn. You reviewed Cherilyn Lee's
deposition, did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. And I asked you some questions on Friday about a meeting that she had with Dr. with Mr.
Jackson at some point, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And there was we were talking a little bit about the last date that Ms. Lee saw Mr. Jackson. Do you
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was at the last meeting Mr. Jackson told Ms. Lee, at least according to her testimony, that he
was having trouble sleeping?
A. That's correct, and I believe you're referring to April 19th.
Q. Right. I was just going to show you her deposition to see if it refreshed your recollection, but
apparently you looked at it at some point since Friday and refreshed your own recollection.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. So that meeting where Mr. Jackson said he was having trouble sleeping and asked him to
find him a doctor that would administer Propofol was April 19th, 2009?
A. That's correct.

Q. Some 11 days after Dr. Murray, according to your recollection, ordered Propofol?
A. I believe it was a little bit longer than that, but about that.
Q. Okay.
A. I believe it was actually 13 days.
Q. 13 days. Thank you. All right. Two weeks, right.
A. Correct.
Q. And Ms. Lee said that on April 19th, 2009, she did not see any medical equipment at his house,
correct?
A. I don't believe she commented on that, no.
Mr. Bloss. Well, let me show you a document from the deposition and see if it refreshes your
recollection. If I can just approach, your honor?
Ms. Bina. Just me first.
Mr. Bloss. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. May I approach, your honor?
Judge. Yes.
Mr. Bloss. If I can ask you to look at page 504, lines 5 through 7.
A. Yes, I'd be happy to.
Q. does that refresh your recollection that Ms. Lee testified that she did not see any medical
equipment at Mr. Jackson's home that was not hers?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, Dr. Green, I just want to ask you a couple of quick questions about your background.
You are a clinical professor at UCLA.; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And as a clinical professor, how many hours a week do you work for UCLA.?
A. I work with the department of pathology approximately 16 hours a week.
Q. 16 hours a week?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And as a clinical professor, how much do you work?

A. There's no job description as a clinical professor. Clinical professor is an appointment title, so it's a
little I don't know exactly what you're referring to when you ask me how many hours a week I work
as a clinical professor. I'm a clinical professor 100 percent of the time.
Q. And do you have withdrawn. You know Dr. Matheson is a full professor at Stanford university?
A. Yes, I'm aware of it.
Q. As you understand it, does he have a different set of requirements in terms of research and writing
as part of his job duties than you do?
A. Yes; there's different tracts, a clinical tract and a tenure act.
Q. And you are not on the tenure act?
A. I am not.
Q. And we've looked at a bunch of articles here this morning this afternoon, right?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And Dr. Matheson brought a series of articles to his deposition?
A. I don't believe he had written any of them, I believe he just brought a group of articles.
Q. Do you recall that?
A. I believe that the articles you're referring to you showed today are not ones that he had written.
Q. I understand. But you remember he did bring some articles that he did write to the deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. And some of those related specifically to conflicts of interest?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And have you written any articles in peer-reviewed journals relating to conflicts of interest?
A. Not specifically entitled "conflicts of interest."
Q. And do you have any experiences in the music industry?
A. I do not.
Q. Have you ever been hired as a physician for a concert tour?
A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you been engaged as a contractor for a concert tour?

A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you ever worked for a promoter in the music industry in any capacity?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Dr. Green, can conflicts of interest be mitigated by the structure of the relationship?
A. Can you be more specific?
Q. The way the relationship between a party employing a doctor and a patient, can conflicts be
mitigated by the way that structure is put together?
A. Yes, they can.
Q. Now, you also testified a little bit on Friday about there being no inherent ethical problem with a
doctor treating just one patient, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you do you agree, though, that there is a greater potential conflict of interest in that situation,
is there not?
A. As I testified, there could be conflicts of interest in any case; and yes, there are some situations that
may have a greater potential for conflict.
Q. And one of those circumstances is where one patient withdrawn. One of those circumstances that
has a greater potential conflict of interest is where a doctor is solely dependent on one patient for all of
his or her income, right?
A. That can occur, yes.
Q. Right. And you mentioned that Dr. Wohlgelernter testified about a colleague of his who had one
patient.
A. That's correct.
Q. And at least Dr. Wohlgelernter's belief was that that doctor rendered quality medical care, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And was that doctor withdrawn. As I understand it, was that doctor's salary being paid by some
third person or some entity other than the patient?
A. I'm not aware of who the salary was being paid by for that case.

Q. Do you know whether that doctor's salary was subject to being terminated by a third person?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know whether that the doctor who was rendering that care his or her house was in
foreclosure?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Whether he or she had debts?
A. Dr. Wohlgelernter did not mention that in his testimony.
Q. He wasn't asked about that, was he?
A. He was not asked about that.
Q. Does Dr. Murray's financial status matter at all to you for the purposes of your conflicts of interest
analysis?
A. No, it does not.
Q. All right. So you read Dr. Martinez's withdrawn you read detective Martinezs trial testimony, did
you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And detective Martinez testified that his that Dr. Murray's financial condition was severely
distressed. Do you remember that?
A. I do.
Q. And do you agree with that?
A. It's very difficult for me to comment on how distressed that's a relative term.
Q. All right. You agree that Dr. Murray's had not paid his home mortgage for several months by June
25, 2009, right?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the evidence. If I recall, it was not several months, your honor.
Mr. Panish. It was.
Mr. Bloss. It's five months, in fact, your honor. I can be more precise.
Ms. Bina. I actually think it was two based on the credit report.
Judge. Overruled. We'll let the jury remember what it was. Overruled. Neither of none of us can
remember, we'll let the jury remember.

A. I would say that it appears that his mortgage was in arrears, yes.
Mr. Bloss. Right.
Q. And when detective Martinez went out to Las Vegas, or one of his colleagues, to look at the house,
there was a foreclosure notice on it. You understand that, right?
A. I believe that may have been the case, yes.
Q. And at the time you agreed to testify for AEG Live, were you aware of what Dr. Murray's financial
condition was?
A. I was I had a general impression of that he I had a general impression that he was in debt, yes.
Q. And just based on media reports?
A. I believe it was based on media reports and I'd have to go back to review my records to see if there
was anything I had read at that point. I did not have a specific understanding as to how far he was in
debt, that's correct.
Q. Right. Because you didn't get a copy of detective Martinezs police investigation of Dr. Murray's
financial condition, did you?
Ms. Bina. Objection; vague. I don't
A. Yes, I did get a copy of it.
Q. and that was after you testified as to your opinions on April 1st, 2013, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you're aware, aren't you, that detective Martinez found Mr. Phillips' card and AEG Contract,
exhibit 343, an unsigned version, in the back of Dr. Murray's car, right?
A. Yes, that was in the testimony.
Q. And that was at the Carolwood property where Dr. Murray was with Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. And at least you're aware that detective Martinez this led to a suspicion on his part that Dr. Murray
had a financial motive for his actions, right?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge. Whose testimony?
Ms. Bina. Detective Martinezs, I think, your honor. It was a bit more full than that. I know we're going

back five months.

Mr. Bloss. I'm reading a question and answer, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Could you repeat the question?
Q. when were you aware that when detective Martinez found Phillips' card and the AEG contract in
the back of Murray's car, that detective Martinezs suspicion level as to whether Dr. Murray had a
financial motive for his actions increased?
A. I don't know what you mean, increased from what. Did he feel that there was a potential financial
interest in this? Is that what I'm trying to ask what you mean by "increased."
Q. Well, my question was, when you understand that detective Martinez is a highly trained detective
for the city of Los Angeles, correct?
A. I understand he's a detective for the city of Los Angeles, that's correct.
Q. You don't understand he's highly trained?
A. I'm not aware of his background.
Q. You're not aware that he's within an elite unit within the Los Angeles police department called the
robbery and homicide division?
A. I'm not aware of his training.
Q. I thought you read his trial testimony.
A. I did.
Q. You just don't remember that?
A. I'm not in the process of being able to rate policemen's training.
Q. You're not aware that he testified that he was in an elite unit within the police department?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, objection to the relevance.
Judge. It's not irrelevant, but it is getting argumentative.
Q. you don't recall what detective Martinez said his training was?
A. Yes, I believe he was very well trained.
Q. All right. And are you aware that when detective Martinez found the card and the contract in the
back of Murray's car, Dr. Murray's car, that he began to focus on the financial aspect of Dr. Murray,

correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at least according to detective Martinez, he suspected that there might be a financial motive for
for Dr. Murray violating his Hippocratic Oath, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And detective Martinez concluded as a result of his financial investigation that Dr. Murray was, in
fact, in serious financial trouble, correct?
Ms. Bina. Objection; asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. and detective Martinez concluded, did he not, that for this easy money at $150,000 a month, that
provided a motive for Dr. Murray to break the rules, bend the rules, do whatever he needed to get paid
to solve his money problems?
A. Yes, I believe he testified that that was Dr. Murray's decision.
Q. I'm just asking about the motive, that detective Martinez concluded that the $150,000 a month
created a motive for Dr. Murray to cut corners.
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the testimony at that point, your honor.
Judge. I think he said he was investigating a possible motive. Overruled.
Ms. Bina. I'm not sure that he determined that was the sole and exclusive motive. That was my
objection to the question.
Judge. Okay. Sustained. I don't know if he ever conclusively made that determination, but it certainly
was something he wanted to investigate.
Q. well, is it your understanding that detective Martinez was led to opine that he may for all of this
easy money, $150,000 a month he may break the rules, bend the rules, do whatever he needed to do to
get paid to solve his money problems?
A. Yeah, I'm under the impression that he investigated that and he did opine on that, yes.
Q. Now, you talked a little bit earlier about the agreement, exhibit 343. Do you still have that in front of
you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You talked on Friday about a provision within that agreement that required Murray to provide

quality medical care, right?

A. That's correct.
Q. And AEG Live could terminate the agreement, could it not, if he failed to provide quality medical
care?
A. That's correct.
Q. And where are the standards within that agreement as to how AEG Live was supposed to make that
determination?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Where are the standards within exhibit 343, the agreement, where AEG Live was supposed to make
that determination?
A. It says "such services will be administered professionally and with the greatest degree of care to be
expected from similarly situated members of the medical field."
Q. And is there a process within that agreement that you see that describes how AEG Live is supposed
to make that determination?
A. No, there's not.
Q. And, Dr. Green, is it fair to say that you cannot say why Dr. Murray did not act ethically in this
circumstance?
A. Can you repeat that?
Q. Yeah. Do you you believe that Dr. Murray did not act ethically, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the reason that Dr. Murray did not practice in an ethical manner, you cannot say within a
reasonable degree of medical probability, can you?
A. Not knowing Dr. Murray, and looking at and having no testimony from him, no, I could not I
cannot with 100 percent certainty say why he committed this crime.
Q. I didn't ask 100 percent certainty, I asked within a reasonable degree of medical probability.
A. No, I cannot say within a reasonable degree of medical probability why Dr. Murray committed this
crime.
Q. Exhibit 343 again, the independent contractor agreement that Dr. Murray signed on June 24th
A. Yes?

Q. have you ever in your years of practice seen a document like that, a three-way relationship between
a physician, a patient and a third party?
A. Not anything similar to this, no. I have seen agreements with third parties with insurance and with
patients and a physician, but not exactly like this.
Q. You've never seen a document where a a physician was to be paid by a non-medical provider for
services to a single patient?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Ever in your years of practice?
A. No, I have not.
Q. And what's your understanding as to why AEG Live was even involved in this three-party
relationship?
A. My understanding was they were going to advance the money to Dr. Murray on behalf of Michael
Jackson.
Q. And when I asked you that question at your deposition, you said, "I don't know," correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And I asked you withdrawn. And do you have any information at all about whether it's customary
and usual in the tour industry to structure a relationship this way between a promoter, a doctor and a
patient?
A. As I mentioned, I do not have any experience within the music industry, concert industry.
Q. If a non-medical company is hiring a doctor to provide care to a patient, do you believe that the
relationship should be structured in a way that restores, protects and optimizes the patient's health?
A. I ultimately believe that the decision is up to the physician.
Q. That wasn't my question.
A. Maybe you should repeat the question, then.
Q. Do you believe that if a non-medical company is hiring a physician to provide care to a patient do
you believe that the relationship should be structured in a way that restores, protects and optimizes the
patient's health?
A. In general, yes.
Q. And do you agree that exhibit 343, the the agreement that Dr. Murray signed, reflects what Dr.
Murray's understanding was of the contract?

Ms. Bina. Objection; calls for a legal conclusion.

Judge. Sustained. And speculative as to what Dr. Murray understood.
Ms. Bina. That, as well.
Q. the exhibit 343, sir, the contract, you do understand that when it says in this "producer here by
engages GCA." you understand who the producer is?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is it?
A. AEG. Live.
Q. And you understand that under the terms withdrawn. There is language in this agreement, in
paragraph 7, regarding termination, correct?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. And there are multiple ways that the contract could be terminated, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. One of them by Mr. Jackson unilaterally, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then multiple ways by AEG Live unilaterally, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Without Mr. Jackson's consent?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, Dr. Green, would you agree that Dr. Murray had a significant financial relationship in the tour
not being canceled?
Ms. Bina. Objection; vague as to "relationship."
A. Sustained. "interest," maybe?
Mr. Bloss. Did I say "relationship"? I misstated it, your honor.
Q. Would you agree that Dr. Murray had a significant financial interest in the tour not being canceled?
A. I agree that the longer the tour went on, the more financial gain Dr. Murray would have.

Q. Do you agree that he had a significant financial interest in the tour not being postponed?
A. Yes.
Q. And you agree that Dr. Murray had a significant financial interest in the withdrawn. Could there be
a medical withdrawn. Do you have an opinion you accept that there could have been a situation
where Dr. Murray recommended postponing the tour for Mr. Jackson's health, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And based on the information that you have, do you have a belief as to whether that would have
been reasonable in June 2009, unreasonable, or you don't have an opinion one way or the other?
Ms. Bina. Object; beyond the scope of his testimony and designation.
Judge. You're asking whether
Ms. Bina. it would have been reasonable for Dr. Murray to recommend that the tour being postponed.
A. Cancellation?
Ms. Bina. I think it's outside the scope of this witness's testimony, also might be covered by the motion
in limine.
Mr. Panish. They've been asking that question of every witness. Mr. Trell, Mr. Gongaware
Judge. But whether Murray would cancel?
Mr. Bloss. If I said Conrad Murray I'll rephrase it, your honor.
Q. Based on Mr. Jackson's physical condition in June 2009, it may have been reasonable or it may have
been unreasonable to postpone the tour, you don't have an opinion about that?
Ms. Bina. I make the same objection, your honor.
Judge. Overruled. He's asking if he has an opinion a It's a really vague question as to when when in
June do you do you mean? Do you mean the entire month of June? I'm not exactly sure what you
mean by your question.
Q. I asked you exactly that question at your deposition on April 1st, did I not?
A. You may have asked me something very similar. Can you please repeat your question?
Q. Based on Mr. Jackson's physical condition in June 2009, that may have been reasonable, may not
have been reasonable, to postpone the tour, you don't have an opinion one way or the other?
A. I don't have an opinion whether that would have been reasonable or not, to postpone the tour at that
point.

Mr. Bloss. I don't have any other questions. Thank you, your honor.
Judge. Okay. Thank you. Redirect?
Ms. Bina. Yes. Your honor, if I may, I may need a little bit more than 4:15. I'll try to go as quickly as
possible; but unfortunately, the witness has some patient practice issues later this week.
Judge. We'll try to get you out of here today.
Ms. Bina. I'm going to try to power through this; but if I start talking too fast, please let me know.
Redirect examination by Ms. Bina:
Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Green.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. I'm going to try to hit a bunch of points quickly.
A. Okay.
Q. But if I get to the point where you can't understand what I'm saying because I'm talking too fast, or
I'm putting too much into one question, please let me know.
A. Okay.
Judge. And the court reporter, please let me know if that's happening.
Ms. Bina. I have a nasty reputation in this regard, so
Q. The first thing I want to talk about is you were asked a number of questions on Friday about
materials reviewed and when you reviewed them. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And in particular you were asked a number of questions about those you reviewed before March
4th, 2013, when you were retained in the case.
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, I believe you testified you were first contacted about working on the case in mid to late
February. Do I have that right?
A. I believe it was.
Q. All right. And at that point, you were provided some very basic information?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. And do you recall what exactly you were asked to do in this case at that point?
A. I was basically asked to review to consider my expertise in sports medicine with respect to conflict
of interest, and specifically to be able to review the opinions of Dr. Matheson.
Q. Now, had Dr. Matheson testified at that point?
A. No, he had not.
Q. Had he provided a list of his opinions?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any idea at that point what he was going to say?
A. Since he hadn't testified yet or had his deposition, I couldn't have known.
Q. And did you have any idea at that point exactly what opinions you were going to be giving in the
case?
A. No.
Q. Now, between march 4th, when you were retained, and your deposition approximately one month
later, did you do did you review further documents?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you recall what else you reviewed to prepare for your deposition testimony?
A. I reviewed the depositions of some of the key people in the case, such as randy Phillips, Paul
Gongaware and Kenny Ortega. I reviewed several expert declarations, and I think that was those were
the major things.
Q. And you were asked about a few moments ago whether you'd reviewed anything about Dr. Murray's
finances at that point. Do you recall reviewing the declaration of barry nadel, one of plaintiffs' experts?
A. Yes, I did. That was one of the experts I reviewed.
Q. And did that relate to some of these financial issues?
A. Yes, it mentioned some of Dr. Murray's financial difficulties.
Q. And let me try to see did you review Ms. Jorrie's criminal trial testimony before your deposition?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what about Alif Sankey or Travis Payne?
A. Yes, I believe I reviewed Travis Payne and Alif Sankey.

Q. Now, at some point was Dr. Matheson deposed?

A. Yes, I believe on Saturday, March 30th, he was deposed.
Q. How many days before your deposition was that?
A. A little bit a little bit less than 48 hours.
Q. And at that point, was that the first time you heard Dr. Matheson's opinions in this case?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And between Dr. Matheson's deposition and your own, did did you attend Dr. Matheson's
deposition?
A. Yes, I did. I wanted to make sure that I heard what Dr. Matheson said in person as opposed to just
reading it on a piece of paper, so I actually attended almost all of Dr. Matheson's deposition.
Q. Why almost all?
A. Well, the about an hour before he was about to finish, I was doing the medical coverage for the
NCAA. Men's regional basketball final at the staples center, which, fortunately, was nearby so I was
able to walk over there afterwards.
Q. So you missed the last hour because you were performing your physician services for men's
basketball?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Now, what would you have done if upon hearing Dr. Matheson's opinions for the first time on march
30th, 2013, you had agreed with him and not had some other opinion?
Mr. Panish. Speculation, no foundation.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Bina. It's not speculative to ask what he would have done if he disagreed with Dr. Matheson's
opinions.
Mr. Panish. He doesn't know what they were, how he disagreed. It's total speculation.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, plaintiffs' counsel suggested that he had a preprogrammed list of opinions and
he didn't consider the evidence at all. I'm asking whether I'm asking whether he would have done that.
Mr. Panish. That wasn't speculation, what he reviewed. Now what were the opinions that he
disagreed about, it opens up it's totally speculative.
Mr. Putnam. Is this a speaking objection, your honor?

Mr. Panish. Just the same way they've been doing it the whole day.
Judge. Overruled. You have may
Q. what would you have done if you agreed with Dr. Matheson?
A. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Matheson. We've worked together on journals and given talks
together, so I have a great respect for his standing in the sports medicine community. So if I found that
listened to Dr. Matheson's opinions and found that I agreed with them, I would have communicated that
to you and the lawyers at OMelveny & Myers.
Q. And have you ever had that happen in the past, you've been retained as an expert and then found that
the opinions that you came to were not the opinions that the side putting you forward wanted?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And what have you done in those situations?
A. In those in those situations, I've gone to the lawyers and told them my opinion and they have not
used me for those cases.
Q. And in this case, did you consider the evidence independently and come to your own conclusions?
A. Yes, I considered the evidence and I came to my own conclusions. And my practice is that I present
those to the attorneys and whatever they want to do with the testimony is their decision, not mine.
Q. Now, after Dr. Matheson's deposition, you were deposed?
A. That's correct.
Q. And at that point, you'd been working on the case for a few weeks?
A. That's about correct.
Q. Did you continue to review materials after that time?
A. Yes, I did. I was provided with materials and I also requested additional materials as our discussions
progressed.
Q. Why did you do that if you'd already formed your opinions by your deposition?
A. Because there was a tremendous amount of information in this case, and I wanted to make sure that
I was familiar with as much of it as I possibly can so that I can make an informed opinion.
Q. And if at any point you had found something that made you change or question your prior opinions,
would you have brought that to our attention?
A. Absolutely. I look at opinions like I would a medical diagnosis, that when a physician gets

information, you make a diagnosis with what you know at the time. If you get additional information,
then you necessarily have to change your diagnosis. If I had found something that was made me
change my opinion, I would have communicated that to you.
Q. And did you find anything that made you change your opinion?
A. No. In fact, the more information I found, the more it strengthened my opinions.
Q. Let's talk about some of that information. Actually, before I talk about some of the factual
information you reviewed, I wanted to ask briefly about a.m.a. Opinion 8.054, which I believe
plaintiffs' counsel showed you on Friday. Do you recall being asked about this opinion, Dr. Green?
A. Yes. This was the first time I had seen this, was on Friday.
Q. And this is an opinion put out by a the American Medical Association ethics committee, and it
relates to financial incentives?
A. Yes, this was put out, "financial incentives and the practice of medicine," offered specifically for
guidance for physicians.
Q. That was going to be my first question. Who are these opinions put out for? Who is their audience?
A. The audience for these is physicians.
Q. And I'd like you to look at the last line on the first paragraph. Is that is that an important sentence
to you at all, paragraph 1?
A. Yes. This statement is offered for the guidance of physicians. It's not offered for third parties or
anyone else. This is offered specifically for to guide physicians as they make decisions.
Q. And in the first paragraph here, paragraph 1, what does it say physicians are to do in the face of a
conflict of interest?
A. At the end of the at the end, it says "this obligation must override considerations of the
reimbursement mechanism or specific financial incentives applied to a physician's practice." and when
they say "this obligation," they're referring to the obligation to the patient.
Q. And is that your idea that we talked about on Friday that the physician's duty to his patient is
paramount and has to be put first, above everything?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, plaintiffs focused a lot on a particular paragraph a particular portion of a paragraph in I
think it's 2-a. Do you recall that?
A. I do.
Q. Is there anything else in this entire opinion have you had the opportunity to review it over the
weekend?

A. Yes, now I've had a chance to review the entire document, not just that one sentence.
Q. Is there anything else you wanted to bring to our attention from this document?
A. Yes. If you can go down to number 4, I believe it's on the next page at the bottom, section 4 says
patients must be informed of financial incentives that could impact the level or type of care they
receive.
Q. And why was that important to you?
A. Well, that supports my opinions in this case. As as I talked about on Friday, not only was Michael
Jackson, as the patient not only was he informed of the financial incentives, he created them, and they
were his they came from Michael Jackson. So not only was the patient in this case informed of the
financial incentives, they helped draft them.
Q. And by that, you mean that Mr. Jackson had specifically requested Dr. Murray?
A. That he had requested Dr. Murray and also requested 150,000 a month.
Q. Now, Mr. Bloss asked you just now some questions about whether Michael Jackson's management
had viewed the specific contract draft that was sent in late June. I want to ask you a different but related
question, and that is, do you have any understanding as to whether Michael Jackson's management or
anyone from Michael Jackson's management was aware of the fact that AEG Live was negotiating with
Dr. Murray on Michael Jackson's behalf?
A. Yes, I believe they were.
Q. And who specifically?
A. I believe it was Frank Dileo, who, according to my reading of the testimony, was Michael Jackson's
manager.
Q. And Mr. Dileo, to your understanding, was aware of Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. And and aware of the fact that Mr. Jackson had requested him?
A. Yes, I believe Mr. Dileo was aware that Michael Jackson had requested Dr. Murray as his personal
physician.
Q. And was Mr. Dileo actually present at any of the meetings between AEG Live representatives, Mr.
Jackson and Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, he was.
Mr. Bloss. If I could object, your honor. He can talk about his understanding, but I don't think he can
testify as a percipient witness.

Q. well, based on your review of the facts, is it your understanding that Mr. Dileo was present?
Judge. Sustained. But you can answer that question.
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And that that testimony is have you seen any testimony that he was not present at the first June
meeting
A. No, I've not seen any testimony to say that he was not at that meeting.
Q. All right. And I'm kind of zipping along here, so let's talk about another issue that came up a few
times, and that's the phone call that took place between randy Phillips and Dr. Murray.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall being asked a number of questions about that both today and Friday?
A. I certainly do.
Q. All right. Now, what I want to ask you about is you were asked one question, whether this phone
call was important to your opinion or not. And you recalled that it was you stated that it supported
your opinions, but was not particularly important to them. Why is that?
A. Because if you look at the e-mails that followed it, it shows that it seems to indicate that the it
only showed that AEG Live had Michael Jackson's health interests at at stake.
Q. Now, Mr. Bloss pointed out that Mr. Phillips does not a 100 percent clear recollection of a 25-
minute phone call he had four years ago, right?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Why doesn't that make you think that there must have been something bad that happened in the
phone call?
Mr. Bloss. Your honor, calls for speculation.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Bina. Well, he was asked might there have been something that happened. I'm asking why he
doesn't believe there was something bad.
Judge. I don't think he asked that, might there be something bad that happened.
Ms. Bina. I thought he did, your honor; but all right.
Q. Let me ask you this. What is your understanding of the phone call based on?

A. The e-mail that followed that conversation in which Mr. Phillips indicated that he just had a lengthy
conversation with Michael Jackson's doctor.
Q. And I'd actually like to direct your attention do you recall whether Mr. Phillips testified that even
though he didn't recall the conversation in all its detail, he was aware of certain things that happened
and certain things that did not happen on the call?
Mr. Panish. Just vague as to testimony. Trial? Deposition?
Ms. Bina. At trial.
Judge. You may answer.
A. Yes.
Ms. Bina. And I'd like to put up just for the witness trial testimony at page 7154-9.
Mr. Panish. It wouldn't be appropriate unless if he remembers, he doesn't need to be refreshed.
Judge. True.
Q. let me ask, do you remember specifically what was testified to?
A. I'm familiar but I don't recall the specifics.
Q. Would it help if I refreshed your recollection?
A. It would definitely help if you refreshed me, yes.
Q. May I see 7155, lines 5 to 23. Actually, through 28. Again, this is not for everyone, just for the
witness. 7155, lines 5 through 28. Take a moment to read that, Dr. Green.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Is this the testimony you were referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. And does it refresh your recollection of whether Mr. Phillips testified that he did not have certain
conversations with Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, according to this, he testified
Mr. Bloss. Your honor, he's answered the question.
Judge. What was the question?
Mr. Panish. Did it refresh his recollection

Mr. Bloss. As to whether Mr. Phillips did not

Q. What is your understanding of Mr. Phillips' testimony as to whether he discussed any of Mr.
Jackson's treatments with Dr. Conrad Murray during that phone call?
A. Yes, it did refresh my memory to that degree.
Q. And did he testify that he discussed those treatments?
A. He testified he did not discuss any of the medical treatments with Dr. Murray.
Q. And did he discuss did he testify whether or not he discussed substance abuse with Dr. Murray?
Mr. Panish. Well, your honor, if it refreshed his recollection, it shouldn't be there; and then they ask
questions, and he reads, he looks right to the transcript. I thought the way you said the old school was
you take it away and then what happens is they ask the question, and then he looks and reads it, so that
would be inappropriate.
Ms. Bina. Fine. I'm just trying to speed things
Mr. Putnam. Is that an objection, your honor?
Mr. Panish. It sure is. Inappropriate refreshing.
Ms. Bina. We'll take the paper down.
Judge. We'll do it the old way. Okay.
Ms. Bina. Dr. Green, I'm just trying to speed through this.
Q. Based on Mr. Phillips' testimony, do you have an understanding of whether or not he discussed
specific treatments with Dr. Murray during that phone call?
A. He specifically said he did not discuss the treatments with Dr. Murray.
Q. And do you recall, based on Mr. Phillips' testimony, whether he discussed prescription drugs or
substance abuse during that call?
A. He was asked if any discussion of prescription drugs or propofol occurred during that call, and he
said no.
Q. Now, you said that your present basis for understanding what took place on the call was the e-mail
that he sent immediately afterwards, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can we see plaintiffs' trial exhibit 307, dash, 1 again. I'm just focusing on this part of it.
A. Okay.

Q. If you take a moment to review this e-mail, is there anything in this e-mail, Dr. Green, that suggests
that during this phone call, Mr. Phillips attempted to dictate Dr. Murray's medical treatment of Michael
Jackson?
Mr. Panish. Objection; calls for speculation, his interpretation of an e-mail sent to Kenny Ortega by
Mr. Phillips, so it's inappropriate
Ms. Bina. Your honor, he was asked numerous times what his interpretation of this e-mail was.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Ms. Bina. Sure.
Q. Is there anything in this e-mail that suggests to you that Mr. Phillips, during this 25-minute phone
call, attempted to dictate Dr. Murray's care of Mr. Jackson?
A. Not at all. In fact, it says the opposite.
Q. And what do you mean by it says the opposite? What language are you referring to?
A. It shows that they were very concerned about Michael Jackson's health. If you look at the second
paragraph, beginning where "it is critical," it says "it is critical we surround Mike with love and
support and listen to how he wants to get ready for July 13th." this, again, reinforces my opinion that
all of the parties had Michael Jackson's health interests at heart.
Q. Is there anything in this e-mail that suggests that Michael Jackson's confidential medical
information was disclosed during the call?
A. Not at all.
Q. Have you seen any evidence, any evidence at all in your review of evidence or testimony in this
case, that suggests either of those things took place on that phone call?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Now, you were also asked about the meeting the next day. You can go ahead and take that down.
And you testified, if I recall correctly, that Mr. Phillips and Mr. Ortega have differing memories of the
timing of that meeting.
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were basically asked to assume one was right and one was wrong and what the possibilities
were?
Mr. Bloss. Objection. That misstates what

Q. let me ask, what do you recall Mr. Ortega's testimony was of the length of the meeting?
A. Mr. Ortega had an understanding that it was a short meeting.
Q. Somewhere between 10 and 20 minutes?
A. Something like that.
Q. And Mr. Phillips' recollection differed?
A. Mr. Phillips had the understanding that it was a much longer meeting, about an hour.
Q. Now, you were also asked about Mr. Phillips' criminal trial testimony, and whether he had stated
that he and Mr. Ortega left together. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you recall whether Mr. Phillips testified at trial about how he and Mr. Ortega left the meeting?
A. I'm familiar with that, I don't remember specifically. You'd have to refresh my memory on that.
Mr. Bloss. Which trial, your honor?
Judge. The criminal trial?
Ms. Bina. I've got it here. It's this trial. I'm referring, just to refresh your recollection, to this page right
here, 6611, lines 1 through 4, I guess. You can, obviously, read as much as you need to refresh.
A. Okay. Yes, I saw that.
Q. now, do you have an understanding, based on Mr. Phillips' testimony here in this court, as to how
he recalls leaving the meeting with Mr. Ortega?
A. Yes. He he recalled that they virtually left at the same time.
Q. And that Mr. Ortega might have left a moment earlier?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, do you have any way of determining how long the meeting was?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that specifically Mr. Ortega was right about the length of the
meeting sorry Mr. Ortega was right about how long he stayed at the meeting, Mr. Phillips was right
about the overall length of the meeting, but Mr. Phillips was wrong about the order of however he and
Mr. Ortega left the meeting.
A. I don't have any way to determine that.

Q. Did either Mr. Phillips or Mr. Ortega testify that during the meeting, they attempted to anyone
attempted to control Dr. Murray's treatment of Michael Jackson?
A. No.
Q. And is it your understanding is it your understanding do you have an understanding as to whether
Michael Jackson was present at this meeting?
A. Yes, I do; and my understanding is that he was present at the meeting.
Q. And, in fact, based on the testimony, what is your understanding of what happened at the meeting,
as best as you can figure it out?
A. My best rec- understanding is that it was a meeting to discuss the health concerns that Mr. Phillips
and Mr. Ortega had, and communicate that to Dr. Murray.
Q. And did Dr. Murray defer to Mr. Phillips and Mr. Ortega, or did he say something different?
A. No, he did not defer to them. He said, quote, stay in your lane.
Q. And you saw that as an example of of not doing what AEG Live told him to do?
A. That as an example that I said in my opinion of Dr. Murray's independence.
Q. Now, you were also asked about let's see Mr. Phillips and Mr. Ortega and Mr. Hougdahl
suggesting Michael Jackson might have needed psychiatric treatment on June 19th, 2009.
A. Yes, I saw that.
Q. Now, I wanted to ask a couple of things there. One, are you aware of any testimony about Mr.
Jackson needing psychiatric treatment or potentially needing psychiatric treatment on any date other
than June 19th, 2009?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Now, you also testified that in response to the question did Mr. Phillips get a psychiatrist in, or any
kind of mental health counselor you said, "I'm not aware that he did." do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Is it your understanding that Mr. Phillips could have made Mr. Jackson see a psychiatrist?
A. Not at all. As a competent adult, you can't make somebody go to a doctor or see anybody in that
situation.
Q. But he could have suggested one, right?
A. That's true.

Q. Do you have an understanding, based on the documents and the testimony you've reviewed, why he
didn't?
Mr. Panish. Objection; speculation, no foundation for this witness.
Ms. Bina. Based on the review.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I've not seen any record to say that he suggested that.
Q. is it your understanding let me ask, on the June 20th meeting, did either Mr. Phillips or Mr. Ortega
testify that Michael Jackson seemed in need of a psychiatrist?
A. Not at all.
Q. What was their impression, as you recall it, of Mr. Jackson's mental health that day?
A. Their impression was that he was doing well, he was doing better.
Q. And do you recall you were also asked about testimony from Mr. Ortega about whether he had
concerns about Dr. Murray on June 19th, 2009. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Ortega also being asked about four days later when Mr. Jackson returned to
rehearsal whether he had concerns about Dr. Murray at that point?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what do you recall his testimony?
A. His testimony was that he had no concerns about Dr. Murray at that point.
Q. And why, if you have an understanding, was that?
A. Well, because on June 23rd and 24th, Michael Jackson returned to rehearsals and apparently did
quite well, and everyone who in their testimony said that he was doing much better and they a lot of
their concerns had been reduced at that point.
Q. Now, do you have an understanding as to whether Mr. Jackson saw any other medical providers
between June 20th and June 24th?
Mr. Bloss. Beyond the scope.
Judge. In the record that he's reviewed. Overruled.
A. Yes, I do.

Q. And who did he see?

A. He saw Dr. Klein on June 22nd.
Q. And have you reviewed Dr. Klein's records of that date?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Did he note any problems with Mr. Jackson's physical or mental health in the chart that you
reviewed?
A. No. And, in fact, Dr. Klein had seen Michael Jackson approximately 30 times between march and
June, and in no in no case at all did he mention anything about any physical or mental difficulties.
Q. A couple quick more. You also testified about a meeting attended by Dr. Murray, Michael Jackson,
Frank Dileo, Paul Gongaware and randy Phillips that took place somewhere between June 1st and June
16.
A. That's correct.
Q. And you thought probably took place on June 15 or 16?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you testified that you credited the testimony of Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Phillips as to what
happened at that meeting over the testimony of Ms. Kai chase, the chef, right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you recall whether Ms. Chase was actually present for any of the meeting?
A. No, Ms. Chase was not present for any of the meeting. She just said that she'd gone in and out.
Q. And other than a comment by Mr. Dileo at the beginning of the meeting, did she hear did she
testify that she heard anything said at the meeting?
A. No, she did not.
Q. And is that why you credited the testimony of Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware of that meeting?
A. Yes, since Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware were actually at the entirety of the meeting, I credited
them.
Q. And Mr. Dileo was at that meeting, as well, right?
A. Mr. Dileo was at that meeting.
Q. So it wasn't just just AEG Live?

Mr. Panish. Objection; asked and answered.

Judge. Overruled.
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you were also asked about a lot of e-mails about Mr. Jackson's health and physical condition.
You have said those don't change your opinions in the case one way or the other?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can you briefly tell me why that is?
A. The e-mails in these in the case that I reviewed really show concern on the part of AEG Live for
Michael Jackson's health, and I was not able to see anything in there that convinced me that AEG Live
was directing his care or that there was a conflict of interest that led to his poor medical care.
Q. And is part of that reason you also talked a little bit about the timing of the Propofol, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now and that's the last thing I want to ask you about. Pam, can you put up exhibit 13539. Dr.
Green, do you recall Mr. Bloss asking about the fourth item on this?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And is it material to your opinion one way or the other whether Dr. Murray was at the house in late
in the last week of March or only the first week of April?
A. No, it is not.
Q. And did you actually have a reason to believe that Dr. Murray was there in march based on Ms.
Chase's testimony?
A. Yes, I did. My my reason was that Kai Chase began her employment at the end of march, and
there's one statement in the in her in her testimony that says, "I saw him more in April," and I
interpreted that to mean that it was more in April than it had been in march, so that's what I based this
slide on.
Q. Did you also recall that she did she ever testify that she first heard Conrad Murray's name when
she first started working there?
A. Yes, she did, as well.
Q. Now, again, does it matter one way or another to your opinions whether it's the last week of March
or the first week of April?
A. No; because regardless of whether it was the last week of March or the first week of April, it was

certainly before AEG Live had had any notice of Dr. Murray.
Q. What about this idea that Mr. Gongaware said at one point that it might have been as many as five
weeks between the two calls?
A. Mr. Gongaware has some confusion as to how he remembered it.
Mr. Bloss. Your honor, move to strike that, describing it as confusion as opposed to there are multiple
possibilities.
Ms. Bina. I'm just trying to finish here. I think he's just trying to say Mr. Gongaware said at one point it
could be up to five weeks.
Judge. Right. So there's different testimony, perhaps.
Mr. Panish. He can't interpret why he said something differently, and all that.
Judge. Sustained.
A. There were different versions of his account.
Q. Mr. Gongaware testified at the criminal trial that it was two to three weeks between calls?
Mr. Panish. Leading and suggestive.
Judge. I'm allowing her to lead since we're running out of time.
Mr. Panish. We get to question, too.
Judge. I know. I'm trying to get that in.
A. That's correct.
Q. And at the deposition, he also said two to three weeks?
A. I believe he did.
Q. And then at trial, he said, you know, two, and then he was asked could it have been three, four, five
weeks, and he said maybe?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then after that, he was able to clarify that it took place after the auditions that were held on
April 14, 15 and 16?
A. Yes, that's my recollection.
Q. And you credited that last one, as you just testified, because it was more specific?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Let me ask you, what if that first phone call had taken place earlier? Would that make any difference
to your opinions?
A. No, it would not.
Q. And why not?
A. Because that first conversation, Dr. Murray asked for $5 million, and he was told flat out no, so
regardless of when that occurred, he was not being had any negotiations with AEG Live at that point.
Q. In fact, after being told flat out no, he had no reason to believe he'd be paid by AEG Live, did he?
Mr. Panish. Objection; total speculation.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Bina. Based on the evidence you reviewed.
Mr. Panish. Sustained.
Q. Have you seen any evidence at that point that he had reason to believe that
Mr. Panish. Same thing, speculation.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Bina. He still ordered Propofol on April 6th, 2009.
Judge. Somebody's phone is going off. Please turn it off. I can hear it.
(discussion held off the record.)
Q. You were also asked about treatments by Cherilyn Lee on the 19th of June, 2009, and on the 12th
19th of April, 2009?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Do you recall whether Dr. Murray had a day off. Have you seen any evidence suggesting that he
did?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What day was that?
A. Dr. Murray stated that he was off on Sundays.
Q. And what day was April 19th?

A. A Sunday.
Q. Now, can you think of any reason why Dr. Murray would have reordered Propofol on April 28th if
he had not used up the box of Propofol that he ordered on April 6th?
Mr. Panish. Total speculation.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish. No foundation. Your honor, in all due respect to this witness we don't want to make the
jury stay here, so we have to work out
Mr. Putnam. With all due respect, your honor, they went for a day and a half after we went for two
hours on direct.
Judge. This is what's taking up time, not the questioning. Keep going
Q. what was your what was your interpretation of the fact that Dr. Murray reordered Propofol on
April
Mr. Panish. Same thing.
Judge. You're asking the same thing. You're asking him to speculate.
Ms. Bina. You allowed this question on Friday, or a similar one. All right. Let me ask differently, try to
finish up here. You know what? I think we've all got it.
A. Thank you.
Mr. Panish. So how long are we going to be allowed to question for?
Mr. Bloss. I'll go very quickly, your honor.
Judge. As much as you can get in. I'll let you know when you need to stop. Recross-examination by
Mr. Bloss:
Q. Dr. Green, part of the AMA. Ethics opinion that you were just looking at says large incentives may
create conflicts of interest that can affect clinical judgment, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And $150,000 a month, you consider that a large incentive?
A. In general, yes.
Q. And just compare that to the amounts that you make for being a sports medicine physician for the
Pepperdine teams.

A. That's more than I make for the Pepperdine teams, that's correct.
Q. By a little or a lot?
A. By a lot.
Q. Roughly how much?
A. That's not my only job.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor
Judge. Sustained. We're not getting into salary. It's a lot. That's enough.
Q. And you testified also you sat in on Dr. Matheson's deposition?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. He's a respected person within this field?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. He's written articles on conflicts of interest?
A. Yes.
Q. He's done research on conflicts of interest?
A. I don't know that he's done research, but that he's written articles on conflicts of interest.
Q. He brought articles to his deposition describing various issues relating to conflicts of interest?
A. Yes, he has.
Q. You did not?
A. That's true.
Q. And you said you said that patients must be informed about the arrangements in this situation,
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I think your testimony was that withdrawn. Is it fair to say that Mr. Jackson knew a detail, that
it was $150,000 a month, at least from what you've seen from Mr. Gongaware's testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any other detail that there's any evidence that Mr. Jackson knew about contained within

exhibit 343, the agreement?

A. No.
Q. And is there any testimony that you've reviewed that indicates that Mr. Dileo knew any of the terms
of exhibit 343?
A. I'm not certain as to I know he knew there were negotiations going on, but I can't say specifically
what he knew in that contract.
Q. Well, you know Ms. Jorrie testified that she did not send it to any representative of Mr. Jackson,
right?
A. She did not send that's true.
Q. All right. And was Mr. Dileo, as you understand it, present at the June 20th meeting at Carolwood?
A. No, he was not.
Q. And you've testified as to a couple of things that Mr. that you understand. At least assuming Mr.
Phillips' testimony is true, there was no discussion about Mr. Jackson's medical condition?
A. Correct.
Q. No no discussion, if he's being accurate, that as to any medical treatment?
A. That's correct.
Q. No discussion, if you credit Mr. Phillips, of drug abuse?
A. Correct.
Q. So for this 25-minute phone call, we just have no information at all?
Ms. Bina. Objection. I thought we were talking about the June 20th meeting.
Mr. Bloss. I thought I said the phone call, your honor. That was my question.
Judge. Maybe you mixed up the two.
Mr. Bloss. I'm sorry.
Q. The phone call, no discussion about drug abuse?
A. Correct.
Q. No as you understand it
A. I believe that from the testimony this testimony here was talking about the meeting.

Q. Oh, was it? Okay. Fine. I thought let me ask about the phone call. Do you have an understanding
one way or the other about whether Mr. Phillips talked about drug abuse during that phone call?
A. No, I do not.
Q. One way or the other?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Or whether there was any discussion about medical treatment during that phone call one way or the
other?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Or Mr. Jackson's health one way or the other?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And based on the you know that Mr. Phillips sent an e-mail to Mr. Ortega shortly thereafter saying
that he had developed immense respect for Dr. Murray, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And other than what's written in that e-mail, any idea what caused Mr. Phillips to have immense
respect for Dr. Murray?
A. Just the e-mail.
Q. And the the e-mail, Dr. Green, that you've just been looking at, I think it's 307, that was written
from Mr. Phillips to Mr. Ortega, was it not?
A. I don't I'd have to pull up the e-mail, what you're referring to.
Q. The one where Mr. Phillips tells Mr. Ortega that he developed immense respect for Dr. Murray,
checked him out.
A. This is 304, dash, 1.
Q. I thought it was 307. I may have written it down wrong.
A. Sorry. You may be right.
Q. The point is it's from Phillips to Ortega, it's not from Phillips to Murray, right?
A. Correct, it's from Phillips to Ortega.
Q. And, in fact, sir, isn't it true that the at the meeting on June 20th, Murray's statement "stay in your
lane" was not directed to randy Phillips, it was directed to Kenny Ortega? Right?

A. Yes.
Q. And because and Kenny Ortega had been raising serious questions about Murray's competence,
right?
Ms. Bina. Objection; misstates the evidence.
Judge. Sustained.
Q. Mr. Ortega had been raising serious questions with Mr. Phillips about whether the tour should be
postponed, right?
A. I'm not aware that was raised at the meeting.
Q. I didn't say that. Before the meeting.
A. Yes, before the meeting.
Q. Right. And Mr. Ortega was concerned that Mr. Jackson's health was fragile?
A. Through e-mails, yes.
Q. And at the meeting, as you understand it, Murray said to Ortega, "stay in your lane," Phillips said
nothing, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you said that a competent adult can make his or her own medical decisions. You do not have an
opinion one way or the other about whether Mr. Jackson was competent to make his own medical
decisions during that time period, do you?
A. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that he was not competent.
Q. All right. I asked you that question at your deposition, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know that you said, "I don't have an opinion one way or the other," right?
A. Correct, whether he's competent.
Q. Or incompetent?
A. Correct.
Mr. Bloss. All right. I have no other questions. Thank you, your honor.
Judge. Anything further?

Ms. Bina. I don't think so, your honor.

Judge. Okay. Thank you. Sir, you may step down. You're good.
Ms. Bina. Thank you for allowing us to finish today.
A. I appreciate it.
Judge. Okay. Tomorrow, 10:00 o'clock. 10:00 o'clock. If you'd return tomorrow at 10:00. And since I
won't have time to talk to Ms. Chang today, I need you here at 9:30.
(proceedings adjourned to Tuesday, august 20, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.)