Katherine Jackson V AEG Live August 21

st
2013
Attorneys Arguments
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors :)
Judge. Good morning. Counsel, make appearances.
Mr. Boyle. Brian Panish and Kevin Boyle for the plaintiffs. Good morning.
Ms. Cahan. Kathryn Cahan for defendants. Good morning.
Ms. Bina. Jessica Stebbins Bina for defendants.
Mr. Putnam. Marvin Putnam for defendants.
Judge. Thank you. What did you want to talk about?
Ms. Cahan. Just very briefly, your honor, before we get started, we had -- with respect to Dr.
Adams' deposition, which we're actually going to play this afternoon, there were just a couple

of issues that I wanted to address very briefly. First is in light of the cuts that were made about
the phone conversation on that Sunday, there's a -- it's jumpy right now where he basically says,
"I was going to church," and then he says, "and so I decided to go anyway to this meeting." And
so I proposed to Mr. Boyle a stipulation. So right now it reads (reading):
Q. How did it come to be that you met Dr. Conrad Murray on a Sunday in March of 2009?
A. 2009, I was up getting ready to go to church. I know it sounds crazy, but, you know -- and
then the next question is (reading): why did you go anyway?
A. Well, if you're having a heart attack, you're having a heart problem, and -- you know, why
not? I'm a doctor. I mean, this is Michael Jackson. So I proposed to Mr. Boyle that we pause
the video and say dr. Adams testified that he received a phone call from dr. Murray, dr. Murray
asked dr. Adams to meet with him and Michael Jackson, dr. Adams agreed to meet them at dr.
Murray's office later that day. That explains what happens next, it doesnt get into any of the
hearsay issues that they were concerned about, and I think that would be acceptable. Mr. Boyle,
last I heard, was not happy with that.
Mr. Boyle. That's just reiterating the exact hearsay that the court kept out.
Ms. Cahan. There's a lot more to the conversation that the court kept out.
Judge. How can we just logically make the jump? Is there some way
Mr. Panish. Can you read the last sentence in the video?
Ms. Cahan. Sure. Right now it goes from (reading): how did it come to be that you met Dr.
Conrad Murray on a Sunday in March of 2009?
A. 2009, I was up getting ready to go to church. I know it sounds crazy, but, you know --
Q. And why did you go anyway?

A. Well, if you're having a heart attack or if you have a heart problem and -- you know, why not?
I'm a doctor, you know, this is Michael Jackson. I mean, you know, if he says, "I need
something," Im going to go.
Q. And where you went, that was to Dr. Murray's office?
A. Thats correct.
Mr. Panish. What's the next sentence after that?
Ms. Cahan. That's the end.
Mr. Panish. That's the end of the depo?
Ms. Cahan. That's the end of the two clips that have the gap right now. (Reading :)
Q. Was that his office on East flamingo road?
A. That is correct.
Mr. Panish. Just say he went to meet at that office.
Mr. Boyle. What about just he got a call from Dr. Murray that led to a meeting, and then -- as
opposed to go into all what was said on the call?
Mr. Panish. So he got a call from Dr. Murray.
Ms. Cahan. So Dr. Adams testified that he received a phone call from Dr. Murray.
Mr. Panish. And he went to Dr. Murrays office.

Judge. Okay.
Ms. Cahan. Okay. That's fine.
Mr. Panish. There you go. Very good.
Ms. Cahan. And then --
Judge. The witness's answer, you said, was confusing?
Ms. Cahan. This will be better, your honor. I think it will ultimately hang together okay with
this pause in reading that statement. And then your honor had excluded on hearsay grounds a
substantial portion of testimony relating to a conversation between Dr. Murray and Dr. Adams
about going on tour to London. And I understand your honors rulings. I just wanted to, for the
record; make a record as to a specific portion of the conversation that we believe is not hearsay.
And that's at page 115, lines 1 to 16. And for the record --
Judge. Again, this is between Adams and Murray?
Ms. Cahan. Yes, about -- this is part of that larger conversation about Dr. Adams potentially
going on tour with Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson, and there was a large portion excluded. There's
this one portion that we think is -- we wanted to make a record on. So thats at page --
Mr. Putnam. And to be clear, your honor, it's because this portion we believe was not hearsay
because it indicates when Dr. Murray -- what Dr. Murray believed in terms of his being able to
go to London, when he could go, et cetera. It's important for the record for us because of the
fact it happens all before AEG Live has ever heard of him or otherwise.
Mr. Panish. We already argued all this the other day.
Mr. Putnam. I understand. We're putting it on the record.

Ms. Cahan. We wanted to make a record. At page 115, lines 1 to 16 (reading):

Q. Did Conrad Murray say whether he was going on tour?
A. He was definitely going on tour.
Q. Did he say that?
A. He did.
Q. What did he say, if you can remember?
A. He was going on tour, you know. He was, you know -- he was -- he couldn't wait to go.
Q. Was they asking you to join Dr. Conrad Murray with Mr. Jackson on tour in the UK?
A. In this meeting, I had no idea what they -- it was just sort of mind-boggling that someone
would be asking me to go anywhere.
Q. Did Dr. Murray say he was going to London, as well?
A. Oh, he definitely said he was going. And just to make the record on that, your honor, we
think that that is not -- should not be excluded as hearsay. Dr. Murray's statement that he was
going on tour is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and no one is contesting
the fact that dr. Murray was intending to go on the tour in London. There was a draft contract,
there were negotiations, there were passport issues that were being worked out, and the
statement is offered to show the timing of what Dr. Murray found out about the tour and was
invited to be a part of it, as Mr. Putnam just alluded to. The fact that dr. Murray was talking
with somebody about going on the tour at least a month before AEG Live had ever heard of
him, we think is -- and before he began negotiations with AEG Live is, obviously, very relevant
to the case. Regardless of whether or not Dr. Murray ultimately was actually going to go on the

tour, it goes to his understanding and the sequence of events because this is a statement in late
march or early April.
Judge. Well, is Murrays understanding really at issue? It's what AEG understood, right?
Ms. Cahan. Well, your honor, it goes exactly to the issue of whether Dr. Murray's services
were engaged and whether he had an expectation about going to London before and separate
and apart from contract negotiations with AEG Live. And there's been this issue of plaintiffs
asserting that there was some kind of causation and a conflict of interest that came into being as a
result of the draft agreement that was negotiated substantially later, and so we do think this is
independently significant and important and is being offered for a non-hearsay purpose, which is
why we wanted to make the record on this issue.
Judge. Okay. Let me hear from --
Mr. Panish. Your honor, we discussed all of this.
Judge. I know. I want to hear again.
Mr. Panish. This is the third rearguing of this.
Mr. Boyle. So even though they said they werent rearguing it, it sounds like they just reargued
it? Okay. We think that's clear hearsay like all of the other -- the whole thing is a conversation
of what Dr. Murray said, and the court kept out all -- everything else and there's no reason that
this piece should come in. I mean, it's clearly being offered for the truth; and Dr. Murray is not
here to say it and explain it.
Judge. That Dr. Murray was going to go on the tour at that time?
Mr. Boyle. Right, yes.
Ms. Cahan. Dr. Murray had an intention as of -- an understanding and intention as of March or
April 2009 that he was going to go on tour, go to London in July.

Mr. Boyle. And that's offered for the truth.

Mr. Panish. This whole conversation was excluded. We argued this on Monday extensively.
And they say they want to make a record, but they want to reargue.
Judge. Okay. They made their record.
Ms. Cahan. Thank you, your honor. And I didn't know if the court had an update about
September 6th, just as we were dealing with the issues --
Mr. Putnam. We were going to talk to the jurors about whether they have --
Judge. I think we were going to give them the calendar.
Mr. Putnam. If you can ask them about the 6th, that would be great.
Judge. We'll talk to them. We just havent had time.
Ms. Cahan. That's fine, your honor. I just didnt want to wait to raise it until after the jurors
were gone for the day because --
Judge. I don't mind being reminded. Because things fly out of my head, so please remind me.
Ms. Cahan. Thank you, your honor. That was all I needed to address before the jury is brought
in.
Judge. Okay. So we have some videos. What is your order of videos?
Ms. Cahan. Jeffrey Adams, we're going to do first; then Dr. Gordon, which will probably end
up being split over the lunch hour; and then Dr. Adams.

Judge. Okay.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors :)
Judge. Good morning, everybody.
Judge. Thank you, everybody. Today is what I call video day. Were going to be playing a lot
of videos. And while that may be a lot of sitting and listening, the good news is that when they
play the videos, it means they don't have to call somebody live, which can take longer, so it's
actually a vehicle to move things along. Okay? Because live witnesses tend to take a little bit
longer. So although you may have to sit and listen and it may drag on a little bit, it's actually
faster. Okay? So thank you, defendants.
Ms. Cahan. With that, your honor, the first video we will be playing and witness we will be
calling by video is Jeffrey Lee Adams, a-d-a-m-s.
(Excerpts of the videotaped deposition of Jeffrey Lee Adams were played.)
Ms. Cahan. Your honor that concludes the video deposition of Jeffrey Adams. There were no
errata corrections to that transcript. The next transcript we have is for Dr. Stephen, s-t-e-p-h-e-n,
w. Gordon. This is a video of about an hour and a half, so it will take us across the lunch break.
I don't know if your honor wanted to take a morning break now or pause the video at some point.
Judge. What time did we start?
Ms. Cahan. Right around 10:00.
Judge. We can keep going until 11:15 to 11:30.
Ms. Cahan. And there will be one pause, as well, to read a statement in the deposition. So
defendants call by video deposition Dr. Stephen w. Gordon.

(Excerpts of the videotaped deposition of Stephen w. Gordon were played.)

Ms. Cahan. This is probably a good spot to pause for the break, your honor.
Judge. Okay. All right. 11:30.
(16-minute recess taken.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors :)
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, really briefly -- and were probably just being overly sensitive, and we
know the court didn't intend to do this, but when the court thanked the defendants for playing
video in an effort to move the trial along, that could arguably give -- well, they're playing video
because these witnesses are all unavailable and out of state and beyond the subpoena power. We
don't want to give the jury the impression that by us calling live witnesses, were somehow not
trying to move the trial along. So maybe the court can just explain to them that the videos are
played when the witnesses are out of state and subpoena power.
Ms. Cahan. The court has also said the video is boring, so I think it's fair to state --
Judge. There was a little bit of an implication that it was a little boring, but it could be shorter
than calling live, so I don't think it's
Mr. Panish. I think you were just trying to soften the blow of watching the video, but it may be
-- actually, what you said --
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors :)
Judge. Before we continue the video, juror number 6, I did get your note, and I shared it with
the attorneys. I hope we don't have to deal with that on September 20th. I hope we'll be done
before then. So why don't I take that up closer to that time, because I think we'll be done by

then, but -- okay. Thank you. But thank you for alerting us to that. All right. Counsel? Dr.
Gordon?
Ms. Cahan. Yes.
(Excerpts of the videotaped deposition of Stephen w. Gordon were played.)
Ms. Cahan. Dr. Gordon had trouble specifically remembering whether Michael Jackson came
in two days later on October 4 for the follow-up procedure. However, the parties have
stipulated that such a procedure did take place on that date.
Judge. Thank you.
(Excerpts of the videotaped deposition of Stephen w. Gordon were played.)
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, we'll stop there for the lunch break.
Judge. Okay. Thank you. Please return at 1:30.
(The following proceedings were heard in open court, outside the presence of the jury :)
Judge. The staff reminded me we're returning on Tuesday?
Ms. Cahan. That's why today was a video day, so we didn't have to split a witness over a five-
day break, your honor.
Mr. Putnam. This was that three-day period I was asking if we couldn't grab back one day,
because I think its one person this whole time. But it is what it is, we're there now.
Judge. Okay.

Ms. Cahan. Your honor, just for planning purposes for this afternoon, we'll finish the
deposition of Dr. Gordon, we'll do the deposition of Dr. Adams, which is like about an hour, 15,
or so, and then I anticipate we'll end a little bit early and can let the jury go and then deal with
the Shimelman motion and the Van Valin -- argument about the Van Valin deposition rulings your
honor had provided earlier this week.
Mr. Putnam. If it's okay with the court.
Ms. Cahan. Yes. Of course.
Judge. Okay. Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors :)
Judge. Good afternoon. We were in the middle of a video, werent we?
Ms. Cahan. Yes. We're going to resume with the deposition testimony by video of Dr. Stephen
Gordon.
Judge. Thank you.
(Excerpts of the videotaped deposition of Stephen w. Gordon were played.)
Ms. Cahan. That concludes the video deposition of -- video testimony by deposition of Dr.
Stephen Gordon. Dr. Gordon did not make any corrections to the portions of the deposition that
were played. And there were three -- there are three exhibits that Id like to move into evidence
in conjunction with the playing of Dr. Gordons deposition. The first is trial exhibit number
12711. That was exhibit 2 to Dr. Gordon's deposition. And it runs up to numbered page 14
within the exhibit number. The second is trial exhibit number 12713, which was exhibit 4 to Dr.
Gordon's deposition, and that runs up to numbered page 2 within the exhibit number. The third
is trial exhibit number 12715, which is exhibit 3 to Dr. Gordon's deposition; and that runs up to
page number 9 within the exhibit number.

Judge. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Boyle. No objections, your honor.
Judge. Okay. Received.
(Received into evidence, exhibits 12711, 12713 and 12715, documents.)
Ms. Cahan. And, your honor, we have one additional deposition to play this afternoon, which
is about an hour and ten minutes, so I think we'll pause it for the break around 3:00. Would that
be acceptable, your honor?
Judge. Okay.
Ms. Cahan. And that is the deposition of Dr. David Adams, a-d-a-m-s.
(Excerpts of the videotaped deposition of David Adams were played.)
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, this is probably a good place to take the afternoon break.
Judge. All right. 15 minutes.
(22-minute recess taken.)
Judge. Let's continue with Dr. Adams.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, just as a reminder, were going to pause it briefly in a little while to
read something that the parties agreed to. And I think we have a little less than a half hour to go
for this one.

Judge. Okay. Thank you.

(Excerpts of the videotaped deposition of David Adams were played.)
Ms. Cahan. Dr. Adams testified that he received a phone call from Dr. Murray and he went to
Dr. Murray's office.
(Excerpts of the videotaped deposition of David Adams were played.)
Ms. Cahan. Your honor that concludes the video deposition testimony of Dr. David Adams.
There are three exhibits that defendants would like to move into evidence in connection with the
playing of his deposition. The first is trial exhibit number 2241, also marked as deposition
exhibit 3. And it is a three-page document. The second is trial exhibit number 2243, exhibit 4 to
Dr. Adams' deposition; and that's a two-page document. And the last is trial exhibit 2245; exhibit
number 5 to Dr. Adams' deposition; and that is also a three-page document.
Mr. Boyle. No objections, your honor.
Judge. Okay. Thank you. Those are received.
(Received into evidence, exhibits 2241, 2243 and 2245, documents.)
Judge. And that's it, right?
Ms. Cahan. Yes. That's enough for one day.
Judge. All right. Thank you. I guess we have a few days now before I see you again. Tuesday,
which is the 27th, at 10:00 o'clock is when you are to return. And one other thing I want to
clarify. I believe my staff spoke to you about September 6th, that Friday. Just to clarify, you are
agreeing that that will no longer be a dark day, that everyone can come to court on that day,
right? For a full day? Okay. Good. If that's not the case, raise your hand. Okay. Very good.
All right. Then I will see you on the 27th at 10:00 o'clock. Have a good long break. Let me
admonish you. Do you remember the admonitions? Yes, you remember that one. Don't discuss

the case with anybody, don't read anything, don't listen to anything about the case, and dont talk
to each other about the case. Okay? So Ill see you on Tuesday. Thank you. Tuesday at 10:00
o'clock.

(ten-minute recess taken.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors :)
Judge. Okay. What do you want to start with?
Ms. Cahan. Whatever your honor prefers, either the Shimelman motion or the Van Valin
deposition, whatever --
Judge. Let's start with the motion, and then well sandwich in the Van Valin -- its plaintiffs
motion?
Ms. Cahan. It is plaintiffs' motion.
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, as we've sort of -- weve sort of pre-argued this one a little bit, and we
filed a few-page brief. But, in sum, basically Dr. Shimelman is a plaintiffs' expert on addiction.
We decided to not call him and just go with our other guy, Dr. Schnoll; and the defense wants to
play now some of Shimelmans testimony. We believe thats cumulative not only to Schnoll, but
to the defendants two experts, who are Earley and Levounis. And so we would just submit that
Shimelman should not be played.
Judge. What is Shimelman adding to --?
Ms. Cahan. So Shimelman -- first of all, your honor, I think it's significant the basis of the
motion is that it would be cumulative of the testimonies of Drs. Earley and Levounis, who
haven't testified yet.
Judge. But they will be, right? So --

Ms. Cahan. It won't be -- so there are a couple of things about -- we only designated 12
minutes of testimony from Dr. Shimelman, who had two days of deposition, so we were quite
narrow in this. But essentially his core opinions are that Mr. Jackson was addicted to opiates for
probably 20 years with no significant periods of remission. Drs. Earley and Levounis agree
about the fact that Mr. Jackson was addicted to opiates at some time, but they don't cover as long
of a time period as Dr. Shimelman does. In addition, Dr. Shimelman is the only expert who says
that Mr. Jackson was addicted to Benzodiazepines. Neither of defendants' experts can
conclusively state that, nor did plaintiffs' other expert, Dr. Schnoll. And Dr. Schnoll, as your
honor remembers, at his deposition said that there was an opiate addiction, but by the time he
came to testify at trial he changed his opinion and said he didn't think there was even enough
evidence to say that Mr. Jackson was addicted to opiates. And then Dr. Shimelman was also
designated --
Judge. And Benzodiazepine is an opiate?
Ms. Cahan. It's a different category of drugs. It's like the versed that he was talking about.
Mr. Boyle. Xanax.
Ms. Cahan. Things like Xanax, Ativan, drugs of that category. It's a different class of drugs.
And then the other area where Dr. Shimelman's testimony is unique is he is the only plaintiff --
plaintiffs' expert designated on life expectancy. Dr. Schnoll was not, although he sort of touched
upon some of the concepts. And Dr. --
Judge. This is the one week to live, right?
Ms. Cahan. Right. And, actually, during the Briggs examination, Mr. Panish made the point
that Dr. Shimelman was the only expert who said that Jacksons life expectancy was one week,
and that was a point of emphasis. And so there are significant unique opinions that Dr.
Shimelman offers that we've put into this very short 12 minutes of testimony; and, your honor, I
think it's particularly important to emphasize here the fact that Dr. Shimelman is plaintiffs'
expert, and he disagrees in his essential conclusions with Dr. Schnoll, who is plaintiffs' other
expert. And the two -- there are two cases that we cite in defendants' opposition brief. One is
Monroy v. City of LA, 164 cal.app.4th 248. It's a 2008 case. And the other is Basham, b-a-s-h-
a-m, v. Babcock, 44 cal.app.4th 1717, a 1996 case. And -- which stands for the proposition that
it's reversible error to exclude unfavorable deposition testimony, an expert that would have

boosted the credibility of the other side's expert and called into question the experts for the same
side that the excluded expert's testimony was offered. And there are some important quotes
from that. In the Monroy case, at 267, the court says even if a defense expert will testify to the
same conclusion as a plaintiff's own expert, the testimony will not be identical, will have
different focuses and will be accompanied by different explanations. Subtleties in responses
can be critical. Repetition is often the key to believability, and credibility may be enhanced
when a defense expert agrees with the plaintiff's expert. Identical or virtually identical evidence
may not be cumulative if there is significance to the evidentiary weight to be given; it is often
invaluable to have evidence come from different sources. And we think that these two cases are
exactly on point here. This is a situation where two of plaintiffs' experts disagree with each
other, and plaintiffs -- the fact that plaintiffs have an expert that agrees with some of -- agrees
with some of the conclusions of defendants' experts in the same field is significant and
something the jury is entitled to hear and give weight to. And I think in addition here,
something we have that was not in either of those cases is that weve already had testimony and
other experts referring to what Dr. Shimelman concluded, so --
Judge. So is there testimony of -- your witnesses will say that Mr. Jackson was addicted to
Opiates and Benzodiazepines and that he had one week to live?
Ms. Cahan. No. Our experts say --
Judge. So they're not agreeing with your experts.
Ms. Cahan. They agree on the Opiate addiction.
Judge. Okay.
Ms. Cahan. They do not believe there is enough evidence in the record for them to be
comfortable saying he was definitely a Benzodiazepine addict, although they think there's some
evidence to suggest that that might be true; and they do not give a number on life expectancy at
any point. Dr. Earley was designated on life expectancy; and he said that given Mr. Jacksons
history of drug use and the way he was using drugs and the risks inherent in Propofol, that Mr.
Jacksons prognosis was grave, but they do not put a number on it. Dr. Shimelman is the only
one who puts a number on it. So it's a little bit of --

Judge. Don't put a number at all on it?

Ms. Cahan. No. So there's a little bit of overlap; and to the extent that there's overlap on the
Opiate addiction, we think that that's important and significant under Monroy and Basham. And
then to the extent that there is a disagreement between Dr. Schnoll, plaintiffs' expert on the one
hand, and Dr. Shimelman, plaintiffs' expert on the other hand, about whether Mr. Jackson's life
expectancy was affected by drug use and about whether he was addicted to anything, that in
itself is also very significant. We've managed to get all that into 12 minutes of deposition
testimony.
Judge. And the one week to live was, I think -- was it qualified with if Murray was --
something like that, right?
Ms. Cahan. So he was asked -- I asked him first, you know, on June 24th, how long -- in 2009,
how long did Mr. Jackson have to live? And he said a week. And then I said, "On May 1st, how
long did he have to live?" And he said, "Assuming he is not getting extra Propofol by May 1st,
he's already getting extra Benzodiazepines, so his life expectancy is shortened by May 1st." And
I said, "Lets go back to February of 2009." And then he says, "It was shortened, significantly
shortened." And then he says once Conrad Murray was treating him --
Judge. That's what -- your physicians say that, too?
Ms. Cahan. No, our physicians don't say that. They don't express any kind of -- all they say --
they say nothing about Dr. Murray's involvement, they say nothing about numbers, months,
years, anything like that. They just say with somebody with a drug use history like they see in
this record -- this is just Dr. Earley. He gives Mr. Jackson a grave prognosis, he thinks his
chances of relapse and overdose are very high, and it's unlikely that he would have lived a full
and healthy life, but he doesn't put a number on it. Dr. Shimelman is the only one who tries to
ascribe a time period.
Judge. What Im saying is the number that he ascribes is the one week, there's no other number
that hes ascribing?
Mr. Boyle. That's correct.

Judge. Im just trying to find out what is the number. You told him to go back to February, but
he doesn't really give you a number.
Ms. Cahan. As of May 1st, he says its shortened, he can't give an exact number, and its
moderately shortened. Once Murray starts treating him, quote, the clock is running, and that is
about -- the one week is the only time he gave an actual measurable period of time, but he does
express opinions about going back further if Murray is in the picture, but it's not the last week of
Jacksons life, sort of what would that do, and then going back before there's any allegation that
there was Propofol being provided regularly, what is his prognosis at that point. So he does sort
of cabinet in a bunch of different scenarios, and nobody else is doing that.
Ms. Bina. The bigger point here, your honor, is even if it were cumulative, when an expert
comes to a contrary conclusion for the opposite side, the cases
Ms. Cahan. Is relying on say you have to be able to put that forward because that in itself is
significant, that their own retained expert evaluating the situation independently came to a
conclusion that did not support their case.
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, so AEG Identified three areas they want to designate for him. One, that
Jackson was addicted to Opioids for 20 years; and two, hes the only expert who says Michael
Jackson was addicted to Benzes. And if you look at the Shimelman deposition at the beginning,
he defined addiction and dependency as the same thing. So he says, "In my mind, addiction and
dependency is the same thing." So while other experts are saying Michael might be dependent,
you know, like Schnoll did, for example, in -- in Shimelmans mind, there's no difference, and it's
a semantic game. Our view is that Shimelman and Schnoll were the same enough that we just
went with Schnoll. Right? The third area she says is this life expectancy, right? And this is the
one week to live that we think clearly he was talking about under Dr. Murray's care; and he also
testifies had Michael Jackson been given proper care for any dependency, slash, addiction
problem he had, he would have a full life expectancy. So that's exactly what Schnoll said, as
well. So we think -- then they pointed out that -- about expert --
Judge. Did Schnoll testify to that?
Mr. Boyle. Yes, he did.

Ms. Cahan. But Dr. Shimelman didn't. He said its unlikely -- yes, of course, it's always
possible that if somebody gets clean and stays clean, their life expectancy after they've been
clean for a number of years, the way someone who has quit smoking, will ultimately return to a
normal life expectancy if they stay healthy. He talked a lot about relapse and the -- the very
slim chances that Mr. Jackson could have gotten in recovery and stayed clean, so it's not the
same opinion as Dr. Schnoll offered at trial. And I don't want to interrupt Mr. Boyle but, also,
with respect to the addiction versus dependency thing, in the current state of the medical
literature, under the dbs., there's not a definition -- addiction and dependency are treated as the
same. Dr. Schnoll is sort of talking in a framework that is not the current standard of care, but
he didn't -- for purposes of his opinion, he said no addiction or dependency to benzodiazepines
-- this is Dr. Schnoll -- not addicted to opiates, not sure if even dependent on opiates. So even
if you accept that he's parsing out this definition in a way that the others don't, its still a different
opinion.
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, we see this very similar to the Rhoma Young situation. Rhoma young
just testified. In plaintiffs' case, we wanted to play a few minutes -- like I think it was 18 minutes
of Rhoma Young because we felt that it agreed with our expert, Jean Seawright. The court, you
know, said no. They said it would be cumulative to do that, and -- and the court agreed with
them, and we believe this is very similar. Here, in addition, in this case, now given the -- what
we think is a mischaracterization of his comment about one week, we might need to call him in
our rebuttal case to rebut what they say he said, in which case playing this video makes it even
more redundant and -- and --
Judge. What was it about Rhoma Young that --
Ms. Bina. They designated a small portion at the end of their case in chief. There were two
reasons that we opposed that. One principally was that she was going to be called live and could
be cross-examined on all of these topics, so there was no point in playing a small part of her
video when she would be testifying live and they could get in that same testimony. The other
thing is they were not pulling out her core opinions in this case, your honor; they were taking
little snippets out of context, cherry-picked to bolster the credibility of Jean Seawright. We said
that was inappropriate, it was cumulative in that sense only that they were taking it out of context
to bolster their own expert, not that the core opinions agreed with their expert. It's an apples and
oranges situation, your honor. And if you'll recall, I also said at the time in the event that we
don't call Rhoma Young live, then plaintiffs may have a better argument and can re-raise the
issue in terms of playing her deposition. But because we did call her live and they had a full
opportunity to cross-examine, there was no need for them to take the points from her deposition
and play them at trial. It's not really the same situation at all.

Ms. Cahan. And with respect to Dr. Shimelman, your honor, there wasn't an argument in the
briefing about prejudicial, it's just that it was cumulative, and the fact is that this was a two-day
deposition, plaintiffs counsel were there the entire time, they had plenty of time to clean up
whatever they wanted to clean up in terms of his opinions. And we haven't seen what they want
to counter designate yet; but presumably if they thought his statement was unclear or they need
to provide context, they can counter designate the additional parts of his deposition that do that.
It's not a reason to sort of -- it's sort of a similar situation in some ways with Dr. Metzger. We're
allowed to play this under 2025.620(d). Whether or not they can subsequently successfully
petition the court for any additional testimony from these witnesses, it doesn't remove from us
the right to do so; and particularly here where we're talking about 12 minutes of testimony. The
idea -- the rule on cumulative testimony is to keep it from unduly consuming court time or, you
know, being inefficient; and there's just no way that this is going to meaningfully change the
length of the trial in which plaintiffs, you know, presented several months of evidence already.
Judge. I guess what is the prejudice, Mr. Boyle? It's already come out through cross-
examination of Briggs that Shimelman provided that evidence that -- that had Jackson been
treated by Conrad Murray in this fashion at that time, that he had one week to live so long as
Conrad Murray continued to treat him. I mean, that was already brought out in the testimony,
so Im not really sure there's much prejudice to you.
Mr. Boyle. But that's not -- first of all, we -- theres no duty for us to clean up his testimony, if
you will, like she says.
Judge. You're not addressing my question. I'm asking what the prejudice is. It's already out
there.
Mr. Boyle. Because the idea with cumulative is its not the court time, necessarily, it's the
number of witnesses on the same topic. Earley has been played, Schnoll has gone, and theyre
going to call Earley and Levounis. Why -- why do -- why should another expert on the same
exact topic have to get -- let me also say they cannot play him under 2025.620(d). He's not a
treating physician. He never saw Michael Jackson.
Ms. Cahan. He's an expert, the same provision applies. And, your honor, to be clear, if they
thought that they -- this is their expert. They have two addiction people, we have two addiction
people. If they thought the total number was too many, they could have moved to limit pretrial,

which is the proper way of doing it. You can't have an expert -- you cant designate a slew of
experts, see who does a good job, see who does a terrible job, and then just sweep the ones who
do a terrible job for your cause under the rug after they've given deposition testimony. You cant
withdraw after a deposition has been given. That's quite clear. And this idea that this is
cumulative is just -- it doesn't -- cumulative is meant to prevent prejudice or --
Judge. The difference -- I mean, the difference is that it's out there, which it's really -- I think
the difference with Briggs is it's just kind of hearsay evidence that he relied on in his testimony,
it's not the substance of evidence that is like what Shimelman would give you, I think is the
difference, the qualitative difference. But the information is out there. But, anyway --
Ms. Cahan. Our position is that it's not cumulative. The purpose of the rule limiting cumulative
testimony is not served by excluding this, and it would be reversible error if your honor were to
exclude this testimony.
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, we would say -- we think that there's no reason for it to be played.
Two, if the court's inclined to allow it, as I asked the court before, I think we need broad
discretion in doing the counter designations to try to clean up --
Judge. Oh, yes, sure.
Mr. Boyle. And three --
Judge. Well, particularly -- you will be allowed to designate the part about Conrad Murray
being in the picture. That's already part of what was presented in --
Ms. Cahan. We designated that.
Judge. Okay. Then it's in there.
Mr. Boyle. But Mr. Briggs denied that's what he said. Mr. Briggs said that's not what he said;
he means a week under any circumstances.

Ms. Bina. Which is exactly why the jury should see the testimony for themselves, your
honor, because Mr. Briggs didn't agree with Mr. Panish's characterization of it so the jury
should see the testimony for themselves and evaluate it as a jury is supposed to do.
Mr. Boyle. You know, I think -- like I said, depending on how it all works out, we're going to
probably have to bring him in to make clear what he meant; that it was under Dr. Conrad
Murrays care that he had a week to live.
Judge. If it's already in the depo, why do you need --?
Mr. Boyle. Well, because they all tend to think -- the way it comes across in the video might,
you know -- might not be how we want it to be, might not be as clear as we want to be. He
made it sort of as a comment, you know; and they're grasping onto that comment and running
with it, and they're -- it's really tying Shimelmans hands behind his back because we could put
Shimelman on the stand and say, "what did you mean when you said that?" And he will expound
on it.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, just for the sake of the record, just so you understand what defendants
themselves have designated in this regard, it's -- (reading):
Q. How much was Michael Jacksons life expectancy shortened by his Opiate and
Benzodiazepine addictions at the time that he died in June of 2009? Opiates and
Benzodiazepine.
A. Well, he died of a Benzodiazepine and anesthetic overdose, so the thing speaks for itself.
Q. So Im not asking what did Michael Jackson die of, Im saying at the time that he died,
assuming he didn't die on June 25th, 2009, how much was his life expectancy affected by his
Opioid and Benzodiazepine addictions?
A. Gives me a date again, please?
Q. June 24th, 2009, what was Michael Jacksons life expectancy?

A. On June 24th?
Q. Yes. He died on June 25th.
A. I know that. Thank you, though. As a clinician, not a statistician, on June 24th, I would say
he probably had a week to live.
Q. On May 1st, 2009, what was Michael Jacksons life expectancy as a clinician?
A. When did you represent Conrad Murray started giving him Propofol?
Q. Its a question for you. You're looking at the record. Youre the expert.
A. Assuming he is not getting Propofol by May 1st, he is already getting extra benzoin, his life
expectancy is shortened may 1st. Let's go back to February.
Ms. Cahan. And then it goes on. But it's -- its clear that he's -- this is not like we caught him in
a trap. If there's some basis to bring him back after weve presented the testimony, then so be it.
But thats not -- there's nothing improper about the way the deposition was run, there's -- we're
not trying to put any arbitrary limits on the ability to counter. You know, plaintiffs' counsel
knows what theory of the case they were trying to present then. Maybe it's different than what
they would like to put forward now, but you can't just call back an experts testimony after
deposition saying it's somehow cumulative.
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, he was -- this whole thing is odd to me. I don't -- I don't know if she
designated this part, but he says -- goes on, "and included in your question was and he continues
to receive Propofol every night?"
Mr. Koskoff: this is a different part.
Mr. Boyle. Right. (reading:)

Q. If that makes a difference, we can break out one or the other.

A. If he's taking Propofol, the clock is ticking.
Q. The clock is ticking?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. And do you have an opinion as to what Mr. Jackson's life expectancy would have been if he
did not pass away on June 25th, 2009, did not continue using Propofol, but did continue to use
opioids and benzodiazepines?
A. If -- if his use of opiates is controlled, we're talking steady state dose. Okay? President
Kennedy did pretty well on a steady dose, Rush Limbaugh did pretty well. A lot of people can
function.
Ms. Cahan. This was explored thoroughly at the deposition. If they want to counter with some
of these things to give context they think is necessary, we wont object to things within the scope
of our designations.
Mr. Boyle. My point is it's the same as pretty much all the experts. His opinion is Michael
would have lived full life expectancy if he had been treated properly. That's his opinion. Now,
his opinion also is -- and I don't think the defendants would disagree with if Dr. Murray was
giving him Propofol every night; he had a short life expectancy. I don't think their expert is
going to disagree with that when they testify. This just seems totally cumulative of everything.
Ms. Cahan. To be clear, your honor, that one week to live thing was not about Propofol, it was
about the Opiate and Benzodiazepine use that he was exhibiting at that time. That's the time
when hes going to Dr. Klein for up to 300 milligrams of Demerol, 30 times in a couple-month
period. This is not all about Dr. Murray. But, in any event, it's quite clear from what Mr. Boyle
just read this was thoroughly explored at deposition, counters are appropriate. If there's some
basis to call him back after that, certainly plaintiffs can make that request; but this is not

cumulative testimony under the case law. And as we said, it would be, under Monroy and
Basham, reversible error to exclude testimony of this sort.
Judge. Did you Shepardize that case?
Ms. Cahan. Yes.
Judge. And it hasn't been overturned?
Ms. Cahan. No.
Judge. The reason I ask is because in criminal, we -- we would never call the defendants
expert to testify. I had a case once where the defense handwriting expert actually agreed with my
expert, and we just didn't call him. Never happened in criminal. But different scenario. That's
why Im just asking did you Shepardize it, because I know it would never happen in criminal.
Ms. Cahan. Here's the Monroy case which I printed last week which has the Westlaw "h," and
there's a yellow flag on Basham but not related to --
Judge. Okay.
Ms. Bina. They're called red rover experts. It's basically when your expert says something
unexpected and the other side wants to steal them. It comes up, it happens; and it's clear that,
you know, youre stuck with the expert you choose. If you choose an expert who then gives an
opinion that is favorable to the other side, the other side can take advantage of that and, in fact,
is expected to do that.
Judge. All right. Such is the world of civil. Okay. Well, all right.
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, Shimelman -- this is the second time now in this case that the defense is
forcing us to call one of our experts who we thought were unnecessary. Dr. Brown was the first
time. Now this is going to happen again here, and I think my concern now is the jury might
read it the way they are, in which case we're going to have to bring -- which is fine, but --

Judge. Your concern is the jury might read --

Mr. Boyle. Read -- for whatever reason AEG Is jumping on this one week to live thing as being
an overall opinion.
Judge. Yeah. It was part of Briggs.
Mr. Boyle. Right. So my point is to the extent it comes across that way in the deposition and
that's not what he meant, we're going to have to bring him out here to explain that.
Judge. Unless he explained it in the depo.
Mr. Boyle. Apparently not well enough because they keep saying that Michael is going to die in
a week. I mean, it is what it is. If the court is going to rule, we'll just make it part --
Mr. Koskoff: it was not really fully explored, your honor, because it was thought at the time that
it was an offhand comment and nobody ever -- it was one line out of a two-day deposition which
nobody, frankly, paid any attention to until suddenly at the trial it became the centerpiece of the
defense case, so he has to explain it. He doesn't -- he does not -- he does not mean it the way in
which it has been used by Dr. Briggs, and I think he has to be able to come back to explain that
Dr. Briggs was mistaken.
Mr. Boyle. Mr. Briggs.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, to be clear, he was designated as an expert on life expectancy, so I
would expect that plaintiffs' counsel would be paying attention when he offered a number on
life expectancy in his deposition. And the first day and second day of his depositions were
separated by about a week and 3,000 miles because he came out to California, we weren't able
to finish his deposition the first day, we finished it in Boston a week later, so there was an
opportunity -- I think this testimony is in the first part of the transcript. So there was -- they had
a week to look at the transcript; and if there was anything they needed to fix or deal with or
clean up, they could have dealt with it the second day.

Mr. Boyle. Again, that's -- we had no need to do that, and we didn't think -- the reason this was
not even a concern to us, it's like saying what was your -- what was -- so a truck runs over
someone in a crosswalk. What was the life expectancy of that person? Well, when they were in
the crosswalk, about 12 seconds, right? Our -- our whole case is that AEG Is, in part, responsible
for what Dr. Murray did, and so when an expert says Michael had a week to live under Dr.
Murray -- you see what Im saying? And then they're trying to take advantage of that and
confuse the jury.
Judge. Sounds like a really good closing argument.
Mr. Boyle. They should be able to know what the guys real opinion is, not some little 12-
minute clip.
Judge. Then bring him on, then, I guess. But --
Ms. Cahan. So, your honor, we had initially talked about those plaintiffs' -- we had designated
back in July, I think. Plaintiffs moved to exclude as cumulative on august 5th. Just if we're
trying to get everything done by September 6th, I want to make sure that we have the counters
back from them quickly so that we can get everything cut and ready to go and ruled on in order
to play this video on September 6th. So -- which is two weeks away? I don't know how much
time they needed. They initially said when they filed this motion and refused to provide
counters they only needed a day. I want to give them more than that, especially in light of the
fact that we're dark for a few days. But if they could give us counters by Saturday, we still have
to do objections to their counters, that way we could file it on Monday.
Judge. So by Saturday? I just wonder how far this is going to get -- get you. But okay.
Ms. Cahan. So counters on Saturday. And then do you want to deal with the Van Valin issue at a
different time, your honor?
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, maybe --
Ms. Cahan. And I could actually try to work out some of these Van Valin -- I don't know if it's
possible, but there are a lot, so maybe this is one where we could take a shot.

Ms. Cahan. There aren't too many I have to argue, but Im happy to do that. I don't know if
there's a time, maybe, when we're not going to be with the jury that we could deal with any open
issues on that, just because if we're trying to get everything done in order to play on the 6th, I
don't want to wait until Tuesday. And I also don't want to take up jury time. What about
tomorrow at 1:30?
Judge. That would be fine.
Ms. Cahan. We've had the rulings for a long time, your honor. I don't think it's going to -- well
either agree or we don't.
Judge. The other thing you might want to do is talk to -- this is another option. You might want
to get -- you could do a testimonial stipulation; if -- if Dr. Shimelman were called as -- called as a
witness, he would testify as follows, and just give a testimonial stipulation or video, maybe. I
dont know.
Ms. Cahan. We'd like to do the video. If they want to talk about something to clean up what
they think is misleading --
Judge. Well, he may have to come live.
Mr. Boyle. If they want to call our expert --
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, I think on the Metzger -- I know there was some discussion of Dr.
Metzger when I wasnt here. Do we have a date that the opposition brief is being submitted on
that? Are they briefing or are we resting on argument? I understand that your honor expressed a
tentative, and I wanted to make sure we're clear as to whats happening with Dr. Metzger.
Judge. On Metzger, yes, I did issue a tentative that said you will be allowed to present Metzger
through video; and then at the conclusion of your case, allow the plaintiffs to reopen their case
and present Metzger -- I guess you want to present it live, right? So I was going to allow them to
reopen their case in chief for that purpose.

Ms. Cahan. If there's a basis for additional testimony at that point, I assume.
Judge. Im assuming there is. Theyre representing there is. I mean, Im assuming there is.
Ms. Cahan. Okay.
Judge. And then -- and then if you had anything you wanted to present, you would have the
opportunity -- I would allow you to reopen, because I don't know if there's something that
they're going to present that you may want to respond to, and then we'll go into rebuttal.
Ms. Cahan. So we're deferring the reopening part for now, but we did file on Monday the
designations and counters, the full chart. So it's our understanding that your honor is going to
start working on that chart to issue rulings. We'll do the deposition, and then whatever happens
after will happen in the course of after defendants witnesses are done.
Judge. So plaintiffs, you did do your objections and counter designations?
Ms. Cahan. The full chart was submitted Monday.
Judge. Yes, I can work on that. But thats kind of how I saw it.
Ms. Cahan. That's fine. Since I wasn't here, I want to make sure it was clear and your honor
knew we filed the chart Monday with everything in it.
Ms. Bina. And Mr. Panish, from what I recall, stated something that he wasn't sure they would
file an opposition or not given that he might be able to deal with the court's tentative; but I don't
know if he or you guys made a final decision on that.
Mr. Boyle. Not that he told me.

Judge. The only other thing I suppose he could ask for is to reopen in your case, and Im not
inclined to do that. I think they should be allowed to present their case fully, and then he can
reopen.
Ms. Cahan. Thank you, your honor. We'll see you tomorrow at 1:30 on Van Valin, if necessary.
Judge. So the most I can do -- I do have a doctors appointment at about 3:00 o'clock. It's close
to downtown. So from 1:30 to like 2:30.
Ms. Cahan. That should be plenty for Dr. Van Valin.
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, I also have some stuff I wanted to do on one of our few days off here
tomorrow. If there's any super rush to get these rulings -- we have a two-day week next week, as
well. It seems like we could fit this argument in some other time if youve got a doctor's
appointment, too.
Ms. Cahan. I think this is very easy to do in under an hour. I would expect if we were able to
confer --
Judge. What is it you had to do?
Mr. Boyle. Just general life.
Judge. Tell me about it.
Ms. Cahan. Ive given up on that, your honor; so Im happy to be here at 1:30 tomorrow. We
did just not want to take time away from the jury. If Friday would be better, let's --
Mr. Boyle. Some days we finish early --
Judge. Friday?

Mr. Boyle. Id rather do it tomorrow than Friday.

Judge. Okay. Tomorrow. What would you rather do?
Mr. Boyle. How about Tuesday?
Ms. Cahan. No. Tuesday -- your honor, my preference would be -- we're not starting until
10:00 a.m. On Tuesday, so I don't want to take time away from the jury. I think it will be a full
day.
Judge. I agree. Let's do it tomorrow or Friday. Your choice is tomorrow or Friday.
Ms. Cahan. It will give you an incentive to negotiate with me tonight.
Mr. Boyle. Id rather do it tomorrow, if thats okay.
Judge. Tomorrow at 1:30.
(Proceedings adjourned to Thursday, august 22, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.)