P. 1
Katherine Jackson V AEG Live TRANSCRIPTS August 20th 2013 Rhoma Young(HR Expert)

Katherine Jackson V AEG Live TRANSCRIPTS August 20th 2013 Rhoma Young(HR Expert)

|Views: 449|Likes:
Published by TeamMichael
No Jackson family members are in court today. We got a late start with testimony due to attorney arguments.

The judge laid out a schedule on when certain motions will be argued in the next couple weeks. Katherine Jackson wants to amend her lawsuit.

AEG Live is seeking a dismissal of the case, claiming the plaintiffs haven’t shown enough evidence to send the case to the jury.

AEG's motion won't be heard until Sept. 5 so that all the lawyers who need to argue it can be present.

Rhoma Young testified for about an hour this morning. She was questioned by AEG Live attorney Jessica Stebbins Bina.

She has testified in detail about the differences between an employee and an independent contractor. She has been a consultant for 30+ years

Young has consulted on HR issues with the U.S. government and large tech companies including Facebook, Microsoft and healthcare companies. She also worked with small organizations with less than 100 employees.

In the music industry, Young said she worked with the Symphony, Ballet and Opera in the Bay area.

Young said she looks at the whole policy and procedures, all documents and how the company operates.

Young explained part of her job is to help the organization to develop a plan to perhaps be more consistent with the written word.

She also does investigations and has helped companies hiring employees. Young said an employee is an individual hired by a company.

General there's a defined way to find the employees, the screen process, layers of screen to determine who's more qualified and who is not.

When you're hired there's a supervisor, job title, set of expectation, training, how they are paid, employee benefits, insurance, Young said

Young reviewed an extensive list of documents in this case. She's worked in this case close to 200 hours.

Her hourly rate for research is $350 per hour and $450 and hour for testimony and deposition.

Young said her bill is close to $70,000 as recent as yesterday. In court, she said she testified 95 times, or maybe more.

She said she tried to testify half and half for plaintiffs and defendants and has refused work when the balance is off.

"I'm not an advocate," Young said. "Because I testify for both sides, I can't contradict myself. My reputation is about being balanced."

Employees, Young told the jury, typically apply for jobs, have supervisors, are entitled to some benefits and have a pay range.

Young described her extensive background in the business, the different places she has worked and education.

Young explained there's are different levels of human resources. One aims for perfection and the basic, which includes reasonable practices.

In the world of HR, there are certain basics that are covered in workshops, since there always is confusion.

One is issue between exempt and non-exempt, independent contractor and employee, Young testified.

Application process is the initial screening process of a potential employee, Young said, if person meets the basic qualification.

Young said there could be several interviews and done by different ways, like by one person or group of individuals.

Young explained independent contractors are usually sourced through different method and different way.

The expert said you can get personal referral or look for professional organizations to find independent contractors. There's no application

Young testify for independent contractors you talk about price, timing, scheduling, license and there's contract prior to beginning of work.

In order to obtain a medical license, Young said the doctor submits to a fingerprint scan, which goes thru Department of Justice.
No Jackson family members are in court today. We got a late start with testimony due to attorney arguments.

The judge laid out a schedule on when certain motions will be argued in the next couple weeks. Katherine Jackson wants to amend her lawsuit.

AEG Live is seeking a dismissal of the case, claiming the plaintiffs haven’t shown enough evidence to send the case to the jury.

AEG's motion won't be heard until Sept. 5 so that all the lawyers who need to argue it can be present.

Rhoma Young testified for about an hour this morning. She was questioned by AEG Live attorney Jessica Stebbins Bina.

She has testified in detail about the differences between an employee and an independent contractor. She has been a consultant for 30+ years

Young has consulted on HR issues with the U.S. government and large tech companies including Facebook, Microsoft and healthcare companies. She also worked with small organizations with less than 100 employees.

In the music industry, Young said she worked with the Symphony, Ballet and Opera in the Bay area.

Young said she looks at the whole policy and procedures, all documents and how the company operates.

Young explained part of her job is to help the organization to develop a plan to perhaps be more consistent with the written word.

She also does investigations and has helped companies hiring employees. Young said an employee is an individual hired by a company.

General there's a defined way to find the employees, the screen process, layers of screen to determine who's more qualified and who is not.

When you're hired there's a supervisor, job title, set of expectation, training, how they are paid, employee benefits, insurance, Young said

Young reviewed an extensive list of documents in this case. She's worked in this case close to 200 hours.

Her hourly rate for research is $350 per hour and $450 and hour for testimony and deposition.

Young said her bill is close to $70,000 as recent as yesterday. In court, she said she testified 95 times, or maybe more.

She said she tried to testify half and half for plaintiffs and defendants and has refused work when the balance is off.

"I'm not an advocate," Young said. "Because I testify for both sides, I can't contradict myself. My reputation is about being balanced."

Employees, Young told the jury, typically apply for jobs, have supervisors, are entitled to some benefits and have a pay range.

Young described her extensive background in the business, the different places she has worked and education.

Young explained there's are different levels of human resources. One aims for perfection and the basic, which includes reasonable practices.

In the world of HR, there are certain basics that are covered in workshops, since there always is confusion.

One is issue between exempt and non-exempt, independent contractor and employee, Young testified.

Application process is the initial screening process of a potential employee, Young said, if person meets the basic qualification.

Young said there could be several interviews and done by different ways, like by one person or group of individuals.

Young explained independent contractors are usually sourced through different method and different way.

The expert said you can get personal referral or look for professional organizations to find independent contractors. There's no application

Young testify for independent contractors you talk about price, timing, scheduling, license and there's contract prior to beginning of work.

In order to obtain a medical license, Young said the doctor submits to a fingerprint scan, which goes thru Department of Justice.

More info:

Published by: TeamMichael on Aug 28, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
See more
See less



Roma Young(HR)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury :)
Judge. Thank you. We have jurors missing. I guess there has been a roadblock.
Mr. Panish. Yeah, there was some I was wondering what was going on. It seemed like the
lights were working, but officers were directing traffic.
Mr. Putnam. They are setting up the Disney center for some major event, so all the streets are
shut off.
Judge. It's going to take some time but that gives us time to do what we need to do. I think one
of the issues we didn't address last night was the Shimelman testimony. There may be some other
issues, too, but that's the forefront in my mind.

Ms. Chang. Are we doing Shimelman first, then?
Judge. Unless there is something you'd rather address in a different order.
Ms. Chang. I want to address scheduling certain issues and the Metzger issue and some of the
Judge. Metzger first?
Ms. Cahan. Did the court see the brief?
Judge. No.
Ms. Cahan. Defendants put in a brief on that. I'd ask that it would probably make sense to defer
that until your honor has had a chance to read it.
Judge. Do you want to tell me what it is?
Ms. Chang. Can I just address certain things on scheduling?
Judge. Okay. Scheduling.
Ms. Chang. I want to start with the easy and then maybe go then with the more disputed. I just
wanted, while I'm here today, because I'm not here every day. Plaintiffs did file a reply to the
opposition to the motion our motion for leave to amend the complaint.
Judge. Yes.
Ms. Chang. I would suggest, your honor, that we set the hearing date for that first before the
defendants' motion for nonsuit be heard. The other thing I wanted to let the court just to see if it

was all right with court and parties, if we could have our opposition to defendants' motion for
nonsuit filed by September 3rd. I looked at the calendar on that. The only thing I mentioned to
Mr. Panish today is I know Cala is that weekend in Las Vegas. Maybe we should switch it to the
4th. I mean, if that's okay. If that's sufficient, then we can set that.
Judge. Motion to amend, then motion for nonsuit.
Ms. Chang. Yes, that's my suggestion. And then, if I could file the opposition by the week of
September 3rd.
Judge. Opposition to the motion for
Ms. Chang. For nonsuit, yes.
Judge. By which date?
Ms. Chang. September 3rd the 4th because of cala but if your honor insists on the 3rd...
Judge. That's a long time.
Mr. Putnam. As it was, we were so terribly delayed in our ability to even file the nonsuit
because they kept refusing to rest their case. We kept waiting, waiting and waiting until we
finally could find the authority to show that they have little understanding with the lack of filing
when they did. The idea of waiting an additional month for a. Nonsuit motion from the time of
filing makes no sense to me whatsoever. The whole idea of nonsuit is that they haven't put forth
the evidence necessary to prove their case. The idea of giving them an additional month, a month
from the time of filing, doesn't make any sense to me. I'd ask it be done in a shorter measure,
because I think it is important, your honor, to realize exactly who defendants are going to be as
we come into the end of suit. If we can have that sooner, I'd appreciate it. Particularly in light of
the fact that we have so many dark days between now and then, that's all the more reason we can
get the briefing in in time. And also, to be frank, if we're going to have argument on that, have
the argument as soon as possible. I was going to proffer that in light of the fact we have Thursday
and Friday as well as next Monday, if we were to have argument on any of those things, we do it
in that time period.

Ms. Chang. Your honor, assign me a date, and we'll have it done. I proposed mine. Mr. Putnam
objected. I'll defer to whatever you tell us. It shall be done.
Judge. September 4th is a little late.
Ms. Chang. Whatever you tell us.
Judge. What is your suggestion for a date?
Mr. Putnam. Sooner the better, your honor. I'd love if we can get the argument in, so we can get
this done. For example, right now we have the 29th, the afternoon of the 29th available. If we
can have argument then, that way they could have the brief in on Monday.
Mr. Panish. 29th afternoon I'm not going to be here. I'm leaving at noon.
Ms. Chang. He has to go to Vermont.
Mr. Panish. Actually not Vermont. We can do it on the next week is fine.
Mr. Putnam. Today is the 20th, your honor. If they got their papers in on Friday, we can have
the argument in on Monday.
Ms. Chang. Your honor, I don't think that's even possible.
Mr. Panish. I won't be here Monday anyway.
Judge. Ms. Chang are you handling it?
Ms. Chang. Yes.

Mr. Panish. I'd like to be here.
Ms. Chang. I'm sorry. I'm handling the briefing. Mr. Panish
Mr. Panish. I have been here every day in trial.
Ms. Chang. Mr. Panish will probably do the argument.
Mr. Panish. Do it on the 27th.
Ms. Bina. If they can't by Friday, Monday?
Judge. You think you can get your brief in by the 26th then there is no trial at all by the end of
the day.
Ms. Bina. There is a number of dark days between now and then.
Mr. Putnam. Three dark days between now and then, your honor.
Ms. Chang. Can we compromise and say the 27th?
Judge. Well, when will we hear the motion?
Ms. Chang. If you set the date.
Mr. Panish. The 3rd or 4th would be okay.
Judge. I was thinking more the 29th or 30th.
Mr. Panish. I'm leaving town on the 29th at noon.

Ms. Bina. What about the morning of the 29th? Will you be here then?
Judge. It says half day, a.m. only.
Mr. Putnam. Here is my concern, your honor. I'm happy to do it. Since we've been given this
thing that we've been talking about, where we have two days a week to fit in all the witnesses, I'd
love it if we could somehow do it on the days when the witnesses aren't here. If we can't, then
obviously if we can do it a time before the jury comes in, then I guess we can do it at that
measure. As it is, it's so difficult to be able to defend this case with two days a week, and I'm
trying. I'm trying hard. So, yeah, I agree with your honor. If we can have it next week, that would
be the ideal time. If they can't have the argument until the 29th as they are saying what time is
your flight, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish. Two o'clock. We can do it on the 28th is fine.
Mr. Putnam. We have witnesses. That's one of our two days.
Judge. I don't want to take away.
Mr. Putnam. I agree your honor.
Ms. Chang. The 5th is dark. Is that too late?
Judge. Mr. Panish, you're gone the 29th and 30th? Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Panish. And the 26th I'm coming back
Mr. Putnam. All the dates
Mr. Panish. Just those two dates.

Mr. Boyle. Would the court need time to do a tentative before the oral argument?
Ms. Chang. And will defendants need time to do a reply?
Judge. Are you going to want to reply? They are filing their opposition by august 26th.
Ms. Chang. I beg for the 27th. But the 26th, that's fine.
Judge. End of the day on the 26th. There is no trial on that date.
Ms. Chang. That's fine.
Mr. Putnam. We can do a reply in two days.
Mr. Panish. I didn't hear that.
Ms. Chang. They could do a reply in two days.
Judge. 28th for reply.
Mr. Panish. Can we do it on the 3rd or the 5th? We can do it on the 5th.
Judge. We could have the argument on the 5th, I guess, if you want to I mean, that would give
me time to write something.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
Ms. Chang. Argument on 9/5.

Judge. See what I'm saying? That will give me time.
Mr. Putnam. If that's the case, your honor, then I'll take the 30th on the reply.
Judge. What?
Mr. Putnam. Take the 30th on the reply.
Ms. Chang. May I have the 27th then?
Judge. Well, you already have their motion. You've had their motion for a while.
Ms. Chang. All right. I thought if everyone was getting another day then
Judge. You've had their motion for a while.
Mr. Putnam. The argument will be the 5th then, your honor?
Judge. Right.
Ms. Chang. May I suggest then, while Mr. Panish is gone, that we do the motion to amend the
complaint on the 29th or 30th?
Mr. Putnam. If we have time to do that, then I'd like to be able to do both that day. I don't see
any reason if we can have the argument on one, we should be able to have the argument on
Ms. Chang. One is our motion, and one is their motion. They are different motions.
Mr. Panish. Shouldn't the motion to amend be heard first?

Mr. Putnam. I think we can do amend on the same day. If we can hear argument on 29th or
30th, we should do both.
Judge. The motion to amend should procedurally go first. But the problem is Mr. Panish said he
wants to be present.
Mr. Panish. We'll do them both on the 5th then.
Judge. With the same briefing schedule?
Mr. Putnam. It's already briefed, your honor. It's done.
Judge. There was a reply just filed.
Ms. Bina. They filed a reply yesterday.
Ms. Chang. Mr. Panish does not have to be here for the motion to amend. He doesn't seem
happy about it, but we're telling him that.
Judge. You want that heard on the 29th?
Ms. Chang. Yes.
Mr. Putnam. That would be great. Afternoon?
Judge. Right. Motion to amend august 29, 1:30.
Ms. Chang. Then the opposition to nonsuit hearing about be 9/5 at what time?

Judge. Is that a full day free?
Mr. Putnam. Yes. It's a dark day, your honor.
Mr. Panish. 10:30?
Judge. I won't make you be here really early.
Mr. Panish. If you have calendar, how about 10:30?
Judge. 10:30.
Ms. Chang. And then, your honor, the I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Putnam. Did you have a
final thought on that? Is there a holiday?
Mr. Putnam. I was going to ask, since we're in this thing and it makes sense timing-wise, we
talked about the idea of whether or not we might be able to get the 6th back. You were going to
look into that.
Mr. Panish. I can't be here on the 6th.
Judge. September 6th?
Mr. Putnam. He can't do it. What about if we did video only that day?
Mr. Panish. Possible.
Ms. Bina. Because we're trying to advance the case obviously, your honor. Mr. Panish wouldn't
need to be here to cross-examine videotaped deposition. That way, we could get something done.
Judge. If that's the only holdup.

Ms. Bina. He could review the videos. There would be nothing he needed to respond to.
Mr. Putnam. I'm trying to fit stuff in, your honor, so we can finish.
Judge. The only thing is we'd have to run that by the jury.
Mr. Putnam. Exactly. That's why I'm asking it now, your honor. Mr. Panish wanted it off.
Judge. But what happens is they rely on the fact we're going to be dark.
Mr. Panish. If the jurors don't have anything and it's just going to be video, I think it would be
okay. If I have to come, I'll just, whatever.
Judge. Run it by the jurors.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, your honor.
Judge. Thank you.
Ms. Chang. Finally, your honor, before the jurors come in and while I am here, because I am
going to be leaving, I wanted to address the final issue of it's an issue that came up with the
plaintiff resting and dr. Metzger. I'm going to inform the court of the aspects that I am aware of,
and then I also know that there is a trial brief that we'd like to file an opposition to or at least our
same trial brief on this important issue. But, first, before I'm interrupted, if I can just get out my
position, and then I'll sit down and let Ms. Cahan speak.
Ms. Cahan. The court indicated that she wanted to deal with the Shimelman motion. I'm
concerned about losing time for that. Since there is going to be a brief put on, I don't know why
we need to talk about that.

Ms. Chang. I thought I was asked by the court to be here to address this issue. I'd just like to get
it on the record. Because the more
Mr. Panish. She was here yesterday for that.
Ms. Chang. I was. I think the more time that passes, the more prejudice that occurs to us. I'd like
to express my position of where we were, and I wasn't here when the plaintiffs rested.
Judge. Hold on. Are all the jurors here?
Clerk. Yes, your honor.
Judge. Let's get it out quick.
Ms. Chang. Then I will be here when your honor wants me to address the rest of this. Your
honor, my position is this. We had been scheduling, and I have been put in charge of trying to get
witnesses together and get everything together to answer the question to your honor when we
were resting. Part of it is confusion as procedurally as this happened. My understanding is that
we were waiting for Mr. Ortega to come back, and at your honor's direction, we were then going
to ask him questions that would give rise to get us to be able to call Karen Faye back. There is an
issue on text. Pursuant to this court's instructions, I then took this possession of Ms. Faye's
phone. It's been in a bag in a safe, not touched, pursuant to Ms. Cahan's request, waiting for their
expert, waiting for anybody who wanted to look at it. Then I thought there would be briefing that
we would do that. We've alerted them to the fact that we have it. 14844 at that point afterwards,
we were going to continue with I didn't know when we were going to do it, but I assumed we
were going to do Ortega, who finished on the 8th. Then we were going to call Karen Faye, and
we were always going to end, at least our case in chief before rebuttal, with Alan Metzger, who
we named not only as a witness but as a non-retained expert in this case. I didn't say he
disappeared, and I saw in her brief she acted like we've been trying to contact him. I've always
known where he was. He's been on vacation. He left the same week that Mr. Ortega came back
and finished. He is coming back, I believe, sometime either this week or the end of the week. I
think he's coming back this week, in fact.
I've been in touch with his office. And that is so I was surprised when I heard that the court said,
"you're going to rest" because my assumption was is that your honor knew that we were not done

yet because of the whole Karen Faye issue, that we were always going to bring her back to do the
prior inconsistent statement, deal with the issue of the text. I grabbed the phone. We had all these
behind the scenes in the chambers discussions. And then I had been in touch with Metzger
because that's how we were going to end it. When I heard that I think we were ordered to rest.
I'd like to move to reopen because I think we have the right to put our evidence on before they
have the right to put their evidence on. We've always tried to comply with the court's order on the
progression of what we're going to do.
We were all thrown a loop when Kenny Ortega left for the country he left the country to do a
job because that interrupted with what we were able to do with Karen Faye and everyone who
would flow afterwards. But, because we did alert the court and when they keep saying we didn't
raise that we were going to do Dr. Metzger, according to your honor's rule, we have 40 hours to
do that, and that 40 hours never came up yet. Whatever the hours is, 48 hours. So that never
came up. But we've never tried to be disingenuous or hide or do anything. I think the surprise is
on us.
Then when we get the designations, meanwhile we have two different teams, like, working on
things. I'm working on our case and our witnesses. Mr. Boyle is working on the designations.
They are having their own conversations. Then I just happened to raise with Mr. Boyle that, you
know, he's gone because he takes longer vacations because he's retired. Now I think that what we
have to do is find a. Way to I think there should not be prejudice to either side, but I do think
that the way that the trial progressed, due to circumstances beyond either parties' side, we had
one key witness who was kind of important to the remainder of the flow leave the country, and
then we had a plan with Karen Faye, that I thought was always very clear, and I was given, as
your honor knows, very strict instructions on what to do with Karen Faye’s phone so that their
expert could look at it to make sure it wasn't fabricated or manipulated. It's been sitting in a safe
in an evidence bag this whole time. We are they indicated, I think to Mr. Boyle, Debbie was
supposed to write a brief on that. Yeah, after the expert reviewed it. There is no reason to write a
brief until I know what the experts had to say. If their expert was going to say it was fraudulent,
I'd have an expert to counter that. We'd have declarations. We'd write the brief. So, therefore, I
believe that the prejudice to the plaintiffs in this case to be forced to rest when we're not done
and then to somehow call it a rebuttal, that's what gives us leads us into the issue of, in this brief
that we were just handed this morning, that I really haven't even read in its entirety, basically
standing for the proposition, from what I can glean, that they should be able to play Metzger, and
we're relegated to a very limited issue on rebuttal, and that he's possibly not even a good rebuttal
witness even then. In a way we've been, like, trapped beyond circumstances of our control to lose
one of our non-retained experts just because of the way the scheduling and their insistence on
"we've got to get our case forward" before everything was in an orderly progression. So I believe

there is great prejudice to us. If we're not allowed to put the witness on we wanted, I don't think
Judge. Okay. Let me hear from you.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, this is not how things happened. They rested subject to Kenny Ortega’s
testimony. They said they had to finish Mr. Ortega. They did raise the possibility of Ms. Faye's
text which I'll address in a minute. That was the only thing outstanding, your honor. They
finished their case for the witness they wanted to end it with which was the plaintiff. They never
mentioned they wanted to call Alan Metzger. If they wanted to do that, they should have done
that in their case in chief. There is no rule you get to hold back as many witnesses as you want,
and there is no basis for holding back Dr. Metzger per Kenny Ortega’s testimony. Nothing that
Dr. Metzger testifies has any relation to Kenny Ortega’s testimony. The idea they were secretly
holding him for months, never notified that they wanted to call, told this court and all of us
multiple times that they are just waiting on Mr. Ortega and possibly an impeachment issue
relating to him. This just doesn't pass the smell test. To deal with the issue of the text specifically,
your honor, Ms. Chang's memory is not accurate. Where we left off, your honor, there was
concerns about the authenticity of the text. There were also concerns they were flat out hearsay
to which there was no exception.
Judge. They were tweets.
Ms. Bina. Texts between Ms. Faye and her boyfriend, your honor. They were hearsay without
any exception. Where we left things was Ms. Chang saying "I'll brief them before we want to use
them." I said, "well, let's figure out whether there is a hearsay exception before we bother getting
them examined by an expert." if there is no hearsay exception, then there is no need to go
through all this rigamarole. I don't think there is a hearsay exception. Ms. Chang said she had a
case. I said, "you're going to brief this before we have to deal with it again?" she said, "yes." I'd
suggest that, if she wants to use the text, she bring her case, write the brief explaining why it's
not hearsay, and I respond to that. At that point, we can have a forensic examiner examine them,
if needed, since that is an expensive and time-consuming process. Again, that would be evidence
properly presented in rebuttal, if at all, because it's impeachment of a witness and has nothing to
do with Dr. Metzger. So I think these are apples and oranges. The issue of Ms. Faye and her text,
we don't need to take up now with more of the court's time. I'm prepared to argue on why all
these texts are inadmissible hearsay with no exception. I think that should be done before we go
through the expensive process of having them forensically analyzed because there is no need to

do that if they are inadmissible hearsay. I'd suggest that Ms. Chang write a brief on that, and I
respond on that, and Ms. Cahan can deal with the issue of Dr. Metzger.
Ms. Cahan. With respect to Dr. Metzger, your honor
Ms. Chang. Before we do that, I wanted to respond to one thing that Ms. Stebbins Bina said.
Your honor, when we were in chambers, they accused Ms. Faye of flat out fraud, and they said
they recreated a text over lunch on their own and gave me strict instructions on everything. Don't
plug it in. Don't do these things. At that point, because of the shockingness of that, there was
never a discussion of why don't you do that brief first before our expert can review it. It was
always "this is fraud. We'll prove it. We want that confiscated." that was the primary thing. We
never even had a discussion on briefs.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, she's misrepresenting
Ms. Chang. It is not hearsay. We'll have that brief. If we're going to address fraud, we need to
both inspect it. This woman wants her phone back. I've had it for weeks. As an officer of the
court, I told them, and I don't know what else we can do. We don't have we have to address all
the issues first.
Judge. Before we call an expert and spend all that money, I think we should find out whether it's
admissible or not. It makes sense to do it in that fashion.
Ms. Bina. She said it was an old phone she never used anymore. She had to figure out how to
turn the power back on. It was kept in a drawer.
Ms. Chang. All I'm saying is she has asked for it back. It's her property. I have not given it back
to her. I've kept it. I will do it.
Mr. Putnam. Ms. Chang, you raised
Judge. I don't want to spend any more time on the text messages. I think, Ms. Chang, what I'd
like you to do is a brief.

Ms. Chang. When would you like that, your honor?
Judge. In a week.
Ms. Chang. That would be the same day as the opposition to the motion.
Judge. I guess so.
Ms. Cahan. With respect to Dr. Metzger I don't want to spend a lot of time on this this is all in
the brief that I ask the court to read.
Judge. I will read it.
Ms. Cahan. The basic story on Dr. Metzger is not as Ms. Chang just represented it. He was
subpoenaed by defendants to appear at trial in late March, early April. I had a series of
communications with him where we agreed to an on-call agreement. He told me he would be
generally available in May and June. He told me he'd let me know if he was going to be
unavailable and otherwise would be called on 48 hours’ notice. He never said he wouldn't be
available. it came as complete shock to us yesterday to hear Mr. Boyle say "we've been looking
for him. He's been out of town. We always wanted to call him." we spoke to Mr. Metzger, and he
said he'd be available in 48 hours’ notice. He was around.
Judge. Is he available to you then to call live?
Ms. Cahan. We don't want to call him live. We can get him done in two hours if we play his
deposition. If he comes live, it will be days of testimony potentially.
Judge. I don't know why you don't want him live.
Ms. Cahan. We're trying to move efficiently, your honor, for a lot of this medical evidence. As
you've seen, we've been trying to pick the most relevant testimony from treating physicians and
move through it sufficiently because of the compressed schedule we're under. That's a decision

we're entitled to make under 2025.620(d) with respect to Dr. Metzger. That's what we did. Mr.
Boyle's representations to the court yesterday that he's retired, that he doesn't his representation
to me over the weekend that he no longer has a valid medical license and that Mr. Boyle found
all this out over the weekend is completely disingenuous. Mr. Boyle represented Dr. Wallace,
who was a Retained expert at his deposition back in march, and Dr. Wallace had shared office
space with Dr. Metzger for 30 years until he retired on January 1st which he said at his
deposition. So this isn't news to plaintiff that Dr. Metzger retired. They have known that for five
months. The fact is, if you just go to the California medical board website, it's clear he's validly
licensed. To us, this is all coming out of left field. There has never been any mention of wanting
to call Dr. Metzger, of him being a witness that they needed to call before they rested at any time.
He's certainly someone known. At least a dozen witnesses have testified about things that he did
and his medical care of Mr. Jackson, and we're now in our case. They have now rested even if it
was under protest, and we should be entitled to present the evidence that we think is appropriate
in the way that we think is most appropriate and efficient for our case, your honor. All this is
addressed in the brief.
Ms. Chang. Your honor, the reason why it has come out so skism like this and I'm going to let
Mr. Boyle express claims of disingenuous by himself the reason why on the one hand they are
doing their designation for a deposition, and on the other hand I'm saying "but we're calling him
live." I wasn't here, when any discussion took place about us resting, because I would have
screamed holly hat. When I heard about it, I took it out on Mr. Panish because I had been
working this whole time on getting our case to an orderly close. I believe in a case of this
significance, of this importance that both sides should be able to present the case they intended to
give. There is just too much at stake here. There has been too much invested in this. To have us
on one day when we are not all here, and I was always designated as
Judge. If you're allowed to call Metzger in your rebuttal, why would that not be sufficient?
Ms. Chang. Because we haven't closed our case. There are things
Judge. You've already rested. What if you were allowed to do it in rebuttal?
Ms. Chang. Rebuttal is more limited than in your case in chief.
Judge. Maybe, maybe not. Why can't the court allow a more expansive rebuttal? Is there

Mr. Boyle. There is no reason.
Ms. Chang. We'd like to reopen it.
Judge. Is there anything that prevents the court from allowing that kind of scope?
Ms. Chang. Your honor, I guess
Mr. Boyle. No. They say there is though. Defense says there is. I don't think there is but defense
says your honor, can I just I was called disingenuous. Can I explain that? I don't want to be
accused of misleading the court or Ms. Cahan. Yes, I was at the deposition of Dr. Wallace. He
was a very minor expert. Apparently he said in his deposition this is months and months ago
that Dr. Metzger was retired. In one ear, out the other. Didn't matter to me. Then we had issues
with other witnesses on when you can use deposition video for a doctor. It was stated that it
doesn't the person has to be a doctor, okay. So then we had a hearing on Friday. I was talking to
Ms. Chang on Saturday. She was talking about Dr. Metzger. I said I've been working on the
deposition designations. She said, "Well, he's retired." I said, "Well, under what the arguments
are, he can't be used." and then she told me that there was apparently some order that's out there
and I looked it up where Dr. Metzger is no longer going to have a medical license. So I didn't
mean I didn't go look on the medical board site. I just was told it. That's why I said, "Look,
maybe you can't even play this video." that issue is only about whether they can play the video.
That has nothing to do with the broader issue we're talking about now. I did not intend to mislead
Ms. Cahan or the court. I'm sorry I forgot about what Dr. Wallace said. It didn't have any
meaning to me at the time. Dr. Metzger's retirement had no meaning to me at the time until after
Ms. Chang. Your honor, so we don't take up any more of the court's time, what I will say is I will
add a third brief to my assignment. I will respond to this Metzger brief, and I will put in the case
law that I believe is important with respect to the plaintiffs' right to choose when to close their
case or to reopen it. I will bring the appropriate motions. I won't take up any more court time. I
wanted your honor to know the procedural aspect of where we came from and our strong belief.
Until this is resolved, we do not want Metzger’s videotape to the played, but I will address it in
the brief.

Judge. I don't know why what I don't understand is why can't they play their video, and then
why can't you call him in rebuttal and play whatever you want? I don't know if the court is
limited in its discretion.
Mr. Panish. Because they object to that.
Judge. They may object, but there may be some discretion. There may be. I don't know. You're
going to brief that.
Ms. Chang. Of course
Judge. Or I could allow you to reopen at that point.
Mr. Panish. That's what we want to do.
Judge. At that point
Ms. Cahan. Whether your honor has discretion about reopening the case and rebuttal, we'd just
ask that given this four-month history of not a peep about Dr. Metzger, the fact we've done
designations, they have done counters, and we don't want to spend two days on this during our
case. We don't want to interrupt the flow of witnesses that we've planned and scheduled in order
for him to come live. If your honor is inclined to allow him to testify live, that we get to do what
we want with the video. Then, if there is anything needs to be cleaned up, we can come live after
we're presenting our evidence. Whether that's called reopening their case or rebuttal
Ms. Chang. Your honor, we have followed every rule. He's been disclosed as a witness. He's
been disclosed as a non-retained expert. We've followed the 48-hour rule. We have not cheated.
We have not acted in secrecy. I think what we're going to do is address everything in their belief.
We will bring the appropriate motions. I think your honor and all the parties here want each side
to be able to present their case. We've gone too far to go back now. That's the best we can do at
this point.
Mr. Panish. Can I ask a question? I've been sitting here listening. It sounds to me like what
you're saying is that they can play Dr. Metzger, that the court would be inclined to allow plaintiff

to reopen to call Dr. Metzger. It looked like, based on what you were saying, would be whenever
they play Metzger, then after. So we'd move to reopen
Ms. Chang. We're briefing it, and we will file the appropriate motion.
Mr. Panish. I'd orally move to reopen the case for purposes of that specifically to call Dr.
Judge. Either that or brief whether the court has discretion in rebuttal to allow more a
comprehensive I mean, either way.
Ms. Cahan. It's in our brief.
Mr. Putnam. We already did.
Mr. Panish. I'd rather reopen and do it that way.
Judge. If there is authority for that.
Ms. Chang. We'll file the appropriate brief. I think there is authority that allows the court to do
that, too.
Judge. To allow a party to reopen once they have closed.
Ms. Bina. The court does have discretion, your honor. We ask they've repeatedly said it was Mr.
Ortega they were waiting for. Obviously, the court has discretion to allow them to call Dr.
Metzger. Defendants have the right to know what evidence we're responding to and to not have
our case interrupted in the middle. If the court is inclined to reopen, we'd ask it be done at the
end of defendants' case, not in the middle of it because of our witnesses and other issues.
Judge. You mean wait until rebuttal.

Mr. Panish. Under that analysis, you could never reopen your case.
Judge. That's not true. You can reopen at any time.
Ms. Chang. Let's brief it.
Mr. Panish. Let's go to the witness.
Ms. Chang. Let's brief it and follow up, and we'll do all that.
Ms. Cahan. I assume we'll get to Dr. Shimelman so we can call the jury.
Mr. Putnam. If Mr. Panish doesn't mind, maybe we can address that issue on the afternoon
sometime on Thursday.
Judge. Thursday is that a date
Mr. Putnam. We have nothing on Thursday.
Judge. I don't think we needed to wait that long.
Mr. Putnam. I was trying to help
Mr. Boyle. I don't think Shimelman will can take long. Maybe we can do it after the jury is done
for the day.
Mr. Panish. Let me ask this. This witness, how long is this witness going to be?
Ms. Bina. I'm going to be a couple hours with her max. I don't think it's going to be terribly long.

Mr. Panish. So at some time in the next two days, the witness will be done, right?
Ms. Bina. I'd hope so.
Judge. Who is the witness?
Ms. Bina. Rhoma Young, expert in HR.
Mr. Panish. I don't see how if she's got two hours, I don't see it will be today.
Ms. Bina. It's not that long.
Judge. Maybe tomorrow.
Mr. Panish. We just do it after her tomorrow. that's fine.
Mr. Putnam. Okay.
Mr. Boyle. I don't think it will take long.
Judge. The earliest this afternoon. Mr. Boyle, are you the one responsible for the Shimelman
Mr. Boyle. Yes.
Judge. Just to make sure I know which lawyer is here.
Ms. Cahan. And it's me on our side, your honor. I'll stick around if there is an opportunity.
Mr. Panish. I don't think we're going to do it before the end of the day.

Judge. I know. I want to make sure
Mr. Panish. No, in terms of Ms. Cahan.
Ms. Cahan. It's okay.
Mr. Panish. She mentioned she was going to leave.
Ms. Cahan. I'll come back this afternoon in case we have a little bit of time.
Judge. Thank you.
Ms. Chang. May I be excused?
Judge. Yes.
(the following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury:)
Judge. Good morning, everybody. I understand there was some bad traffic, hard getting in. So
I'm sorry about that. It happens sometimes. I think we're ready to call another defense witness.

Rhoma Young(Human Resources Expert)
Ms. Bina. Yes, your honor. Call Rhoma young.
Judge. Ms. Young, if you'd face the clerk.
Rhoma young, called as a witness by the defense, was sworn and testified as follows:
Clerk. Do you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before
this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?
A. I do.

Clerk. Thank you, ma'am. You may have a seat. Ma'am, please state and spell your first and last
name for the record.
A. My name is Rhoma, r-h-o-m-a, young, y-o-u-n-g. Is that audibly
Ms. Bina. I think if you can keep the microphone on that pad
A. Is that okay?
Judge. I'd move it closer, all the way to the end. There you go. That's better.
Clerk. Thank you.
Direct examination by Ms. Bina:
Q. Good morning, Ms. Young.
A. Good morning.
Q. You're here to testify as an expert witness in this case, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what is your field? What type of work do you do?
A. Human resources consultant.
Q. And are you also a licensed private investigator?
A. I am, in California.

Q. Can you tell us, well, what you were asked to do in connection with this case?
A. I was asked to look at the policies and practices, procedures of AEG live to deal with both
14862 employees, independent contractors, to see whether they were consistent with suggested
management practices, which is kind of an HR basics guideline, and then to look at what
occurred in this case to see where there were where it came together and where it didn't come
together. What was consistent, and what was not consistent.
Q. Is the area of human resources including retention of independent contractors and the subject
of background checks and other work-related investigation something you're familiar with?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Let's talk a little bit about your background. How long have you been in the field of human
A. Going on 40 years.
Q. And where do you currently work?
A. I currently have my own consulting firm in the bay area, Rhoma Young and associates. I've
had it for 30 years.
Q. What's your title or position with Rhoma Young and associates?
A. It can be managing consultant, managing partner. You know, however you want to
characterize it.
Q. It's your company?
A. Basically just use management consultant.

Q. And can you tell us generally the types of clients that you work with as a management
consultant or as an a consultant in the field of human resources?
A. It really runs the entire span large, small, private, public, nonprofit, government, union
organized, not union organized. I thing that kind of cuts all kinds of industries.
Q. Can you just give us the names of some of the companies that you worked with as an
illustrative sort of list?
A. In the bay area, tech is a big issue. I've worked with Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, linked in. I've
also done a lot of work in health care. I've worked with Roche, Sutter health, US. Med. Centers,
private hospitals, catholic health care west which is now dignity, multi-hospital organizations,
Kaiser. I've worked with chevron and also worked with a lot of small organizations sometimes
having, you know, less than 100 employees that have the same issues that big companies do
interestingly enough. They just don't have a resident HR person.
Q. What about the music performing arts industry? Have you ever had clients in those
A. I have.
Q. Pop stars or something else?
A. I don't know what you'd called opera singers pop stars, though some kind of get close. I've
done some work more with the symphonies, the ballet, and the opera in the bay area. That's kind
of the music affiliation.
Q. I know that many times the nature of your 14864 work is such that it can't be disclosed what
you did for a specific client. Can you tell us generally what kind of work you do in the 30 years
you've done this I guess the 20 years you've had your own company?
A. 30.

Q. I had it right the first time. 30 years you've had your own company consulting in HR issues?
A. It really runs a broad gamut. It starts I've done special recruiting projects for clients. I've done
what they call search which means you actually act as the person who goes out and finds people
and helps the company select them and go through the hiring process. I've done performance
management issues which in the HR rubric is dealing with performance problems in helping try
to correct them, sitting in that third chair between a manager and employee when there is an
issue that doesn't seem to be getting resolved. I've helped organizations, go through work force
reductions, work force restructurings trying to make sure it was done in the most sane, dignified
way possible. I've done affirmative action plans for employers. I've done one of the major
things I did was audits. I'm still doing it. It's really looking at the whole policies and procedures.
It's starting with looking at their basic paperwork, their employee handbook, employment
application, basic documents that really tell you kind of where the organization is in terms of
levels of sophistication, how they operate. You look at certain policies, for example, the
harassment policy, how they deal with disability issues, whether they are or are not a federal
contractor. Overtime, you look at wage and hour issues. We also interview managers and
employees as part of that to make sure because we look at what's written. Then we look at
what's actually happening. Then we look at what managers and employees perceive as happening
or not happening and help the organization to develop a plan to move things forward to perhaps
be more consistent between the printed word and what they are actually doing, or the printed
word and what should be there.
Q. So
A. I also do investigations, employee complaints of discrimination, harassment, being treated
differently than others, perceived discrimination and try and reach a reasoned conclusion after
doing it, you know, a. Thorough investigation.
Q. So it sounds like it really runs the gamut of pretty much every HR issue. Is that a fair way of
putting it?
A. It does. There are two areas in which I'm not a technical expert but certainly quite familiar and
that has to do with employee benefits and employee compensation.
Q. And otherwise it's all within your area of 14866 expertise?

A. Yes.
Q. And I think you said in there, as an HR consultant over the years, have you been involved
with helping companies hire employees?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you also been involved with helping companies retain independent contractors?
A. I have.
Q. Now are those the same thing, employees and independent contractors?
A. No.
Q. Can you give me a working human resources definition of what an employee is, just very
Mr. Panish. Your honor, is this a legal definition?
Judge. Hr definition, I'm assuming.
Ms. Bina. That's what I asked.
Mr. Panish. As long as it's not legal.
A. In fact, I won't be giving any legal opinions. I'm not a lawyer. I don't do that.

Q. I'm only asking for your working definition as an HR consultant and expert in the field of
human resources.
A. Now I forget your question.
Q. I sound like a frog, so no wonder. I asked you for a working HR definition of what an
employee is, just very briefly.
A. An employee is an individual that is hired by a company. Generally, there is a very defined
process that a company uses to both locate an employee. They'll do advertising. They'll do
recruiting, sometimes internet, posting of a job on certain web sites. And then an employee or
potential employee will respond to that. Then they begin a screening process that generally
involves layers of screening, trying to find who is not qualified, who is possibly qualified, and
then narrowing it down to a group of people who are more qualified. An employee is a person
who then goes to work for the company and they have they usually have something like a job
description depending on the size and sophistication of the organization. When they are hired,
there are certain agreed upon duties that are going to be expected to be performed. An employee
will generally have a supervisor. They'll have a job title. They'll have a specific set of
expectations that will be given to them. They may need some training either immediately or in
the longer term. They are going to have a supervisor, a manager who is going to be working with
them pretty much on a very frequent basis to help them grow and also to make sure that the work
performed is what was planned and talked about, that the communication was clear, if there
needs to be some tweaking in those things, that gets done. How they are paid. They are given
employee benefits that everyone else in the company receives vacation. Health care coverage is
usually an included part of that. They are going to be covered by certain insurances like worker's
comp, unemployment insurance, disability insurance. And whatever that employee employer
gives to one employee, they generally give to all employees.
Q. I thought I didn't ask for the long definition.
A. Sorry about that. It's basically the relationship between employees and well, that's what an
employee is.
Q. Give us a working definition of what an independent contractor is.

A. An independent contractor, first of all, is not an employee. They are a person generally
designated for a short defined period of time. Most often, there is some kind of written
confirmation of what they are going to do. There is a defined scope of work. They generally have
expertise that is not usual or available in the employer community, employee community. They
work independently. They don't have a supervisor. They don't have they have the scope of work
that is agreed upon, and they are generally sourced differently than an employee would be.
Q. We'll talk more about the sourcing in a minute.
A. Okay. But the ongoing nature of what they do, they operate pretty much on their own. They
are their own supervisor. They are retained to get a specific project done. As I said, beginning
and an end.
Mr. Boyle. Objection, your honor. Move to strike the portion where she said that IC's are their
own supervisor. That misstates the law, and there can be supervisors of independent contractors.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, she's talking about a working HR definition in her experience. I think it
was fair and within the scope of her expertise. She says she's not giving legal opinions.
Judge. Overruled. The answer will stand.
Q. In your experience, are independent contractors generally supervised the same way that
employees are?
A. In my experience, they are not.
Q. Now can you give us some examples of kinds of jobs where independent contractors may be
more common that we might be familiar with here?
A. Architects, often times landscape designers, beauticians, hairstylists, financial advisors,
lawyers, a lot of construction trades have independent contractors to do certain parts of a job.
Often times electricians, for example, might be an independent contractor versus working for an
electrician firm.

Q. What about you?
A. And then there are consultants.
Q. So are you an employee of my firm O’Melveny and Myers?
A. No.
Q. Are you an independent contractor who is working with us on this case?
A. I am.
Q. Do you have a signed written agreement with my firm covering your services?
A. I do.
Q. Let's talk a little bit about what it means for you working as an independent contractor for my
firm in this case. Does my firm pay your employee benefits?
A. No. I wish.
Q. Setting up retirement for you?
A. Again, wishful thinking. No.
Q. What about taxes? Does the firm withhold taxes from your paycheck or is that something
you're responsible for doing as Rhoma Young and associates?

Mr. Panish. Object. This is getting into legal distinctions between employees and independent
contractors. The court has already made a decision in this case in that area. She's now getting
into areas that are not relevant and that are legal determinations as to how you determine the
status of an employee.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, this is their third speaking objection trying to convey a message to the
jury as opposed to just an objection. I asked they just object if they are going to.
Judge. Objection is overruled. You may continue.
Q. So you were saying about taxes.
A. I pay my own.
Q. Do you have an office at my firm?
A. No.
Q. What about your accommodations? Do we pay is my firm paying for your travel down here?
A. They are.
Q. And your hotel?
A. Yes.
Q. Do we pay for your house where you live?
A. No. Again, wishful thinking.
Q. All right. What about your services in this case? Do I get to tell you how to be an HR expert?

A. No, you don't. You can try.
Q. If I did, what would you tell me?
A. I would say that I really have to do that independently. That's my profession, my job, my area
of knowledge, my training.
Q. So, Ms. Young, who is telling you how to provide your services in this case?
A. I'm really supervising and managing myself in that process. I was given an outline of the areas
in which you had an interest in me doing research and reaching an opinion, but that's about as far
as that went.
Q. Let's talk about for a moment what you've done to prepare for your testimony today. You
mentioned that I had given you some topics and where you and you did some research. Have
you reviewed any materials about human resource policies or independent contractors to prepare
A. You mean help me understand how broad or how narrow you're being.
Q. Let's talk specifically to this case. Have you reviewed any documents in this case?
A. I have.
Q. And do you recall offhand what you reviewed?
A. I've got a list here that is pretty comprehensive about what I've reviewed. I've reviewed
depositions. I can give you the names if you'd like.
Q. Let's go by topic first. You reviewed depositions. Have you reviewed the draft independent
contract agreement between AEG live and dr. Murray?

A. Yes.
Q. What about trial testimony?
A. I've also reviewed trial testimony.
Q. Do you recall who's trial testimony you've reviewed?
A. I do. If I can
Q. You sure can.
A. Prince Jackson, Kathy Jorrie, Matheson, Brandon Phillips, Paul Gongaware, Jean Seawright,
Shawn Trell, Mr. Green, Kai
Q. Chase?
A. Kai Chase. I'm realizing oh, David Berman, detective Martinez I'm sorry, these were not
all in one place.
Q. Take your time.
A. I think that's it in terms of the trial testimony that I've reviewed.
Q. In terms of testimony you've reviewed, did we just pick out what you should review, or did
you ask us for specific things?
A. I think it was a combination of the two. First of all, I wanted to review the trial testimony of
people who were possibly talking about areas upon that might impinge upon the human
resource policy practice area, so I asked for some. There were some people whose depositions I

had reviewed that it made sense for me to then follow up with their trial testimony to see if there
was additional information.
Q. Now you also mentioned that you reviewed that you did some independent research. What
did you do research-wise to prepare for this case?
A. When things were mentioned, for example, by Ms. Seawright, who was their HR expert and
she raised opinions, I had responses immediately, but then I also went back to verify and did
particular research to just make sure that I was as accurate as I thought or was trying to be in my
responses. Things like the definition of supervisor, the job description of a physician, looking at
safety sensitive jobs, that kind of thing. I also did what I would call an informal survey, if you
will. Is 14874 that
Q. An informal survey on what?
A. On what practices employers had in retaining, finding independent contractors. I knew that I
had my research. I knew that I had worked with this with SHRM, which is the society for human
resource management, very large HR organization, and it's the key HR organization. It's got 200-
some thousand members. I've been a very active participant in that. They are the one
organization I think even Seawright indicated that does surveys among their members and
does research in certain areas. So their website is invaluable for those of us who are research
Q. Let me stop you there for a moment. Have you ever been involved in SHRM's legislative
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And in what context?
A. SHRM, which is headquartered in the Washington DC. Area, has committees or used to have
committees they have changed the structure and wording now on certain areas like specialty
areas within human resources. But one of the areas that kind of covered many different HR areas,
topical areas is the legislative one, and it's to try and help SHRM merely isn't a lobby group.

They don't have a lot of money to contribute to legislators. We're not the classic lobbyists but
also try 14875 to work with legislators and legislative staff both at the national and local level
told help them be aware of the impact of pending legislation on human resources. Sometimes
they get a bright idea that wouldn't this be fun to do, but they don't realize what impact that may
have on an employer from a processing point of view, record keeping point of view, do-ability
point of view. That's what the legislative committee worked on a lot, both on proposed
legislation, regulations that might be issued by various governing agencies, by re-do's of areas
that were already covered by legislation.
Q. In connection with your work for SHRM, have you ever testified before the United States
A. I have.
Q. Was that on human resources-related issues?
A. It was.
Q. In addition to SHRM, what other professional organizations have you been involved with?
A. There is a local when I say "local," I mean northern California chapter called the northern
California human resources association, and I've been a member for 30 years.
Q. Have you ever advised any US. Government organizations on human resources issues?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me about that.
A. Periodically, various organizations from primarily I've worked more with the department of
labor 14876 and the equal employment opportunities commission. When they are issuing
proposed regulations, they often call upon the employer community to respond, the workability,
again, the practical realities of implementing certain parts of that legislation. So giving feedback

from the employer community. Sometimes it's listened to; sometimes it's not. I've done that on
behalf of the American paper institute. I've done that on behalf of SHRM. I've done it as part of
the northern California human resources association because I also chaired their legislative
committee for a number of years.
Q. You mentioned a couple of governmental organizations including the bureau of labor and the
equal opportunities
A. Department of
Q. equal employment opportunity commission?
A. Department of labor.
Q. Department of labor. Sorry. Have you reviewed any materials published by any of those
organizations in connection with this case?
A. I did.
Q. And at this point, can you give me an estimate about how many hours you've spent preparing
for your testimony in this case between researching, reviewing materials, preparing for your
testimony, all in?
A. I think it's close to 200 hours.
Q. Is that all just you, or was that you and some of your colleagues?
A. It was me, and I also have an assistant who has done some of the if there needed to be a list
typed but not in terms of substantively.
Q. Are you being paid for your work in this case?

A. I am.
Q. At what rate?
A. I am being paid $350 an hour for the research part and paid $450 an hour to sit up here.
Q. And so
A. And for deposition.
Q. Do you know how much you've charged my firm to date for your services in this case?
A. I think it's close to $70,000. That's pretty recent. I mean, that's the last invoice that was done
was into august.
Q. If I said I saw an invoice yesterday that was 69,000-and-something, would that sound right to
A. Yes, and I have a copy of my invoices with me.
Q. Now earlier you said that you work as an HR consultant and an independent contractor. How
did you come to be involved in this case?
A. I was at a conference with colleagues on a very intensive thing on how to do workplace
investigations. One of the people there asked if I knew anything about background checks. She
knew I did periodic expert witness work. And I said, "yes, I do." and then I received a call from
Adam hunt at your firm asking a whole bunch of questions.
Q. And questions related to this case?
A. They were questions related to me and my background.

Q. And did there come a time where you learned more information about the case and agreed to
become an expert witness in this case?
A. Yeah, and I have to say I generally take a. Case provisionally based upon if I feel I can be of
help. So I have to kind of look at what the issues are, do I have the requisite knowledge and
experience, and is there something that I can offer that is constructive and worth the investment
in having an expert.
Q. Now you mentioned a moment ago that you do periodic expert work. I'm guessing this is not
the first time you've served as an expert witness?
A. No, it's not.
Q. Can you give me an estimate of how many times you've testified in court as an expert like we
did today?
A. In court I've testified approximately 95 times.
Q. 95?
A. 95, maybe more. I didn't start keeping records when I did this.
Q. In those cases where you served as an 14879 expert witness, have you worked more on behalf
of plaintiffs or more on behalf of defendants?
A. I try really hard to keep it absolutely half and half. I've refused work when that balance seems
to be slipping a bit, but I don't control what happens to a. Case beyond the time that I accept it.
Q. Why do you try to keep it half and half?

A. I think that for me, it's a matter of professional integrity. I think it keeps me fresh. I'm not an
advocate. I won't go in I'm not for sale. Because I testify for both plaintiff and defense, I can't
say one thing in one case and contradict myself in another case because my testimony is out
there. Law firms go read it. I can't contradict what I say. So I feel that I, even while I'm retained
by one side or the other, my view and my professional identity and reputation is all about being a
neutral third party.
Q. So accepting even engagements for both sides is sort of a way of keeping yourself honest?
A. Yeah. Good way to put it.
Q. Before we go on, I have a few more questions about your background. What is your
educational background?
A. Grew up here in southern California, went to school here. I got my undergraduate degree at
UCLA, went straight through in medieval English history which is not real practical. Then I went
to work for the probation 14880 department after a period of time, also attended USC in getting a
certificate in psychology and had to run groups and do coaching, counseling in kind of crisis
situations work related to the probation department. I then went back to Pepperdine and got my
masters in administration and management.
Q. So you have an undergraduate degree from UCLA in medieval history and master’s degree in
administration and management at Pepperdine and also a certificate in counseling in psychology
at USC?
A. I do, and there is more.
Q. Who do you cheer for at athletic events?
A. I'm sorry. I'm a giants fan, you know, and the 49ers kind of creep in there, too.
Q. Have you ever taught any classes in human resources?

A. I have.
Q. Where at?
A. I've taught at UC Berkley for a number of years in problem resolution, how to write
affirmative action plans and dealing with performance management, discipline, termination,
alternatives in dealing with that. And then I also taught at San Francisco state, same topics. We
added a couple other topics periodically as they came up. I also taught at Mills College. The first
two were part of a certificate program in HR management. The third one at mills was actually
part of a degree 14881 granting program. It was the whole scope of human resources.
Q. You mentioned a moment ago something about working for the probation department. I know
that you've had your own company for approximately 30 years. Prior to that, did you work as an
employee for other organizations?
A. I did. I'm old.
Q. What did you do you said you worked for the probation department. Was that here in the
county of Los Angeles?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your job there?
A. I started out as a probation counselor, which is what it was at that era of time, working in
juvenile hall. Then I progressed through various assignments, various offices in the probation
department, various levels of responsibility. I also did some special projects, was on loan to the
chief administrative office periodically. Got involved in the HR area of probation but was still a
probation officer during that period of time. My final assignment was finding jobs state wide for
people who were on probation and parole. It was more like an employment agency. It was an
interagency with California department of corrections, US Bureau of prisons, youth authority,
probation to try and find jobs for people who were on probation or parole or were being released
from prison.

Q. What did you do after you worked for the county probation department?
A. I went to work for general motors. While I was at the county, I also got involved in union
issues on both sides of the table and which led to the masters, which led to me leaving. I went to
work for general motors in labor relations and had responsibility for labor relations at a major
plant in Detroit, about 5,000 employees, 5,000 grievances.
Q. You left southern California and moved to Detroit?
A. Yes, in the middle of November.
Q. How long were you at general motors?
A. A. Couple years.
Q. What did you do next?
A. Next, I went to Boise cascade as their corporate director of equal employment. That meant
moving and relocating to Boise, Idaho.
Q. What is Boise Cascade?
A. Boise Cascade was I say "was" because their identity has changed a lot now was a major
forest products company. When I joined them, they had about 38,000 employees. They were
they were a paper manufacturer. They made various kinds of paper, various papers products.
They had an envelope division, a white-coated paper division. They also did property
development. They did they got into modular home 14883 construction but they also grew,
planned forest reforestation for the processing of wood, and they were a major federal contractor
because they bought timber off federal lands.
Q. What did you do for Boise Cascade?

A. Well, we had 300 affirmative action plans at that point because of the way were organized and
arrayed. I had responsibility for that. Computer work was just coming on line in terms of so I
was integrating a very manual process into a computerized process because of that number of
plans. There was a lot of data record keeping in that. I was responsible for policy development,
not solely but I was part of that committee.
Q. By policy development do you mean human resources policy?
A. Yes. Training, teaching, and investigations.
Q. Was that all in the field of human resources?
A. Yes.
Q. And at some point, did you leave Boise Cascade and start Rhoma Young and associates?
A. I did.
Q. That's what you've been doing now for 30 years, consulting?
A. Yes.
Q. In the field of human resources?
A. Yes.
Q. Now a concept you mentioned a little while ago now was the idea of HR basics. Can you
briefly explain to us what you meant by that.
A. In HR there are a couple of designations. One is best practice which is what you would be
doing in an ideal world most of the time. It's kind of like aiming for perfection. Basic human

resource practices are reasonable, well-recognized processes, policies and procedures that
probably cross industry lines, may cross company lines. There are a lot of different ways in
which there are basics. For example, when I'm doing an investigation, the investigation not
only when I'm doing it but when I'm looking at how other people do it as part of the expert
witness work that I do, it has to be thorough. It has to be accurate. It has to be documented. It has
to be timely. It has to be objective.
Q. That's true for all organizations you work in?
A. Yeah.
Q. Regardless of industry?
A. Yeah. How you do an interview, there can be many different ways to do that. So it's that
that's the basics though. Those few words used to describe but then recognizing the fact that
there are many different ways, not necessarily a perfect way, in which to do a 14885 certain
segment or a certain part of that. And basics have to be sufficiently flexible, but they are pretty
much there no matter what size employer you are.
Q. So the details vary but the principles don't? Is that a good way of putting it?
A. It's a fair way of putting it.
Q. Now we were talking a little while ago about independent contractors and employees. I think
you mentioned you reviewed the trial testimony of plaintiffs expert jean Seawright?
A. I did.
Q. Do you recall Ms. Seawright testifying to the effect that labeling a physician as an employer,
independent contractor doesn't matter in terms of retention and selection practices?
A. I do recall reading something to that effect. I don't know what the exact words were.

Q. Do you agree with that?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. And you said that very emphatically. Why don't you agree with that?
A. In the world of HR, there are certain basics that are always covered in lots of workshops and
conferences because there is always an era or an area of confusion or distraction about them. One
of them is the issue between exempt and nonexempt. The other one that is major is between an
independent contractor status and an employee status. 14886 these are front and center in the HR
dialogue, in the HR training, in HR discussion. Like the audits I do, that's a. Major part of it. Do
you have people appropriately classified both in the exempt, nonexempt and in the independent
contractor, employee distinction.
Q. And you mentioned earlier that there are differences in the way that companies select and
retain employees, and the way they select and retain independent contractors. I want to break that
down a little bit. Let's talk about employees first. If a company or an organization wants to hire a
full-time regular employee, can you give us an idea of the process they go through to do that,
typically speaking?
A. Typically, they say "we have a need for," and then they come up with a job title, probably a
job description, at least enough to post an ad or a posting on monster or any of the web sites to
help them recruit. They are generally recruiting from the world at large, not targeted. They may
target part of it if you've got special needs. But for the most part, it's anyone can apply. Let me
put it that way.
Q. Then is there an application process?
A. There generally is an application process. In today's world, most of it is on line. Sometimes a
company buyer resume, so that begins the initial screening process.
Q. You say "screening process." what might 14887 that be?

A. Screening process is generally going to be someone doing a first cut at the perspective
employees who are applying, the applications. Does this person even meet the basic
qualifications? Are they even eligible for what is there a sufficient skill match between their
background and what we're looking for?
Q. Then are interviews conducted?
A. Usually interviews are conducted. Sometimes you do a telephone screening. Sometimes it's an
in-person interview, or it will be a series of interviews sometimes conducted by staff of the
company, sometimes done in a group situation.
Q. Now how is that different from independent contractors?
A. Well, first of all, independent contractors are generally, in my experience, usually sourced
through a different method and a different way. Part of that is and I talked to a lot of people who
retain independent contractors as well as I have retained independent contractors on behalf of
clients or even myself. You call somebody. If you want an architect, you look at a house down
the street. You like the design. You go and ask them "who did you work with on the design of
this house?" you like somebody's new landscaping. You go and say "who did the work for you?
Do you like them? Did it work out well?" so you're getting a personal referral. financial advisor
you talk to a friend who you trust their judgment and you stay "do you have a financial advisor?
Are you satisfied? What were you looking for?" so you're not only looking for people but
possibly the questions that they asked in making their assessments. Or, if you don't have that, you
may go to a professional association and say who is good for say you're looking for an attorney.
You don't have anybody who has or you don't want to discuss it with someone because it's a
personal issue. You can call the bar association and at least get a listing. You can look at lists of
attorneys about I think there are super lawyers in California. You can start getting some
identification, and that person doesn't even know you're looking. They haven't applied. There is
no application.
Q. That was going to be my next question. You mentioned employees typically fill out
employment applications. Does that typically happen in your experience with independent
A. No, not at all.

Q. Are there any documents involved with someone who wants to obtain the services of an
independent contractor?
A. Usually, after you define what you want done and you look at the background and try and find
a match between what the project needs are and who might be a. Good candidate in doing that
and you talk about it, 14889 negotiate a rate. You talk about timing, schedule, availability and if
there are any licenses involved, such as a general contractor's license or a professional license. If
you're getting somebody to do your taxes, you may want a CPA, or you may want a certified
financial planner. So you're going to check those, and you're going to ask for proof of that. There
is generally a. Written agreement scope of work, retainer agreement, whatever you want to call
it, that will occur prior to the work commencing.
Q. Now you mentioned professional licenses, and you gave us a couple examples. Would a
doctor be an example of a licensed professional?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have an independent understanding as to whether just anybody can get a medical
license or are there special skills involved in obtaining that?
A. Not only special skills but very refined training of many different kinds that have to be there.
Like in California, for example, the board that issues medical licensing has a whole series of
steps that the candidates have to meet, certain minimum education requirements, and that
information has to be sent directly from the institution to the licensing board. They do a
fingerprint scan. They do which goes through the department of justice and the homeland
security checks so they can do a criminal check. 14890 they do a very thorough check, not only
of your skills and abilities and training but who you are.
Q. What about a credit check?
A. No.
Q. So the state of California doesn't check doctors' credit in order to give them a medical

A. No.
Q. Now in reviewing the materials in this case, did you see any sample independent contractor
agreements in the materials provided by AEG live?
A. Are you talking about a blank one?
Q. Right, a standard template.
A. Yes. Yes, I did.
Q. And were those standard agreements consistent with similar documents that you've seen in
your experience for the retention of independent contractors?
A. They were.
Q. Ms. Young, I'd like to show you a chart that was used during the testimony of Shawn Trell,
and it was also used during Ms. Seawright's testimony. It didn't have an exhibit number before,
so we're going to mark it exhibit 13544. Put it up on the screen, first. I don't think there are any
issues but... Is there an issue?
A. This is neat.
Q. The screen?
A. Yeah, I can see.
Q. We like to make it as useful as possible. 14891
Mr. Panish. Okay.

Ms. Bina. Go ahead and put it up.
Q. Ms. Young, have you reviewed the testimony of Mr. Trell in this case?
A. The deposition testimony and trial testimony, yes.
Q. I'll represent to you that this chart was introduced during Mr. Trell's trial testimony as kind of
the processes that AEG live goes through in hiring employees on the one hand and retaining
independent contractors on the other hand. Take a moment to review the chart. I want to ask you
a couple questions about it.
A. Okay.
Q. In general, is this chart consistent or inconsistent with the practices that you just described for
how companies typically retain employees, independent contractors?
A. Yes.
Q. Anything that's inconsistent?
A. Not that I can spot. I mean, this is I mean, there are more pieces to the puzzle if you go
ahead in the retention process, but this for the beginning stage, yeah.
Q. In terms of getting somebody in the door?
A. Right.
Q. And that actually is a question I was going to ask you. Once you get to this point, either an
employee is hired or an independent contractor is retained. Thereafter, do the processes become
similar or do they stay different?

A. They stay different.
Q. In what way?
A. Well, employees have payroll deductions for things like required taxes; the various insurance
coverages they may have, if the employer provides them, and the employee has to pay a portion
of that; for unemployment insurance; for any retirement program, if there is one; other insurance
coverages, if the employer offers them, like disability insurance, std, short-term disability, long-
term disability.
Q. So employees have deductions for taxes. Do independent contractors have taxes deducted
from their pay?
A. No.
Q. And then you mentioned benefits?
A. First of all, independent contractors don't have pay in that usual sense. There is an agreed
upon price and schedule of moneys to be paid, but it's more for a. Project than for pay. For an
independent contractor, you may even have subcontractors that are working on that project.
Q. So your independent contractor might actually either hire retain another independent
contractor or have employees working on the project, that sort of thing?
A. In my view and experience, it's more based upon the project rather than an individual job.
Q. Right. So but in any event, are there any payroll taxes taken out of the fees paid to an
independent contractor?
A. No, not in my experience.

Q. You mentioned benefits, that deductions are taken out of the employee's paychecks for things
like retirement benefits and medical benefits. Do companies typically pay for benefits for an
independent contractor?
A. No.
Q. So they are not put on like the company's benefit plan?
A. No, absolutely not.
Q. What about training? Is there a difference there?
A. A. Big difference. An employee is brought in with the idea that they are going to be with that
company for a while. The company generally makes an investment in them to train them how to
do their job to be able to grow, to develop, to take on additional responsibilities over time. The
anticipation is they are going to be around for a while. With an independent contractor, they are
supposed to have all the expertise they need right now and be able to hit the ground running, and
it's their responsibility to have that skill set and that knowledge.
Q. What about supervision and reviews, things of that nature? Is there a difference there? 14894
A. There is.
Q. Can you explain it?
A. For an employee, there is generally a job description, a set of expectations, maybe even a
performance plan. Albeit it a little loose sometimes, but they have a set of responsibilities that are
defined. They have generally an employer will have a pay range that the employee will be
slotted somewhere into that pay range with other people who are also doing similar types of
work. Again, they want to be the employer wants to be consistent. They want to deal with a
large pool of people and treat them consistently. They are going to have an employee handbook
usually, a set of policies, a set of expectations, a set of outlined behavior that is expected for
those employees in how they perform, what the company's expectations are, what the employee
has a right to expect from their employer. On the other hand, an independent contractor does not

have that. They have what is agreed upon in their initial discussions with the employer about
what the scope of work will be, when it will be performed, when it will be completed, if there are
deliverables, depending upon the size and scope of the project and complexity of the project. It
may be longer than shorter. They may be paid at the end of a project. But that's all worked out in
advance, and that's generally confirmed in some type of written agreement between the retaining
party and the independent contractor.
Q. And would that be reflected in this idea that's in the bottom right-hand column "obligations
laid out in contract"?
A. Yes. And generally in my experience, the independent contractor supplies their own, and that
means their own insurances, their own coverages, their own tools for the most part. I mean,
sometimes there can be a little bit of flexibility there. But for the most part, they kind of come
Q. And are they supervised day-to-day in the same way that an employee might be? Do they
have sort of someone looking over their shoulder generally in your experience?
A. Usually not because usually they know more about a particular area than someone in the
company which is why the company is retaining an independent contractor, or a person is
retaining an independent contractor. You know more than I do about this particular area. Whereas
with an employee, that employee may have some of the knowledge, not all of it. Their supervisor
has responsibility to coach them. If there is a. Performance variance, they need to identify that.
They need to have that hopefully corrected. They are going to get performance reviews of either
formal or informal. They may get raises. That kind of thing. It's more part of a process in dealing
with a larger population.
Q. Because they have become basically part of the company, and they are there sort of for the
long haul?
A. Everyone hopes.
Q. You mentioned employee handbooks a moment ago. You said those are typically handed out
to employees. Are they handed out to independent contractors generally in your experience?

A. Not in my experience.
Q. What about in this case? Do you have an understanding as to whether AEG live's employee
handbook is given to employees or independent contractors or both?
A. My understanding, and this is primarily from Mr. Trell's information, is that they were given
to employees once they were hired, and they were not given to independent contractors. That's
why they are called an employee handbook versus anything else.
Q. Is that consistent in your experience of standard practices and procedures in the industry, in
the HR industry?
A. Sure. Knowing that there are a lot of types of independent contractors. Sometimes they work
for companies; sometimes they work for individuals; sometimes it's a very small organization
that may retain an independent contractor for their discrete knowledge.
Q. Is there anything in this process outlined here on the slide that is inconsistent to you with
standard responsible management practices for a company in your experience? 14897
A. No. When I looked at this, the one question I had was on the obligations, you know. That was
what triggered my comment that there is more.
Q. And more in what sense?
A. What that means, you know. And, again, we've kind of discussed that already when we talked
about the difference between an employee and independent contractor. Once the agreement, you
know, has been reached, either for an employee or an independent contractor, the way in which
the work is performed is generally different.
Q. Got it. So you're talking about the part we just discussed which is after they get in the door,
they still split?
A. Yes.

Q. But as far as getting them in the door, is there anything on this chart inconsistent with the
standard industry practices?
A. Not that I can see.
Q. Now we're talking about the process that companies like AEG live use to retain independent
contractors. Did the draft contract that you reviewed between AEG live and dr. Murray contain
information that you'd expect to see in an agreement of that type?
A. It did.
Q. Talking just generally from HR perspective in terms of licenses, insurance, things of that
A. When I looked at the contents of it, I wasn't reviewing it from the contractual point of view.
That's not what I do. But in looking at the content, it was consistent with, there are always
differences in terms of what shape they take because lawyers get involved and love to change
things. So that that agreement that was, you know, signed by Conrad Murray, the draft, did
contain, from a topical content point of view, the things that I would usually encounter in an
independent contractor agreement.
Q. Is there anything about that draft agreement that you reviewed or in terms of an HR
A. Are we going to talk about that contract? Shall I pull it out?
Q. No, I'm not going to get into the details right now. You can pull it out if it's more comfortable.
I actually want to ask more conceptually. Is there anything about the situation that is a little
unusual, to your way of thinking, from an HR perspective?
A. In?

Q. In the retention of dr. Murray, the planned and negotiated retention.
Mr. Panish. Vague and ambiguous.
Judge. Sustained.
Q. let me ask you something different. In terms of the selection process, do companies normally
select their own independent contractors?
A. Organizations generally select when you what do you mean when you say "own"?
Q. You mentioned earlier this process where a company identifies a need or a project and then
retains someone. Is that a typical way an independent contractor is retained? A. Company
identifies a need and goes out and looks for someone?
A. Yes. They have asked for referrals. They have gone to professional organizations. They tried
to choose people. You know, that referral area in personal recommendation is generally, in my
experience and those with whom I've discussed this, a key element in the retention of
independent contractors.
Q. In this case is there anything different about that part of the process or unusual about that to
your in your experience?
A. Well, this was a little bit different because, first of all, it's a kind of three-way agreement. So
that's that was an unusual part of it because it was AEG acting on behalf. Again, I'm using HR.
They were helping Michael Jackson get his request honored that he wanted his personal
physician to then go on tour with him.
Q. So in terms of selecting, based on your review of the evidence, who did you understand was
doing the selecting here?
A. Michael Jackson.

Q. Is that different than some of the other situations that you've encountered more traditionally
on an HR perspective?
A. Yes.
Q. Now is it your understanding that AEG live was only intending to advance funds for dr.
Murray, or was there a variety of expenses on Mr. Jackson's behalf?
Mr. Panish. Object as foundation for this witness. Also vague and ambiguous.
Judge. It's a little vague.
Mr. Panish. Retention is speculation.
Q. based on your review of the trial testimony, in particular Mr. Trell, Mr. Gongaware, Mr.
Phillips, and Ms. Jorrie, did you have an understanding as to whether AEG live would only be
advancing funds for dr. Murray, or were they ultimately advancing funds for other personal
expenses of Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Panish. It's way beyond her scope.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Bina. I'm going to tie it back, your honor.
Mr. Panish. It's nothing she can't interpret contracts.
Ms. Bina. I'm asking whether she has seen evidence in the record to indicate that something did
or didn't take place. I think it's something she's reviewed and can testify about. I'm going to get
into HR-related issues.

Mr. Panish. No foundation. It's irrelevant.
Ms. Bina. She has a foundation, your honor. She reviewed the trial testimony.
Mr. Panish. She's got no expertise on that.
Judge. You're asking about the contract.
Ms. Bina. No, no. I'm asking whether AEG live was paying any other personal expenses of Mr.
Jackson based on her review of the evidence in the case.
Mr. Panish. The evidence is already in the case.
Judge. Overruled. You may answer.
A. My understanding is that AEG was going to advance funds for other staff, personal staff, rent
on behalf of Michael Jackson at his request ultimately to be billed back to Michael Jackson.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, again, she's interpreting the contract.
Ms. Bina. No contractual interpretation, just based on the review of the evidence.
Q. That's based on other people's testimony, right, Ms. Young?
Mr. Panish. Can I make my objection?
Judge. Did you finish your objection?
Mr. Panish. No.

Judge. Finish your objection.
Mr. Panish. Are you just going to overrule me, so I might as well
Judge. I am.
Mr. Panish. Forget it.
Judge. Overruled.
Ms. Bina. I don't remember what my question was.
Judge. Based on the trial testimony.
Q. based on the trial testimony, you have an understanding that there were a variety of things
being advanced by AEG live. Is that what you testified just now?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have an understanding as to who was selecting things in those instances based on
the trial testimony?
A. My understanding is that these were choices that were being made by Michael Jackson,
whether it was to have well, in one case it was his children who chose, I think, the chef. But
they were choices primarily made by Michael Jackson including art.
Q. Art?
A. Art.
Q. So Michael Jackson was picking art, and AEG live was paying for it?

A. Yes.
Q. Now turning back to the subject of dr. Murray, did the circumstances surrounding these other
advances we've just been talking about, do they have any affect on your understanding of how
this relationship was going to structure from an HR perspective?
A. I don't understand what you're asking.
Q. It's a terrible question. Is this other 14903 evidence you considered, does it support your
testimony a moment ago that the person who was doing the selection part of the selection and
retention of dr. Murray was Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Panish. Leading, suggestive. It's not relevant or foundation for her
Judge. Asked and answered.
Mr. Panish. And asked and answered.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Bina. I was trying to figure out if it was part of why she believed that, your honor. I think it
was a. Slightly different question.
Judge. Sustained.
Q. One issue has come up in this case, Ms. Young, in terms of the selection process, the
question of background checks. Is that something you're familiar with?
A. It is. When you're talking about selection, are you talking employee or talking independent
contract or both?

Q. I'm just talking are you familiar with background checks in general.
A. Yes.
Q. Are they part of what you consider HR basics?
A. Yes, it's part of the selection process. That would be one of the basics of selection, just like I
mentioned the basics for an investigation. 14904
Q. And are you talking there about selection of employees or selection of independent
A. From an HR point of view, background checks, if you use a very broad term, could be part of
both. But the way in which they are done, the process, the content, the application and use of
gathering, I would in this case because it's so broad, I'd rather call it gathering initial
Q. You talked a moment about this idea of a broad term. Let's nail down what you think when I
say background checks. What's included in that?
A. Everything that you do to find out about the person or organization you may be bringing on
Q. And does that give me some examples of what that might include.
A. For an employee, it would include the steps. It would include an application. It would include
making sure that the application gave you the information you wanted to perhaps do check out
prior employment, to talk to prior employers, to do reference checking, to do if you needed to
check a driver's license, if you needed to check I-9 eligibility.
Q. What's I-9 eligibility?

A. It's the certification that a person is legally able to work in this country with the paperwork,
either a green card or citizenship.
Q. So things like verify employability?
A. Right. 14905
Q. Got it. Anything else?
A. It might be verifying education. It might be verifying licenses. Now that's where an employee
Q. What about criminal checks or credit checks and things like that?
A. Well, and that's what, in my view, when you said background check, that's really more what
you would decide given the nature of the job that is being considered and the person. Then you
would decide what type or if a background check is appropriate, whether some kind of test is
appropriate to give them to determine skill level. If there are licenses that are needed, that you
verify that and ask them to provide you with proof of that. It would also make a distinction if you
did a criminal check or a credit check.
Q. And we're still talking about employees here?
A. Yes.
Q. How is the process different for an independent contractor, if it is?
A. For independent contractors, in my experience, you do not do a background check in this way.
You do not hire a third party to run a credit check or a criminal check. You have a different set of
knowledge about the independent contractor when they walk in the door. You already have a
preexisting set of 14906 referrals criteria. You may ask them if they have licenses that need to be
provided. You can build this all into the written agreement that the independent contractor has to
sign. If they need to provide some insurance and insurance coverages like worker's comp, that

they have their own. I mean, because these are that's one of the distinguishing parts.
Independent contractors provide their own worker's comp insurance, their own unemployment
insurance, they pay their own taxes. We talked about that a little bit. They handle their own
benefits. Those are very distinct differences between an employee and a federal (sic) contractor.
In terms of the perspective retainer of the independent contractor can detail how and when they
want the licensing information delivered. They may ask for referrals. They may ask for other
clients whom this person has worked with, and you may or may not check those.
Q. Let's step back out of sort of the broad-based idea of checking people out and focus
specifically on background checks such as a criminal background check, a credit check,
verifying eligibility, that kind of thing.
Judge. For employees or independent contractor or anybody?
Ms. Bina. Let's talk about employees. Thank you for the clarification. 14907
Q. What are some of the factors that companies need to consider from a human resources'
perspective in determining whether or not to do these kinds of checks and what kinds of checks
to do.
A. The determinate thing is what is the job, and what's job related.
Q. What do you mean "job related"?
A. Questions you're going to ask, say, during an interview which is one of the steps in the
selection procedure have to be job related. That's a basic tenant of HR. It's as basic as the
exempt, nonexempt, independent contractor versus employee. And a couple of others that fall
into that are things like equity, fairness.
Q. When you say "job related," what do you mean?
A. Related to the job that is going to be performed. And by that, I mean there are three I don't
now how much detail you want to get into.

Q. Let's go through some examples. I think that might help clarify things. Let's say you are
hiring a. Secretary. Would something like how fast how many words per minute the secretary
can type?
A. How many words they can type accurately would be job related. How many words they can
type is not necessarily job related.
Q. What about how many children they have?
A. No.
Q. So if you're interviewing a secretary, would you ask the one question and not the other?
A. No. What you can ask is
Mr. Panish. I'll object to the what you can and can't ask. That's a legal definition. There is no
Judge. Overruled.
A. There is an HR list of do's and don'ts. Like if you are concerned about can the person get here
on time to do the job? Do they anticipate they'll need any additional help to do that? That would
go to the do you have children kind of thing.
Q. Right. But you can ask let me ask it differently. Can you ask questions that go to whether
they can get to work on time?
A. You can say "the job is scheduled to be performed between 8:00 and 5:00. Is that going to
present a. Problem?"

Q. Why is it that you can't ask the other questions that don't relate to the job? Why is job
relatedness important?
A. Job relatedness is not only important, it's critical because it has to fit the job. If you ask about
characteristics or things that don't pertain to that job, you could have a privacy issue. You could
be asking totally inappropriate questions. That whole issue came up, after the civil rights act was
passed, in terms of job relatedness to make sure that it was fair and equitable.
Q. When you say "fair and equitable," what do you mean?
A. That people are treated consistently and they are not treated differently based upon gender,
color, religion, disability, all the protected group status.
Q. So I'm going to try to understand the concept of job relatedness. Would it be fair to say you
can ask anything that has to do with a job, but something that doesn't have to do with the job
doesn't matter?
A. That's right.
Q. And it doesn't matter because it's only fair and equitable to ask people to do things that they
are actually going to have to do relating to the job?
A. Absolutely. Things that people who are currently performing that job if there are multiple
incumbents doing it every day.
Q. So can a company decide for itself what's job related?
A. Without considering what the job is?
Q. Right. Can I just decide, for instance, that I, you know, like employees who are under 30
because I think they are perky?

A. That's why I have a job forever.
Q. What's the problem with that?
A. It's not job related. It doesn't make any difference. You can't make assumptions about people
not based upon real identifiable information that relates to 14910 the job to be performed.
Q. Can there be any repercussions if a company does not have a job-related purpose for the tools
it's using to select employees?
A. Yes.
Q. And just briefly what kind of repercussions?
A. You get into issues of how something is going to be measured. Like it would be measured one
way for one person and one way for another person. You get into inconsistency. You get into one
supervisor asking the questions they want to ask, and another supervisor asking totally different
questions. So you end up with a very diverse workforce is fine, but you want a diverse able
workforce able to perform the job. That's why job relatedness is critical. It's critical to the way
that business is done.
Q. So in designing a background check policy, is the idea of job relatedness something that a
company needs?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. Are you familiar with AEG live's background policies in this case?
A. I am.
Q. Do they reflect those kinds of considerations?

A. They do.
Q. How so?
A. They have a third party that they have made an arrangement with to conduct background
checks if it is appropriate to the given job. And my understanding is that they do basic checks
that are consistent with is the person eligible work? Do they have a driver's license, if they need
one, for the job that they are performing? They also do credit checks for people who have fiscal
or fiduciary responsibility. I believe they do criminal checks on a select number of employees
based upon the content of their job.
Q. This is all for employees?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this consistent with the idea of job relatedness that we've just been discussing?
A. It is.
Q. Would you ever recommend a company engaging in hiring processes that are not job related?
A. Oh, no. No, no, no, no. That's what I spend a lot of my time trying to clarify. Let me put it that
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I'm about to move to a new topic if we can break one minute early.
Judge. Yes. 1:30.
(the following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury:)
Judge. Thank you, Ms. Young. 1:30.

A. I'm assuming I can leave?
Judge. Yes, yes. I just want to make one comment about this brief. You can leave. I know that
neither the attorneys are here, but the comment I have is there is an objection to the court
allowing Mr. Metzger as a rebuttal witness. If the answer is to allow the plaintiffs to reopen their
case, it seems like the appropriate time would be to allow to reopen at the end of defense case. If
there is anything that defendants feel that they need to respond to because of new evidence,
defense can reopen their case and respond to it. It doesn't seem like that difficult of an issue.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, what we were trying to address there, which as you have discretion to
do precisely that, what we got worried about and wanted to add in there is there seems to be
some indication by plaintiffs that in rebuttal they can bring anything they want. Case law is very
clear you can't do that. Case law is clear as to an appellate decision. You can't just be withholding
things and say, you know what, I want those three at the end because they have the biggest
impact or the idea of, you know what, I should have thought about that before, but I didn't. That
can't be rebuttal. The idea they were talking about
Judge. Even if they do, defense can say, your honor, I want sure rebuttal because there is
something in there that came up that I didn't present in my defense case, and I want to respond to
it. There are ways of remedying these issues that I think
Mr. Panish. May I just ask this
Mr. Putnam. I agree.
Judge. I don't think it's as big a problem as everyone is making it.
Mr. Panish. Can I ask is it your tentative rule, tentative, that the plaintiff can reopen but only
when the defendant has finished all of their case?
Judge. Right.

Mr. Panish. So, I mean, I don't I want to go to lunch. But assuming that, to think about this
Judge. Also to allow them
Mr. Panish. Of course.
Judge. to respond if they need to.
Mr. Panish. If they want to re-open and respond, then they can, too. I don't see a necessity of all
these briefings and arguments. If that's kind of where
Judge. Right.
Mr. Panish. I think that's what you're trying to say.
Mr. Boyle. The tentative is you're going to allow them to play the Metzger depo as well?
Judge. Right.
Ms. Bina. Again, your honor, the only concern with reopening, obviously your honor has
discretion to reopen, we don't want to have another three months of trial in plaintiffs' case after
closing defendants' case. That's the issue in terms of clarifying the scope of rebuttal. If the court
feels it's necessary to allow them to reopen to present a single witness, and obviously they get a
rebuttal case and that is a proper one, our concern is just every day it's a new witness. Oh, we
were going to call this person and this person. It's like trying to hit a moving target.
Mr. Putnam. What we were trying to address, I've never seen before, just never an instance
where plaintiffs both refused to settle or excuse me, rest their case, refused to rest their case and
then at the same time say, "but I already have four people ready for rebuttal." that's what they
kept saying. They kept saying "we're not ready. We're not ready. But I already got four for
rebuttal." that's not what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to present everything you've
got. And then, if something occurs, then you get rebuttal. That's what we are trying to address,
your honor.

Mr. Panish. I know what I'm doing. I have witnesses that are rebuttal witnesses. When that time
comes, it will be addressed.
Judge. I just say that to avoid a lot of paperwork, back and forth. Maybe this is something that
can be worked out.
Lunch break…….
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors :)
Judge. Good afternoon, everybody. You may continue with direct examination.
Direct examination by Ms. Bina
Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Young.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Before I get started again with the examination, I wanted to check something in the record.
Just before we broke for lunch, we were talking about the differences between employees and
independent contractors in terms of background checks, and you said something like if they're an
employee it's different than if they're a federal contractor. Did you mean to say "federal
contractor” there?
A. No.
Q. What did you mean to say?
A. “independent contractor." I’m sorry. I work so much with federal contractors, it's just part of
my vocabulary.

Q. No worries. I just wanted to clear that up to make sure we had a clear record. So we were
talking about background checks generally, and you were talking about the kinds of factors you
consider in conducting background checks on employees. The next thing I want to ask about is
in your experience; is there a difference in terms of whether and how background checks are
conducted on employees versus independent contractors?
A. I think I need you to rephrase that, especially the first part.
Q. Sure. In your experience, do companies conduct background checks on independent
contractors in the same way and to the same frequency that they do on employees?
A. Not in my experience, no.
Q. And --
A. When I say "experience," I’m not only talking me -- okay? -- but I’m talking the world of
professional colleagues with whom I so frequently engage, go to seminars with, have
professional meetings with. So I’m looking at broader than just my own personal experience.
Q. And have you seen any surveys on that subject?
A. In doing --
Q. Background checks on independent contractors frequency wise versus employees.
A. Yes.
Q. And the surveys agree or disagree with your conclusion that there are differences?
A. They're consistent.

Q. And in terms of differences, is it more common or less common for companies to do
background checks on independent contractors?
A. It's less frequent than it is for employees.
Q. Much less frequent?
A. Much less frequent.
Q. And do you have any idea of why that is?
A. I think part of it goes back to the whole process, the people we use in getting and sourcing
and identifying employees versus independent contractors. They already, in my experience,
have a kind of built-in reference process, or referral process, in many cases, in dealing with an
independent contractor, or the recommendation of either a professional board that they are
familiar with or some degree of confirmation that they think this might be a good match.
Q. And you also mentioned earlier the idea of licenses and sometimes independent contractors
have professional licenses. What effect, if any, does that have on the need to conduct
background checks?
A. Well, many licensing procedures go through a very complete vetting process and scrutiny in
checking into certain critical job-related areas about a person's background. If they don't, then,
you know, there’s always the possibility that someone retaining an independent contractor can
get more information if they ask. Sometimes it's very simple as -- like a question to be asked
during an interview, if that's appropriate.
Q. But I guess what I’m asking is I -- if I understand you correctly, those licenses can serve sort
of a pre-background-check-type function?
A. Yes. Well, they can certainly go to the skills and experience and any standard of expected
performance that’s demanded by whoever issues the license.

Q. And perhaps because of that reason, perhaps because of other reasons, in any event, in your
experience, background checks are conducted far less often on independent contractors?
A. Yes.
Q. Now --
A. And part of that also goes to the fact that independent contractors give you different kinds of
assurances when they are going to self-insure under many aspects that an employee does not
have to do.
Q. I'd like to move on to the subject -- and that’s any kind of background check, right? We’re
talking everything from reference check to credit check to criminal background check; we've
been talking about all of them together?
A. I was being -- the larger umbrella rather than the small one.
Q. Let's turn specifically to the subject of credit checks. You read Ms. Seawright's testimony in
this case?
A. I did.
Q. Do you agree or disagree with her conclusion that a credit check was job related and
necessary for the job of Michael Jackson’s personal physician?
A. I absolutely do not agree.
Q. And briefly speaking, what are your reasons for that disagreement, and then we'll go into
them in more detail.
A. Well, first of all, the process for someone to get a medical license is a fairly complex and
thorough process, at least in California. That's the one that I’m the most familiar with. So there's

that. Secondly, I have -- I have worked in healthcare with many different types of healthcare
organizations, large ones, small ones, clinics, nursing home centers, all different kinds of
settings, some that employ physicians as employees, some that retain physicians as people on
staff or whom they would call in on an independent contractor basis. As far as I know, they do
not do credit checks. I -- I went to three or four different sources and looked at job descriptions
for physicians. In that process, I saw no reference to a credit check as part of the --
Mr. Panish: your honor, the witness is relaying hearsay evidence.
A. I’ve got that information with me.
Mr. Panish: I’m not talking to you right now.
A. I’m sorry.
Mr. Panish: the witness is relaying hearsay information now. The witness can rely on hearsay,
but she can't state what it is.
Judge. okay. Sustained.
Ms. Bina: so without telling me specifically about the sites that -- what they said, did you come
to the conclusion as to whether it is common or customary practice in either retaining a
physician as an employee or as an independent contractor for a credit check to be run?
A. I came to the conclusion that it is not common, it is not frequent. In fact, it is very rare and
Q. And we talked a little bit ago about the idea of surveys. Have you seen any surveys one way
or another on this subject?
A. I have.

Q. And are they consistent or inconsistent with your conclusions?
A. Consistent.
Q. And you reviewed Ms. Seawright's testimony?
A. I did.
Q. Do you recall discussion of a SHRM survey on the prevalence of credit checks?
A. I do.
Q. And do you remember what percentage of companies in the healthcare industry conducted
credit checks on any kind of employee?
Mr. Panish: again, your honor, this is hearsay from Ms. --
Ms. Bina: this is from Ms. Seawright’s testimony, your honor.
Mr. Panish: when Ms. Sea wright was cross-examined, they could use hearsay; but this is
direct examination of this witness, and under evidence code section 721, it would be
Judge. overruled.
Ms. Bina: do you remember what percentage it was?
A. I think it was right around 3 percent.
Q. So 97 percent of healthcare companies did not conduct any kind of credit check in the SHRM

A. That's correct.
Judge. that Seawright relied on.
Ms. Bina: yes.
A. and that included more than just physicians.
Ms. Bina: what about in your own experience? I think you testified earlier that you’ve been
responsible for actually conducting job searches on behalf of companies; is that right?
A. I have.
Q. How many have you sort of personally conducted the job search for a position?
A. I've helped organizations conduct recruiting and I have done individual job search -- probably
over my career, it's been in the neighborhood of 280 to 300.
Q. 300?
A. 300.
Q. 300 times where you helped someone select a position?
A. A physician?
Q. No, a position, an employee or an independent contractor.
A. Yes.

Q. And in those 300 instances, did you ever do a credit check?
A. Once.
Q. Once?
A. Once.
Q. What position was that for?
Q. What's a CFO?
A. Chief financial officer.
Q. And in that circumstance, did you believe that the credit check was job related?
A. I did.
Q. Why?
A. The person was going to be making basic decisions for the assets of the organization for the
financial and fiscal health of the organization.
Q. So in what way was the credit check relevant?

A. Looking -- it's more of a judgment issue, how they dealt with -- how they exercised their
judgment in terms of dealing with and making decisions for the healthcare -- for the health of
the organization. It was not a healthcare organization.
Q. Right. And when you say decisions for the health of the organization, you're talking about
financial decisions?
A. Yes.
Q. So their financial decision-making ability was actually part of the job criteria?
A. Yes; and it was job related, in my view.
Q. What about the practice of medicine? Is financial decision making, in your understanding
and experience, part of that?
Mr. Panish: objection; no foundation for her.
Judge. is financial decision making part of what decision?
Mr. Panish: practice of medicine.
Ms. Bina: or the criteria for selecting a physician.
Judge. well, you have to lay some foundation for that.
Ms. Bina: she's testified, your honor, that she’s been involved in recruiting for healthcare-
related companies, so I guess I can ask --
Judge. she said 300, but it's unclear to me how many of those concerned physicians.

Ms. Bina: let me ask something different, then.
Q. In your experience, Ms. Young, have you been involved in either selecting physicians or
selecting employees of healthcare companies or in helping healthcare companies design their
selection criteria?
Mr. Panish: well, that's compound.
Judge. overruled.
A. I have been involved in helping organizations define criteria for the selection of physicians.
Ms. Bina: and in that experience, when you’ve helped companies design -- design and define
those criteria, was financial decision making amongst them?
A. No.
Q. So just to conclude, in your own experience, it's not considered common or standard practice
to run credit checks on physicians?
A. In the professional experience I’ve had, and as far as I know that of my colleagues and
coworkers, through SHRM and through other organizations, it is not common to do a credit
check on a physician.
Q. And the survey data that Ms. Seawright relied on actually backs up your opinion?
A. If you're talking about that SHRM survey that limited it to 3 percent, yes.
Q. Now, Ms. Seawright also testified, if I recall correctly, that there were other reasons why she
considered this -- this job in particular, besides just the practice of medicine, in that it was, in her
view, high risk or safety sensitive. Do you recall that?

A. I do.
Q. Do you agree with that conclusion?
A. That this was a high-risk, safety-sensitive job?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. And, actually, before I ask you why not, let me ask you something else. Do the terms "high
risk" and "safety sensitive" have a customary definition in the field of human resources?
A. Yes.
Q. And how do you know that?
A. From having worked with many positions like that, and -- and dealt with them, and actually
recruited for them.
Q. And are there government agencies that also publish data based on these accepted
A. There are, and they are federal government bureau of labor standards.
Q. So what is the definition of high-risk or safety-sensitive position?
A. In my experience, it generally relates to the position itself as being high risk.
Q. What do you mean by that?

A. That the person performing the work has actually, according to how the government, more
likelihood of fatality or injury.
Q. To the worker?
A. To the worker.
Q. Have you ever seen safety sensitive or high risk classified the way Ms. Seawright did, that --
well, let me ask something different. Have you ever seen the practice of medicine classified as
high risk or safety sensitive?
A. No way.
Q. What about providing medical care in the home? Have you seen that classified as high risk
or safety sensitive?
A. Not specifically, no.
Q. Now a couple more questions on this subject. Is it your understanding -- because another
criteria that Ms. Seawright relied on is the fact that Dr. Murray had access to Mr. Jackson's home.
Do you recall that?
A. I do.
Q. How does that factor cut for you?
A. What do you mean?
Q. Well, does that make it high risk or safety sensitive?

A. No, that would not coordinate with any of my, you know, research, any of my knowledge
about what high-risk positions are, who is at risk.
Q. Well, Dr. Murray did have access to Mr. Jackson's confidential medical records, right?
A. As most physicians do.
Q. But you don't believe that makes it high risk or safety sensitive?
A. No, I don't.
Q. And is it your understanding, Ms. Young, based on the evidence that you've reviewed, that --
well, let me ask, do you have an understanding whether or not Dr. Murray had access to Michael
Jackson’s home before he began any negotiations with AEG Live?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. And what about access to his medical records?
A. My understanding is that there was access to his medical records, and he helped write some
medical records.
Q. So --
A. Because he was providing treatment to Mr. Jackson.
Q. -- would either of those things represent a change just because AEG Live was now speaking
with the doctor?
A. I don't see how that would change the nature of what was being done or access to information
of any kind.

Q. Is there anything about Dr. Murray's role here that you consider to be high risk or safety
A. No, there is not.
Q. And that's based on customary and accepted definitions of those terms in your field?
A. It is.
Q. All right. Now, another thing I wanted to ask you about, Ms. Seawright, we talked today
about how you disagree with some of her conclusions; is that right?
A. I do.
Q. Did you have --
A. Not everything, but some, a whole lot.
Q. Did you have any concerns with her methodology in this case?
A. I did.
Q. Could you explain that for me?
A. There were multiple occasions where Ms. Seawright was asked if she had done research, and
it did not appear that she had done research, and yet there seemed to be some indication that she
had done research in prior cases in which she had been involved. She seemed to ignore basic
tenets of human resources management, like when she said that there was no difference between
an independent contractor and an employee, when she just cavalierly dismissed what are critical
and basic understandings in the human resources area, when she talked about how she described

job relatedness. It just -- it just was totally at odds with what I would have expected from a
seasoned, experienced HR Practitioner.
Ms. Bina: nothing further at this time. Thank you, Ms. Young.
Judge. thank you. Cross-examination?
Mr. Panish: yes.
Cross-examination by Mr. Panish
Q. Ma'am, good morning -- or good afternoon. How are you today?
A. I'm fine.
Q. Ma'am, you only spends half your time working in human resources; is that right?
A. No, that's not correct.
Q. Okay. You're not full time in human resources, are you?
A. I have another business in which I spend some time, primarily on a time-available basis.
Q. Okay. Could you answer my question? Because I’m going to ask a lot of them, so let's start
off in the beginning if you don't understand them, please ask me. So you've been in court -- you
said over 95 times, right?
A. That's correct.

Ms. Bina: I’m going to object to that as argumentative, your honor.
Judge. overruled.
Mr. Panish: when did you first start keeping track of how many times you've been in court?
A. I think I actually started doing expert witness testimony over 20 years ago; and then I think I
started, about 15 years ago, tracking.
Q. So five years you didn't even keep track?
A. I didn't.
Q. So there's way more than 95 cases, right?
A. It's possible, but I went back to my prior cases and tried to build that in.
Q. Do you have the records here with you of all the cases?
A. No, I don't.
Mr. Panish: Could I approach the witness, your honor.
Judge. You may.
Mr. Panish: I notice that you've been referring to various documents.
Q. Are these what you're relying on in this case?
A. That's part of the documents that I have.

Q. Okay. And these handwritten notes that you have, when did you write those?
A. Those, I wrote in the last couple of days.
Q. Well, okay. And this document that Mr. Hunt just walked up and gave you at the break --
A. No, that isn't what he gave me.
Q. Okay. Which one did he give you on the break?
A. On the break, he gave me this document.
Q. The list of what you reviewed?
A. Yes.
Q. And has it been updated?
A. It was updated within the last couple of days because it includes Mr. Green's trial testimony.
Q. Well, Mr. Green testified yesterday.
A. And I have not seen that part.
Q. And this was prepared by the lawyers, not by you, right?
A. No, no. This is mine; I’ve got my original one that I did. This was simply an updated
version to include Mr. Green because I didn't have my computer here.

Q. Who typed that one?
A. This one?
Q. Yes.
A. This was done by O’Melveny & Myers, but I’ve got my original one if you would like to take
a look at it.
Q. Just try to stick to the question. Who typed that one?
A. As far as I know, it was someone in the O’Melveny firm.
Q. Okay. So I want to mark these exhibits. And then I see here you've written a lot of notes.
And these are all your notes that you did for this case; is that right?
A. The notes are this -- and you have a copy of this, by the way. It was produced at my second
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I would ask that the witness be allowed to hand over her own documents
and not have them pulled out of order by Mr. Panish. He's, obviously, welcome to ask about
them, but --
A. this is --
Ms. Bina: -- he seems to be pulling things loose and putting them on the court reporter's table.
Judge. Try to keep them in order because she may have them in a certain order that will testify.
Mr. Panish: Have you referred to this exhibit --

A. This is my original list, so you can compare that one with the one they prepared.
Q. That wasn't my question.
A. Okay. But you had asked me previously, so I was trying to be complete in the answer.
Q. These notes that you wrote here, entitled “Seawright," when did you write those?
A. In the last few days.
Q. Okay. Well, you don't remember how long ago?
A. I would say in the last three or four days.
Mr. Putnam: Before he writes on them, your honor --
Judge. Counsel, don't write on the notes.
Mr. Panish: I’m taking a post-it, and I’m going to mark it as an exhibit, your honor. I haven’t
written on anything.
Judge. Okay.
Mr. Panish: Ms. Seawright, I’m going to mark --
A. I’m Ms. Young, not Ms. --
Mr. Panish: It says "Seawright" -- Ms. Young, I’m going to mark as 1105 your handwritten
notes that you prepared --

Q. I think you said a few days ago, right?
A. Yes.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I don't have any objection to those being marked for identification
purposes. There's no foundation at this point for them to come into evidence.
Judge. Not yet.
Ms. Bina: Just noting that because otherwise, when we mark something, it usually comes in, so
Judge. Okay.
Mr. Panish: So these notes, when did you write them?
A. I think I said within the last three or four days.
Q. Okay. Well, today is Tuesday, so did you write them on Friday?
A. It could have been Friday or it could have been Saturday.
Q. Okay. And then this one, exhibit 1106, is that your handwriting on that?
A. It is.
Q. And that's entitled "deposition designations of transcript of Rhoma Young"; is that right?
A. No. This is a document that you did -- or that I did, but that was provided to me by the
attorney. But my understanding is those were --

Mr. Panish: Ms. Young --
Mr. Putnam: If he doesn't want the answer, your honor, he doesn't want the --
Mr. Panish: No. The question was --
Judge. Wait a minute. I want you to stop talking, because we have one court reporter and two
of you talking. Let the witness finish her answer, both of you. Ma'am, are you finished?
Ma'am, did you finish your answer?
A. He was asking me about that, and that page has two or three different types of notes on it.
One of them, the typed portions, were portions that his firm had designated from my deposition
that there were -- that were going to be video viewed, so -- and I got that from O’Melveny &
Myers. There are some handwritten notes on that that I made on the flight on the way down
Judge. Okay.
Mr. Panish: My question simply was, is the caption on this document "plaintiffs' designation of
deposition transcripts of Rhoma young"? That was my question.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And then on the -- on this exhibit, 1106, all of these handwritten notes, were they all
making -- made by you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. That's all I asked. So I want to get a copy of that, and I’ll put these right here. Now,
Ms. Young, when is it that you came down here for your testimony?
A. I came down Friday evening.

Q. So you've been here Friday, and today is Tuesday; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And how many times have you been meeting with counsel?
A. I met with them portions of Saturday and Sunday and for a little while yesterday.
Q. Okay. So, ma'am, how many hours have you spent in the last month on this case?
A. Well, I think my billing, which I said that I had with me, if you want to take a look at it,
went up through august 9th or 10th; and since then, I have probably put in another 30 hours,
would be my guess.
Q. Well, you've met Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday -- is that right? -- With the lawyers?
A. No, I did not meet --
Ms. Bina: Objection; misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled. Is that -- is that when you met?
A. I did not meet on Friday. I did meet on Saturday; I did meet on Sunday and on Monday.
Mr. Panish: How many -- and what about today?
A. I have not -- I had lunch with Ms. Bina.
Q. Are you getting paid $450 an hour to be here since what time, 9:00 o'clock this morning?

A. 10:00 o'clock.
Q. So you don't bill until 10:00?
A. No.
Q. Is that right?
A. I don't bill until I get in this chair.
Q. Okay. Good. So then -- you bill 350 to wait around?
A. I do, because it's time I cannot perform on my other work.
Q. So the answer is you do bill at a different rate until you take the witness stand, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And when did you start billing today?
A. Probably about 9:00 o'clock.
Q. Okay. And how many hours did you work on Saturday, Sunday and Monday on this case?
A. Saturday was probably about six, Sunday was probably about seven, and yesterday was
probably about nine.
Q. Okay. And were you meeting with someone yesterday for nine hours?

A. No.
Q. You weren't meeting with anyone yesterday at all?
A. No. I said I met with the lawyers yesterday, it was about three hours.
Q. And what time did you start meeting?
A. I believe it was around three.
Q. Who were all the lawyers you met with on this case?
A. I met with Ms. Bina, I met with Mr. Hunt, I met with another attorney by the name of tad,
and another attorney by the name of Jeff.
Q. So as of -- let's take it before -- you came here on the 16th; is that right?
A. Is that Friday? I don't have a calendar in front of me.
Q. I'm looking at one, it looks like its Friday, but you can correct me if I’m wrong.
A. I came down on Friday. If that's the 16th, that’s when I came down.
Mr. Panish: We all agree it's the 16th? Do you take judicial notice that Friday was the 16th?
Ms. Bina: I’ll stipulate that Friday was the 16th in the hopes of moving this along.
Judge. All right. 16th it is, Friday.
Mr. Panish: Want to say anything else, Ms. Bina? I just asked a simple --

Judge. Stipulation is great. Keep going.
Mr. Panish: I don't know why she has to --
Q. Okay. So, Ms. Young, did you do any work before you came down here to prepare for your
A. I did. I've been working on this consistently since March.
Q. I'm talking about from august 9th until you came down here.
A. I did.
Q. And how many hours did you spend in that period of time?
A. I'm going to estimate that, because we’re talking about a week’s period of time, probably
about ten hours.
Q. So --
A. Because I was also out of town during a part of that time.
Q. Well, just on my calculation, without even getting to today, that's 37, at least, hours; is that
right? You've got six, seven and nine, that's 26, right? Actually, that's 22. So it's 32 hours before
today; is that right?
A. And I believe I said there was probably another approximate 10 hours.
Q. Okay. Another 10. So -- do you bill for travel time?

A. I do.
Q. And how -- and you live in the bay area, so you flew down here, or did you drive?
A. I flew.
Q. Okay. And so they pay for your flight?
A. They did.
Q. And the time that it takes you to go from your home to the airport to fly to get to the hotel?
A. I don't usually bill for that time, I usually bill for flight time.
Q. Well, how long did you bill them for your time when you flew down here?
A. I haven't billed them yet.
Q. How much did you bill them for last time you flew down here?
A. It's in my records. I think it was about three hours total, two and a half, and three hours of
travel time.
Q. The way I see it is on April 7th, you billed for 4.75 for travel time. That's just to go back to
the bay area. Do you want to see this and see if that refreshes your recollection?
A. There was a flight delay, and I was also doing some work during that period of time.
Q. My question was did you bill them 4.75 hours to return to the bay area on April 7th?

A. I did, but that also included work performed.
Q. Work on the case?
A. Yes.
Mr. Panish: Okay. And so I’m going to mark this as 1107. Okay?
Ms. Bina: Do you have a copy for me?
Mr. Panish: No. It's her bill. I don't have a copy. I just took it out of her stack. How would I
have it? It's dated august 9th.
Ms. Bina: I thought it was your own copy.
Mr. Panish: So as of august 9th, what was the total amount that it says that you've been paid?
A. $71,674. No. That's the amount billed. I haven’t been paid for this entire amount yet.
Q. Okay. Well, on this exhibit, it says something right here. Could you read what it says,
A. It says "total paid," but that's not correct.
Q. So this is your record of billing that says “total paid," and that's just a mistake; is that right?
A. It's the total invoiced, is what it should say.
Q. Okay. So as of that time, it's 71,000 and some change, and then we've got another 32 hours
before you took the witness stand -- actually, 33 hours before you took the witness stand today
at 450 an hour, right?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now --
Ms. Bina: Objection; vague. Were you asking whether all of that was at 450 an hour, or that
she took the witness stand at 450 an hour?
Mr. Panish: Is that an objection?
Ms. Bina: I was confused by the question.
Judge. It is vague. Some of it would be at 350, some would be at 450.
Ms. Bina: That's what I was trying to figure out, your honor, because the answer wasn't clear.
Judge. I guess the billings would show. Do your billings break it down that way, some at 350,
and some at 450?
Mr. Panish: She hasn't billed for this yet.
Judge. This is the unbilled portion.
A. 350 an hour.
Judge. So on the bill; it does -- the unbilled -- all right.
Mr. Panish: Give us a total, then, since August 9. We multiply 32 times 350, right?
A. Right. I'm not -- I am not a magician when it comes to --

Judge. Here.
A. that's about 9,000 that I did real quickly. It's 11,200.
Mr. Panish: And then so far today, at least until 4:15 today, that would be from 10:00 to 4:15,
that's another six and a quarter hours, right?
A. And that all goes to the American Cancer Society
Q. Could you answer my question, ma'am?
A. I was. I was agreeing with you.
Q. So that will be another 450 times six, right?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Now, ma'am, I asked you before, from a professional standpoint, you're not a full-time
HR Consultant; isn't that true?
A. No.
Q. Is that true?
A. That's true. No, it's true that I am a full-time HR Consultant. I also have an additional
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I’d like to play the deposition, page 47, lines 2 to 9, of the witness
under oath.

A. I’m sorry, what page?
Mr. Boyle: Do you have a copy, your honor?
Judge. I don't, but if there's no objection --
A. What page?
Mr. Putnam: 47, 2 to 9.
Ms. Bina: I’m going to say, your honor, this is improper impeachment.
Judge. All right. Let me look. Mr. Boyle: the presenting witness has one for you per the
general rules. The defense has one for you.
Ms. Bina: I was just looking for it.
Mr. Putnam: And there's a second volume just in case.
Judge. Thank you. Let me look. What page?
Ms. Bina: Its 47, lines 2 through 9.
Judge. Okay. No. It's fine. It's totally consistent. You may not play it, 2 through 9; unless
there’s some other portion you want to read.
Mr. Panish: Ms. Young, you have another job besides being an HR Consultant, correct?
A. No; I have another business.
Q. You have a business; you're in the antique business and jewelry design, right?

A. That's correct.
Q. And you spend time every week doing that, don't you?
A. On an average of time, I think that's what I said here.
Q. Well, you don't work full time only as a human resources consultant, do you?
A. I said that I work in HR 30 to 50 hours a week, on average.
Q. Ms. Young --
A. I consider that full time.
Q. Do you know what a CMC certification is, ma’am?
A. I believe that is what your expert has, Ms. Seawright.
Q. Could you please answer my question? Do you know what CMC certifications is?
A. I -- just what I read in Ms. Seawright’s deposition.
Q. I'll ask you again, do you know what a CMC certification is, yes or no?
Ms. Bina: I’m going to object; asked and answered your honor.
Judge. Overruled. Just focus on the question, yes or no?
A. yes.

Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. And that's something that you don't have, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, ma'am, you reviewed Ms. Seawright’s resume, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. And you reviewed her areas of expertise, didn’t you?
A. I did.
Q. And one of her areas of expertise is working on negligent hiring and retention cases, correct?
A. That's what she designated, yes.
Q. And you don't have that listed on your c.v. As an area of your experience, do you?
A. No. I think I have employee selection.
Mr. Panish: Do you have that -- your honor, I’m going to ask you, so I don’t have to get into a
debate with this witness, but --
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I would just say she said no, and then she clarified. I don't think that
was an improper answer to the question. Mr. Panish is being extremely argumentative with the
witness, and she gave three extra words. She answered the question, your honor.

Judge. Just focus on the questions, answer the questions asked. Just listen to it.
A. Okay. But if there's something more to add that would clarify it, how do you --
Judge. Why don't you ask me if it's okay if you add something to clarify, I may or may not let
you do it. Just focus on the question.
Mr. Panish: Ms. Young, you've never worked for a concert promoter like AEG, have you?
A. No.
Q. And, ma'am, you said that you've worked in the music industry. Did I hear that right this
A. Yes, I have done some work with music events.
Q. Okay. So is that when you referred to you did some -- a pro bono peripheral kind of one-
time shot work with the opera?
A. That was one of them, but I’ve also done some work with the symphony and the opera that is
on a more ongoing basis.
Q. Well, ma'am, you don't specialize in the entertainment human resources consulting, do you?
A. No.
Q. And when you worked for Boise Cascade, you were on the company side of the human
resources issues, correct?
A. I was.

Q. And when you worked for General Motors, you didn’t actually work specifically for General
Motors; you worked for a division of general motors, didn’t you?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you worked for Fisher Body, which deals with the trim on the vehicles manufactured by
General Motors, correct?
A. It deals -- no, you're incorrect. Part of it deals with trim; part of it also deals with assembly. I
worked in the Fleetwood assembly plant where they assembled Cadillac bodies.
Q. And that's where there were issues with the union and general motors, correct?
A. There were.
Q. And you were the person representing General Motors on labor issues, not the union side,
A. That's correct.
Q. And how long did you say you worked there, General Motors, at fisher body?
A. Three -- a little over three years.
Q. And the last time you worked there was in 1980?
A. No. I think it went -- I think it was until 1983.
Q. Okay. Well, let's take a look, ma'am -- do you have your CV, right there? If I approach you,
just help you find that, I think it was exhibit 5 to your deposition.

Ms. Bina: I would ask that the witness be allowed to look through her own --
Judge. Let her look for it.
A. Did you take it when you came up and took some things off -- because it was here. I only
had one copied.
Judge. He shuffled the paper.
Mr. Panish: No. It's up there; but you don’t want me to help, so I won't help.
Judge. What did you ask her for again?
Mr. Panish: CV
Judge. Her CV?
Mr. Panish: Yes.
A. Here it is.
Q. And you prepared that yourself, right?
A. I did.
Q. And it's accurate; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would know when you worked somewhere, right?

A. I would.
Q. And let's put that up. That is trial exhibit number 13086. Let's put that up for the jury. What
year did you write that you worked at Fisher Body division, ma'am, on your CV?
A. 1978 to '80.
Q. Now, ma'am, you managed labor relations there; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that when there were a lot of layoffs there at the General Motors specific Fisher
Body plant?
A. It was.
Q. And that's when the a body car and going into the b body car were being manufactured; isn't
that true?
A. Your memory on that is better than mine.
Q. Well, during that time, General Motors was laying off tens of thousands of people, weren't
A. At the very end of the period of time I was there, yes. When I first joined them, they were
Q. And part of your job was to assist in workforce reduction for General Motors -- for Fisher
Body, correct?

A. Part of it, yes.
Q. And that means people were losing their jobs, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were working on the company side of that, right?
A. I was.
Q. And the county of Los Angeles, you worked there before you went to general motors,
A. I did.
Q. And at the county of Los Angeles, the last time you worked there was in 1978, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And in the 30 plus -- I think you said -- is it 30 or 40 years that you've had experience in the
human resources field?
A. Close to 40.
Q. Okay. In the 40 years in the human resources field, you've never come across a situation
where a concert promoter had retained or hired a doctor, correct?
A. I have not previously worked in that kind of situation, you're correct.
Q. That's a yes, right?

A. Yes.
Q. In fact, ma'am, you've never seen a third-party agreement for a doctor, have you?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Okay. Tell us all of the third- -- three-party agreements between physicians that -- and
companies and individuals that you've seen.
A. I've worked with some clinics; and going through personnel files, I have seen some third-
party agreements. I have not helped draft them, nor am I familiar with them.
Q. And who are the parties to these three-party -- what year was that that you saw it, ma’am?
A. I would see -- I did audits for accounts, and I looked at personnel files, and as part of that,
there were some independent contractor situations that I looked at and I did see three-party
Q. Okay. Could you answer my question now? What year did you see these three-party
A. Boy, I’m going to have to go back. It was over ten years ago.
Q. Over ten years ago. And who were the agreements between?
A. I don't have specific information on that.
Q. And did the agreements state that -- that the doctor took directions from somebody that
wasn’t the patient?

A. I did not read the agreements with that kind of close detail.
Q. Okay. So, ma'am, you can't tell us the details of any third party -- three-party medical doctor
agreement other than the one in this case, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have never seen a three-party agreement between a concert promoter and producer,
a physician and an artist, correct?
Ms. Bina: Objection; asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I have not.
Mr. Panish: And you're not an expert in contracts or contract interpretation, are you?
A. No, I’m not.
Q. And you're not an expert as to the law that -- what the duties and responsibilities of
employers are when hiring independent contractors or retaining them or supervising them, are
A. No, not the laws.
Q. And you don't know what the law is in this case regarding the duties and responsibilities of
AEG when hiring, retaining or supervising a -- a third-party independent contractor, do you?
A. I'm sorry. Can you go through that? There was some steps in there.

Mr. Panish: Sure.
Ms. Bina: And I’m also going to object to lacking foundation, your honor. The witness has
testified she's not familiar with the law on --
Mr. Panish: Well, she testified about certain opinions in her belief.
Judge. In the HR area. But that's fine, you can clarify it.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. So you don't know and you're not giving an opinion as to the duties and responsibilities under
the law of AEG Live for hiring, retaining or supervising independent contractors, correct?
Mr. Putnam: if any.
Mr. Panish: what --
Judge. You're not asking the questions, Mr. Putnam.
Mr. Panish: I’d ask that he please not do that.
Judge. Let's let the questioner ask the questions.
Mr. Panish: Can I ask it to be read back, please?
Judge. the question may be read back.
(The question was read.)

A. Not under the law, no.
Mr. Panish: And you're unfamiliar with how often physicians travel with musicians on tour,
A. That is not something with which I have a lot of experience, no.
Q. Well, I said -- the question was you are not familiar in any way of how often physicians
travel with musicians on tour; isn't that true?
A. The way you framed that question, I have difficulty answering it because I have some
familiarity with some of the background that I’ve done in this case, so I can't say I’m not
Q. Okay. Why don't you tell me, then, how many times you're aware of physicians traveling
with musicians on tour?
A. Only what I’ve read in this case.
Q. Tell me, what did you read?
A. I read that it was going to happen on the “this is it" tour and that there had, I believe, been a
physician along on a prior tour that Michael Jackson had done.
Q. So that's all you know about?
A. That's all I know about.
Q. And this tour, you have familiarity with the "this is it" tour, you read about that, you read
Gongaware and others' testimony about what was planned; is that right?

A. I did.
Q. And you read that they planned to have shows in London; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And there were plans for a world tour. Did you read that?
A. I know that that was somewhere in the language; but I don't know the plans, how firm they
Q. And then, ma'am, would it be fair to say that you've never dealt with a producer or a
promoter trying to employ a physician?
A. When you say a producer or promoter, are you talking in the entertainment field on a musical
concert tour?
Q. Yes, I am.
A. You're correct, I have not.
Q. Now, you tell us -- how many physicians are you saying you directly hired?
A. No, I didn't say that I had directly hired physicians. I said I had helped in the recruiting.
Q. So the answer to the question is you’ve never been responsible for directly hiring a
physician; have you, ma'am?
Ms. Bina: I’m going to object; vague as to “directly hire." I can explain why I think it's vague
if you want.

Judge. Overruled.
A. not as an employer, no.
Mr. Panish: Well, not as a consultant. You've never hired a physician on behalf of anyone,
have you, ma'am?
A. I've been involved in the hiring of some physicians as a consultant, but I have not been the
person making the decision to hire.
Judge. I’m sorry. You weren't the person making the decision --
A. -- to hire.
Mr. Panish: So the answer to my question is no, you did not, correct?
A. The way you asked it, no.
Q. And, ma'am, you told us about the medical boards and what they review for physicians, didn't
A. No, sir. I told you about what California reviews. That's what I’m familiar with.
Q. Okay. Do you know what Nevada reviewed, and what they review?
A. I have not looked at Nevada’s.
Q. You said -- strike that. Did you know that the California medical board reviews whether a
physician is in arrears on child support payments?
A. Not that I’m familiar with and I did not see that as part of their -- their application.

Q. Did you look at that for Nevada, ma'am?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you look at that for Dr. Murray?
A. I did not.
Q. You do know that Dr. Murray had many occasions where he had not paid child support for
many of his children, correct?
Ms. Bina: Objection; misstates the evidence as to "many of his children."
Judge. Overruled.
A. The information that I had from Mr. Navel, who was a designated expert on your half, said
that there was one child support situation that was late. That was all I was directly familiar with.
Mr. Panish: How many children were you aware that Dr. Murray had?
A. Multiple.
Q. How many?
A. I think it was six or seven.
Q. Six or seven. And how many different women?
Ms. Bina: Objection; relevance.

Mr. Panish: It goes to his --
Judge. Doesn't matter how many women. Sustained on that ground. How many children is
Mr. Panish: Well, it's already in evidence.
Q. You read -- you read detective Martinez’s trial testimony, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. And he testified about how many different women Dr. Murray had children with, didn't he?
Ms. Bina: Same objection, your honor. It’s irrelevant.
Mr. Panish: She reviewed and considered the testimony.
Judge. Sustained. Number of children, stick to that.
Mr. Panish: Well, did you review detective Martinez’s testimony about how many child
support payments Dr. Murray was not making?
A. I know there were some, I don't know how many.
Q. And -- okay. Now, ma'am, you're not disputing that AEG could have made -- had Dr. Murray
sign an authorization and conducted a background check, are you?
A. No.

Q. And you're not -- strike that. AEG has no written policy to supervise independent contractors
like Dr. Murray, do they?
A. No. And may I comment?
Q. Do they have a policy or not, ma'am?
A. I think I answered the question.
Q. No?
A. No. But may I comment?
Judge. You may.
A. They did have a draft independent contractor template that talked about the terms and
conditions of engaging an independent contractor, and it would go through their legal
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. Ma'am, did AEG have a written policy what they're supposed to do to supervise independent
A. I'm not aware of a supervision policy.
Q. Did AEG have a written policy on what they're supposed to do before retaining independent
A. In terms -- I’m not -- when you say retaining, and did before, are you talking about sourcing,
are you talking about actions, are you talking about --

Q. Retaining. Do you know what that means? Hiring, retaining, you're familiar with that term,
are you not?
A. I am.
Q. Okay. Did AEG have a policy in writing as to the procedures they were supposed to follow
before retaining or hiring an independent contractor?
A. As far as I’m aware, the only thing that they had was that template for independent contractor
Q. Did they have a written policy, ma'am, yes or no?
Ms. Bina: Objection; asked and answered.
Mr. Panish: She hasn't answered it.
Judge. I don't know what the template means. Does that mean something in writing?
Overruled, your objections. Respond to the question if it's in writing or --
A. My understanding is that they have in writing a draft template for dealing with independent
contractors, and they talk about the status, they talk about intellectual property, confidential
information, they talk about various things that have to be completed, they talk about
compensation, safety and legal requirements, indemnification status.
Mr. Panish: Okay. So let me ask you one more time, ma'am.
Q. Is there a written policy as to what steps AEG is supposed to undertake before hiring or
retaining an independent contractor?

A. Other than what I’ve already talked about where it talks about what they're going to get and
the information that they're going to need to take a look at -- I see that as a possible policy. So
I’m not trying to be disingenuous in this, I’m trying to be responsive.
Q. Well, Mr. Trell, you read his testimony, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see where he testified that AEG had no written policy regarding hiring or retaining
independent contractors?
A. Yes, but he also talked about this document.
Q. No. Did -- did you see where Mr. Trell said they had no written policy for hiring and
retaining independent contractors, yes or no?
A. I don't recall the exact testimony; but certainly something to that effect, yes.
Q. Okay. Well, let's put up what you’re calling the -- I think you called it the possible policy,
right? Is that what you called it?
A. The template for the engagement of an independent contractor, yes.
Q. You called it a possible policy, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Well, let's look at the possible policy in the AEG Live handbook.
A. It's not in the handbook.

Q. Okay. Well, where is it?
A. It was attached to my copy of the handbook, I initially thought it was in the handbook and
realized that that's the employee handbook, not independent contractor, so it was a separate
Q. Did you ask anyone from AEG that, ma'am?
A. Yes. No, not from AEG
Q. Okay. Well, I’m going to show you what -- what is in evidence. It's exhibit 13090. Let's go
to the first page. I ask you if you've -- put that up. This is actually at your deposition. Have
you seen this document, ma'am?
Ms. Bina: Are you sure this is in evidence?
Mr. Panish: I’m pretty sure with Trell; but if not, I’d move it into evidence as AEG policy that
she’s reviewed in this case.
Ms. Bina: I don't have an objection.
Mr. Panish: It's 13090. I believe it's in. If it’s not, I move it in.
Judge. Is this the handbook?
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Judge. I think it's in evidence.
Ms. Bina: That's fine.

Mr. Panish: Do you need one, ma'am?
A. I may because I only have part.
Q. I'm happy to give you one.
A. Why did I not doubt that?
Mr. Panish: I’m a sharing person.
Ms. Bina: Ms. Young, one of those copies is for the court. I think he gave you two copies.
Judge. Thank you.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. And is this the document that you reviewed, ma’am, as part of your work in this case?
Ms. Bina: I’m just going to object for the record that this is a partial document, and that it’s not
all from the employee handbook.
Mr. Panish: Well, its exhibit 9 to her deposition. And if you want to pull that out, ma'am --
A. that's what I’m trying to find.
Mr. Panish: If you want me to help you --
Judge. Ma'am, you can use this part of the desk, too, if you want to place some documents

A. It's actually right here. I think its exhibit 17.
Mr. Panish: I’m showing you your deposition, ma’am, Do you see exhibit number 9?
A. I do.
Q. Is that exhibit number 13090?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a complete copy of the exhibit? Why don't you check it out for me, make sure.
A. Can you not mush this any more than it already is? Thank you.
Q. Here. Do you want to hold that? Can you hold that?
A. What's your question?
Q. I want you to confirm that's a complete copy of the document.
A. The complete copy of the document that I had?
Q. Yes.
A. I think what you gave me is different than what I have.
Q. Okay. Well, I was referring to exhibit number 9 to your deposition. That's what I was trying
to ask you. I'll bring it back to you. Here's your deposition. You see that's marked exhibit
number 9, what I just showed you? Do you see that, ma'am? And I want you to just confirm
whether -- I don't want to mush up your documents, but --

A. You are.
Q. Sorry.
A. No, you're not.
Judge. You can use this right up here.
A. Okay.
Mr. Panish: All I want you to tell me is if this is a complete copy, that's all, because your
counsel objected.
A. when you say "complete copy," are you talking about a copy of the document itself or a
complete copy of what I had?
Mr. Panish: The complete copy of what you reviewed and considered as exhibit 9 to your
A. This is what I reviewed in my deposition.
Mr. Panish: So you agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you know if that's a complete copy of the AEG document that it purports to be?
A. I don't think so.

Q. Okay. And then is there another document that you think should be part of that?
A. Well, I took parts of it that were the most relevant to me out. That's what I referred to in my
-- in reaching my opinion.
Q. Is that exhibit 17 to your deposition?
A. I mean, I can give you the bates stamp number of what I’ve got and what I had.
Q. Well, ma'am, if you look on the first page -- I’ll come up here again and I’ll show you here
-- this is exhibit 17 -- actually, that's the original document you had at your deposition, isn't it,
A. Yes.
Q. And you wrote across the top what?
A. “handbook."
Q. Okay. So let's -- -- is that your understanding, that's what is the AEG Handbook?
A. This is not the entire handbook.
Q. Okay. Is this what you reviewed and considered in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you ever see the entire handbook?
A. Yes.

Mr. Panish: Okay. So let's get the next exhibit, number 17, which is -- 13098. And I don’t
know that I have another copy, Ms. Bina. It’s exhibit 17 to the deposition.
Ms. Bina: Can I just --
Mr. Panish: Sure. Okay. So, Ms. Young, this exhibit 17 -- let’s put up the first page.
Judge. Just so I’m clear, are we now using what was exhibit 9 to her deposition?
Mr. Panish: We're using exhibit 17, which is 13098.
Judge. So that one is now --
Mr. Panish: We'll go back to the other one, but this is the one that we're on now.
A. Because I have a different bates stamp than you do.
Mr. Panish: There's no question.
Q. Is that exhibit 17 to your deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. It's got the sticker right on it.
Q. Okay. So now -- these are some pages that you brought to your deposition, right?

A. Yes.
Q. And if we -- the specific page that you’re referring to is -- actually, the first page is the only
one of exhibit 17 that's from the handbook, isn't it, ma’am?
A. No.
Q. Okay. What other pages from the handbook? Page 2 is not. Wait a minute. Page 17 is a
one-page exhibit, ma'am?
A. Okay.
Q. Right?
A. What I’ve got, then, are the -- this may be exhibit 9, are the three pages of the index to the
handbook -- four pages of the index to the handbook, followed by specific policies from the
Q. Okay. That's what I thought. But -- so exhibit 9 -- strike that. Exhibit 17 doesn't have the
-- what you call the possible independent contractor written policy, does it?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So let's go back to exhibit 9. Does that have the possible written policy?
Judge. We're just trying to figure out --
Mr. Panish: Well, she's the one who told me, so I’m just trying to get --
A. I have a bates-stamped version of the template that I called and referred to as the
independent contractor template.

Mr. Panish: Ma'am --
A. Whether it is simply clipped to this or whether it was part of it, I’m sorry, I can’t recall.
Mr. Panish: Did you have it at your deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. That's what I’m trying to identify. What exhibit number is it at your deposition?
A. I have no clue. I was not making the exhibits, you were, or Mr. -- the other gentleman was.
I've got the bates stamp, that's all I can give you.
Q. All right. Well, give me that.
A. Okay. It's an .e.g. L000226399.
Q. All right. Hold on.
A. And it goes --
Q. Let's just stop right there. Let's get the first page up. What's it entitled, ma'am?
A. It's called "agreement for services," the agreement for services between an AEG Live
productions and then "company," it's in parentheses, so this is a template, a blank template.
Q. Where was that contained? Was that contained in the employee handbook, ma'am?
A. I don't know where it was contained.

Q. Okay. Who gave it to you?
A. This was given to me when I got the employee handbook.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. This was given to me when I received the employee handbook, so it came from the attorneys
at O’Melveny & Myers.
Q. Okay. And so did you learn where that came from?
A. My understanding is that this was part of what was submitted by Mr. Gongaware during his
Q. Was that -- Mr. Gongaware?
A. Mr. Gongaware.
Q. Okay.
A. I'm sorry. Mr. Trell.
Q. And Mr. Trell when he testified as a person most qualified from the company to address
policies and procedures, correct?
A. In his deposition, yes.
Q. Right. Okay. And he produced the employee handbook, didn’t he?

A. That's my understanding.
Q. And did he produce this with the employee handbook?
A. That's my understanding. I could stand to be corrected.
Q. Is it your understanding that this document is either in or not in the employee handbook?
A. My understanding, it is not in the employee handbook.
Q. Is it attached to the employee handbook?
A. That, I don't know. It was in the -- it was clipped together in the materials that I received, and
I initially thought it was part of the handbook.
Mr. Panish: Okay. Well --
Judge. Counsel, let's go to sidebar.
(The following proceedings were held at sidebar :)
Judge. Okay. There's an employee handbook?
Ms. Bina: What happened, your honor, is at Mr. Trell’s deposition, he produced a number of
HR-related documents. Plaintiffs' counsel clipped them all together in a single document, and
that was what Ms. Young got initially. This is the exhibit from Mr. Trell's deposition, exhibit
678, dash, 8, and goes on.
Mr. Panish: Is that in evidence?

Ms. Bina: I don't know if it's been admitted into evidence. It has a depo exhibit number. So it
contains the employee handbook, which goes to –
Mr. Putnam: We brought all this, they clipped it together.
Ms. Bina: The handbook ends at 678, dash, 1500. Thereafter, there are a number of
miscellaneous HR-related documents, including the draft agreements that she's referring to. Mr.
Trell produced those, but they were not part of the employee handbook, they were just produced
at the same time and clipped together by plaintiffs’ counsel.
Judge. That's at the depo?
Ms. Bina: At Mr. Trell's deposition. And she reviewed Mr. Trell's deposition and the exhibits
thereto, so she got it all as one batch. That's why she initially thought it was part of the
employee handbook. When I realized she had that impression, I said no, he just produced it
together, that’s why it's clipped together.
Mr. Putnam: We didn't put it together, they clipped it together.
Ms. Bina: The hire checklist is in there, a w-4 form, a number of different sort of HR-related
Judge. And this document that she’s referring to is in that stack?
Ms. Bina: It is.
Mr. Putnam: It was the last one, actually. It’s at the end, there's two draft independent
contractor agreements. They're pages 678-199 -- so what these are, basically, are all documents
that Mr. Trell produced in response to plaintiffs' subpoena as person most knowledgeable relating
to HR’s practice -- AEG Live’s practices for retaining employees or independent contractors, and
they were all batched together.

Mr. Panish: The point is that this witness doesn’t know what it is or where it comes from, and
that’s what I’m trying to establish with her. Now, if I can -- the point is that here's the witness
giving all these opinions, and she doesn't know where it comes from, and that certainly goes to
her credibility. So I will -- if Ms. Bina wants me to --
Mr. Putnam: how does it go to her credibility?
Mr. Panish: well, I don't have to answer your questions; but it's clear.
Mr. Putnam: I don't think it goes to credibility.
Mr. Panish: her foundation for opinions, and she doesn’t know where it came from.
Ms. Bina: She knows it came from AEG Live and from Mr. Trell, and she said she thought it
was originally part of the employee handbook and then realized it was not. She doesn't know
whether it’s kept at the same place at AEG within the handbook or not. I'm not sure that's what
affects her credibility. If that's where you're going --
Mr. Panish: I’m trying to get that, too; but I can’t get many answers from her.
Judge. I think the reason it's confusing to me is I’m not sure Trell testified to it during the trial.
Ms. Bina: I don't think he did your honor.
Judge. It was just in depo, which is why I was kind of confused.
Mr. Panish: He testified at trial there was no written policy or procedures.
Ms. Bina: He also testified at trial that they had model agreements and everything was run
through the legal department, et cetera, which she's already referenced.

Mr. Panish: That wasn't my question. I started off with the written policy and procedure, then
she gives me there's a possible one, and that's where I started off because she didn't want to
answer the question.
Mr. Putnam: She actually said no, but she -- her first word was no, but there is something
written which is a draft, so she goes, "I’m not trying to be disingenuous. If you're saying is there
something written that I would consider a policy, yes. Is there anything besides that, no?"
Mr. Panish: She said, actually, "no. Can I clarify?" And the court let her, and she went on to --
launched into this possible. So we'll use that document, its fine. I don't have a problem with
that. So what is the exhibit number of that?
Ms. Bina: 678, dash, 8 through 203.
Mr. Panish: Well, no. The one specifically that we’re dealing with, the trial number.
Ms. Bina: 678, dash, 199, I believe. But you should check the bates number because there
were two of these drafts.
Mr. Panish: I’m just trying to get on the same page with her.
Ms. Bina: Right. I don't have the bates number here. I believe it was 678, dash, 199.
Mr. Panish: We'll try that.
Ms. Bina: It might have been the 678, dash, 193.
Mr. Putnam: We just don't know.
Mr. Panish: That's fine. Okay. Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors :)
Mr. Panish: Ms. Young, you don't know where at AEG Live that template possible written
policy you're referring to comes from, right?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Is that fair?
A. That's fair.
Q. Okay. You need to speak up a little.
A. I'm sorry. I need to be closer to the --
Q. All right. So what we have learned, we hope, is that the trial exhibit number is 678, dash,
193. So I’m going to put that up first and have you tell me is that what you're referring to as the
possible written policy. Let's take a look at it. Is that what you have in front of you?
A. Can I scroll down on this?
Q. Sure, you can. Oh, you can't. I'm sorry. We can do it for you, but you can't.
A. What I’m trying to do is see the bates stamp number on it.
Q. There you go. Sounds like the one you told me.
A. Okay. This is it. Woo.

Q. Okay. So let's take the first page. This is what you believe is a possible written policies and
procedures for what they’re supposed to do before they hire or retain an independent contractor
at AEG, right?
A. This -- yes.
Q. Okay. So let's take the first page. Does it say what they're supposed to check out of the
employee before they hire him?
A. It does not.
Q. Okay. And, by the way, once -- okay. Does it say whether they should do a background
check or not?
A. It does not.
Q. Does it say whether they should check references?
A. No.
Q. Does it say whether they should check prior employment?
A. No.
Q. Does it say whether they should check licenses?
A. On the bottom of that page in section 4, it says "comply with all laws, policies, rules,
regulations," and then it goes down on the next to the last line, "obtain, maintain and comply
with all licenses, permits, franchises and approvals."

Q. Okay. But that's once they're hired, it says "safety and legal requirements, without in any
way limiting any other term or provision of the agreement, company shall do or cause to be done
all of the following," right?
A. Right.
Q. That's who you're hiring, that's what they’re supposed to do. They're supposed to comply
with all the laws, rules and regulations applicable to the service they're performing, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So that's after they're hired, right?
A. Well, they have to ask for it at some point.
Q. Okay. Well, I’m asking you does it say that they should check licenses before they hire them;
and you said yes, and this was the provision.
A. No, I don't think I said yes. I think I said it's in the contract about licenses; and to me, that
would imply that they have to get them at some point.
Q. Okay. Well, ma'am, you're familiar with written policies and procedures, aren't you?
A. I am.
Q. It's important that they're clear in the human resources field, isn't it?
A. It helps.
Q. It's important, ma'am, that everybody knows what the policies and procedures are in writing
so they can be followed, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Because there may be different people engaged, as you said, in the specific activity of
securing someone to work for the company as an independent contractor, correct?
A. My understanding is, though, that it all went through legal, and so that was a controlling
Mr. Panish: Could I please ask again that the witness answer the question?
Judge. Yes, please answer the question that’s asked.
Mr. Panish: I’ll have it read back.
A. Okay.
Judge. You may read it back.
(The question was read.)
Ms. Bina: And I would just object that she answered the question. She said it all went through
the legal department, so to the extent -- it was a question of no, there aren't different people
involved, it's all through the legal department. It seems to me that was responsive.
Judge. You may answer the question.
A. I’m sorry. Can you repeat -- I want to make sure I’m being as responsive as I can be.
Judge. You may need to read two back because it was a little bit confusing.

Mr. Panish: Let me ask you this.
Q. Did you testify on direct examination that it’s important to have specific criteria when you’re
considering someone for employment?
A. I may well have.
Q. You don't remember?
A. I don't, but I’m sure you're going to remind me.
Q. And, ma'am, didn't you say that it’s because there could be different people that are involved
in the -- in the policies and hiring people? Do you remember saying that?
A. If you can point me -- is that part of my deposition that you're talking about.
Q. No. I'm talking about the trial this morning.
A. Okay. If you can -- I don't want to be miss- -- or inaccurate, but I don't remember the exact
wording I used. If you want to show it to me, I’ll be glad to take a look at it --
Q. Ma'am, you came back after lunch and corrected a specific word of your testimony, didn’t
you? The first thing you did?
A. That had to do with federal contractors versus independent contractors.
Q. But you remembered that specific word was wrong and you came back and corrected it,
didn't you?
A. I did.

Q. Okay. So all I’m asking you is do you remember testifying that it's important to have
criteria that are universal or uniform?
A. I don't recall testifying that. I don’t think I used either of those words in my testimony today.
Q. Would you agree that policies and procedures need to be written and clear in the human
resources department?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree that one of the reasons they need to be written and clear is so they can be
followed by all the people involved?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree that one of the reasons that they're to be written and clear is so that you
don’t have different application of the criteria?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, so let's go back to this exhibit. And the first page is there any criteria that you
see there for the hiring of independent contractors that need to be followed in the first page
before the person is retained or hired? I think you have a paper copy there, it might be easier.
A. The way you stated the question, no.
Q. Okay. And there's nothing in there that sets forth a criteria for engaging an independent
contractor, is there?
A. Beyond what is here, no.

Q. Well, there's nothing that sets forth a specific criteria of something that needs to be done
before you engage, hire or retain an independent contractor, correct?
A. The way the question is worded, no, there is not.
Q. That's correct, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's go to the next page. Because this is what you've called a possible written policy,
A. Policy or guideline.
Q. Okay. Now let's take the next page. Is there anything on that page that says that you must
follow this criteria before someone is retained, hired or engaged?
A. I don't see that particular wording in there.
Q. Okay. Let's go to the next page. Is there anything on that page?
A. That says what?
Q. That gives criteria that you're supposed to follow in writing before hiring, retaining or
engaging an independent contractor.
A. Not prior to engaging.
Q. How about the next page?
A. There's only one paragraph on that next page, and signature lines.

Q. Well, does that one paragraph in your possible written policy and procedure state a single
policy or procedure that must be followed before engaging, hiring or retaining an independent
A. Not with those words, no.
Q. Does it -- is it true, ma'am, that your possible written policies and procedures set forth no
criteria that need to be followed before engaging, retaining or hiring an independent contractor?
A. Yes.
Q. Any documents -- so if we put this aside and we put the employee handbook aside because
you said that doesn't apply -- correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. What document applies for written policies and procedures at AEG Live for hiring,
engaging or retaining an independent contractor?
A. To my knowledge, there isn't one; and I think I said that a long time ago.
Q. Now, ma'am, in this case, you were asked to look at the AEG Live written policies and
procedures and see if they were followed and practiced, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in this case, there were no AEG Live written policies or procedures for human resources
that were followed in this case, correct?
A. No.

Q. Is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Please tell me the written policies and procedures for human resources that were in
existence that AEG followed at the time that Dr. Murray was involved.
A. You're not talking about independent contractor; you're just talking about the policies and
procedures, right?
Q. No, ma'am. I'm talking about Dr. Murray.
A. But that's what your question was.
Q. Please tell me all written policies and procedures -- by the way, you understood that the
person that you were assigned to address their situation in this case was Dr. Murray, correct?
A. Dr. Murray -- my understanding is that Dr. Murray was the independent contractor or person
that was being talked about being retained.
Q. Well, first of all, ma'am, have you testified before -- strike that. Your assignment was to
review AEG Live policies and procedures relating to the retention, engaging or hiring of Dr.
Murray, correct?
A. That's one of the things, yes.
Q. Okay. So in that scope of that work, there were no written policies or procedures that were in
existence or followed regarding the hiring, retention or engagement of Dr. Murray, correct?
A. There were no written policies for the retention of -- steps to be taken prior to the retention of
Dr. Murray, no.

Q. Okay. So that was part of your assignment, to assess that; and what you assessed was there
were none in existence, correct?
A. That talked about steps to be taken prior to the retention of a -- of a --
Q. Of Dr. Murray.
A. -- of an independent contractor, yes.
Q. Okay. So --
A. But that's not unusual.
Q. Ma'am --
A. But that's what I was asked to do, was to look at it and see if it comported with industry
Q. There's no question here. Do you want to just keep talking? There's no question.
A. Well, I can, but --
Mr. Panish: I bet.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I’d ask that counsel not --
Judge. Don't argue with the witness.
Mr. Panish: I’d ask that you please admonish the witness not to volunteer.

Judge. Don't volunteer.
A. I was just finishing the answer.
Judge. What happens is you end up in an argument. Don't volunteer and you won't get in an
Mr. Panish: Now, ma'am, when you consult with a company on human resources issues, the
first thing you look at is all the company's human resources policies in writing, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in this case, that's what you asked for, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. And there were none coming to you regarding independent contractors, were there?
A. No.
Q. There were none, were there, that were provided to you?
A. As far as I know, there were no criteria provided that were in writing about the steps
preliminary to hiring an independent contractor or retaining an independent contractor.
Q. Well, when you consult in your consulting business on human resources issues, the first thing
you look at is whether there's a written policy or procedure, correct?
A. I do, and sometimes there is and sometimes there’s not.

Q. And then you look to see whether the company made sure that the policy was correctly
followed, correct?
A. No. I look at how the policies are implemented.
Q. Okay. Whether it was properly implemented correctly, right?
A. Effectively implemented.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. Effectively implemented.
Q. Well did you -- do you think it should be implementing the policies correctly?
Ms. Bina: Objection; vague.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I look for effectiveness, not correctness, when I’m doing my audits.
Q. Well, ma'am, do you remember giving a deposition in this case?
A. I do.
Q. And do you remember being asked that exact same question?
A. I don't, but you can direct me to the page, please.

Q. Yes. Page 62. So the first thing you do -- oh. Let me -- you know, let me skip through this.
You can read it if you want. Go ahead.
A. What lines that you're talking about?
Q. Page 62.
A. I've got page 62. Are there particular lines?
Q. The whole page.
A. And your question is?
Q. I forgot. Let me ask you this. When you were hired in this case, were you asked to assess
whether AEG was efficiently or effectively supervising Dr. Murray?
A. No.
Q. And you didn't render any opinions in this case, and you have no opinions, about whether
AEG appropriately supervised the work of Dr. Murray, correct?
A. No.
Q. Is that correct?
A. No.
Q. That's not correct?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Well, so, first of all, ma'am, when you were retained, you were not asked to offer any
opinions about whether or not AEG Live supervised Dr. Murray in an appropriate way, correct?
A. Okay. The wording in your question changed from the first time you said it to the second
Q. Okay. Let's start with the second one, then.
A. Okay.
Q. What's the answer?
A. Can you please repeat it?
Q. How do you know the wording -- never mind?
A. I want to make sure I’ve got the right one.
Q. Were you asked to offer any opinions in this case about whether or not AEG Live supervised
Dr. Murray in an appropriate way?
A. No.
Q. Therefore, you haven't opinions in that specific area, correct?
A. No, that's not correct.
Q. So now you have opinions but you weren’t asked for them?

A. Right.
Q. You didn't -- you weren't -- that wasn’t the retention in this case, right?
Ms. Bina: Objection; vague as to "retention."
Mr. Panish: It wasn't the scope of what you were doing in this case, correct?
A. Well, I was looking at policies, practices, procedures and how they mirrored industry
Q. Can you tell me, then, what was the -- strike that. There was no written policy or procedure
at AEG Live regarding supervision of Dr. Murray, correct?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. And did you, in this case -- strike that. You're not here to give any opinions about
what type of doctor Michael Jackson needed, correct?
A. No, I’m not.
Q. That's correct?
A. Other than a medical doctor.
Q. Let's go back and look at Mr. Trell’s exhibit, which is trial exhibit 13544. You're familiar
with that, right?
A. I have no idea what you're talking about. Hopefully I will when I see it on the monitor.

Q. Do you know what I’m talking about now?
A. I do.
Q. Now, did you see this document in any of the written policies and procedures of AEG Live?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen it in writing anywhere before this trial?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether AEG Live have it in their policies and procedures manual now?
A. I do not.
Q. Now, is it your testimony here today that this is a policy to check people out --
A. No.
Q. -- as it says?
A. No. It's a process, it's not a policy, and my understanding is this talks about what is actually
Q. My question is, is this, in your opinion, a process how to check people out?
A. This is how, in my understanding, Mr. Trell said it is done at AEG and the difference between
employees and independent contractors.

Q. That wasn't my question. So is this a policy or a process to check out people?
A. That's what it says.
Q. Well, is that your -- that's what it is. That's what you're verifying; it's a process to check
people out, right?
A. This is my understanding of however he described their implementation of their process.
Q. So tell me what AEG Live did to determine whether Dr. Murray had the required licenses or
A. My understanding is that Ms. Norrie checked out the licenses of the doctor, found out that he
also had a couple of locations, talked to him about the scope of his work. I don't remember the
exact wording.
Q. Well, who checked out whether he was fully insured?
A. That was called for in the agreement, that he would provide those insurances within a certain
time frame.
Q. They never were provided, were they?
A. And the agreement was never completed.
Mr. Panish: Well, I’m going to move to strike that, your honor, as a legal conclusion.
Judge. Motion granted, the answer is stricken.
Q. Dr. Murray, no one checked out, as it says, process to check out, if Dr. Murray was fully
insured, correct?

A. That's correct.
Q. Nobody checked out to see whether Dr. Murray could identify -- indemnify AEG Live, did
A. No.
Ms. Bina: Objection; vague as to "could indemnify."
Judge. That's a little vague. Sustained.
Mr. Panish: What's vague?
Judge. "Could indemnify."
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. Indemnifying means if something goes wrong, you have to pay, right, generally?
A. In my understanding, yes.
Q. Okay. And if you don't have money and you don’t have insurance, you can't pay, right?
A. I don't know what assets people may have.
Q. Okay. Well, certainly if you were checking somebody out, you'd want to make sure that they
could indemnify you before, right?

A. You would want to make sure that they were able to comply with what the statements were in
your own agreement about whatever insurance coverage’s needed to be enacted.
Q. And what was done in that regard?
A. It hadn't happened yet.
Q. Well, Dr. Murray signed the agreement and sent it back, didn't he?
A. He did.
Q. And did anyone from Mr. Jackson receive the contract terms, to your knowledge, ma'am?
A. My understanding is that it was not sent to Mr. Jackson's representatives yet.
Q. Well, was it ever sent to Mr. Jackson’s representatives?
A. Not that I understand, no.
Q. Now, did you read Mr. Trell's testimony where he classified -- strike that? You -- when you
read this exhibit, you referred to it as an exhibit for sourcing independent contractors, correct?
A. I beg your pardon? First of all, I’m not sure what -- are you talking about the draft
agreement or are you talking about the template?
Q. I'm talking about the process to check people out.
A. Okay.
Q. And when did you first review that, ma'am?

A. Within the last few days, I think I saw it the first time -- no. It was sent to me last week.
Q. Last week?
A. Before I came down.
Mr. Panish: Okay. Is this a good time to take the break, your honor? I'm trying to get
organized here.
Judge. I was hoping to go another ten minutes.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. Do you know what it means to source independent contractors?
A. I do.
Q. Does that mean to find them?
A. Yes, inquire about them, find them, and locate them, sure.
Q. And this -- and this check-out-people document is a way that you -- the first three are the way
that you source independent contractors, correct?
A. Those are -- I don't know that you would call it ways. I think you -- I would more accurately
call it resources to use in the sourcing of independent contractors.
Q. Well, finding somebody is different than checking them out, isn't it?

A. Yes. You may be doing both at the same time.
Q. And to you, does hiring mean engage to do work?
A. In a very broad sense, yes.
Q. Well, in -- and you said that what happened here -- let me make sure I quote you right -- is
that you have a -- let me just say exactly what you said.
A. Are you referring to my deposition or are you referring to trial testimony from earlier today?
Because if so, I’d like to see a copy of it.
Mr. Panish: I haven't even asked the question yet, your honor.
A. I’m just trying to be prepared.
Judge. Let him ask the question first, and then --
A. Okay.
Mr. Panish: You've been in court more than me, probably. So I’m just trying to get through
Mr. Putnam: Move to strike.
Judge. Motion granted. Just ask your questions, Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish: Usually witnesses don't start asking questions before you do, your honor.
Mr. Putnam: I move to strike again, your honor.

Judge. Motion granted, comment stricken.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. Well, ma'am, you knew -- you know there's a tour agreement, right? You read that?
A. Yes.
Q. And the tour agreement pays AEG a fee to hire independent contractors, doesn't it?
A. I'm not exactly sure. If you can show it to me, I’ll be glad to take a look at it and offer my
opinion on it.
Q. Well, didn't you review Mr. Gongaware’s testimony in that regard, ma'am?
A. I reviewed Mr. Gongaware's testimony. There were portions of it that I reviewed, there were
portions that I did not.
Q. Well, tell me, ma'am, what was your understanding of what AEG was paid for hiring third-
party contractors and vendors?
A. I don't recall.
Ms. Bina: I’m just going to object to the extent it calls for an interpretation of the AEG/Jackson
contract beyond her expertise.
Judge. Overruled.
Ms. Bina: I’m not sure I understand the question fully, so --
Judge. That is a little vague.

Mr. Panish: Okay. Well, let's get it out here. It's exhibit 83. Is that right? Off by 20. 66.
Q. And you reviewed Mr. Gongaware's deposition and trial testimony, right? You told us that?
A. I reviewed portions of his trial testimony, but I did review his entire deposition testimony.
Q. Okay. And which portion of trial testimony did you review?
A. I don't have it here with me so I can’t tell you exactly what parts I reviewed.
Q. How about Mr. Trell? Did you review his trial testimony?
A. I did.
Q. The whole thing?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Remember when Mr. Trell talked about the touring agreement?
A. I don't recall. That was not something I was focused on.
Q. Okay. Well, this is a tour agreement in front of you. Okay? Are you with me?
A. I am.
Q. Who is the promoter, do you know?
A. The promoter is, I understand, AEG Live.

Q. Okay. So let's go to the next page.
A. How does this move?
Q. It doesn't; so you can do that all day, it’s not going to move. We'll have to move it for you.
A. Okay.
Q. So if you look here, keep going -- is it 8.1? I don't think so. All right. 8.1. We're going to
go right to there for you, ma’am. Okay?
A. Okay. Right now, I’ve just got a blank screen.
Q. So do us.
A. Life's like that, isn't it? Okay.
Q. It starts off -- we'll give you the whole thing. Do you see where Mr. Trell talked about how
the promoter was to engage the services of third-party vendors, assist in the production of the
show. Do you see that, ma'am?
Ms. Bina: Objection; vague as to whether –
Mr. Putnam: She's being shown one document and asked about something else, your honor.
Ms. Bina: I’m just confused because he said do you see there in Mr. Trell's testimony.
Judge. Oh, up here in the document.

Mr. Panish: In the document. Mr. Trell testified, but in the document.
A. That's not what I’m reading, what I have. I have 8.1, that paragraph and that paragraph only.
Mr. Panish: Yeah.
Q. It doesn't say he was supposed to engage the services of third-party vendors? It doesn't say
A. No. "promoter shall provide producer services in connection with the design and production
of the show including, without limitation, working closely with the artist regarding creative
aspects, design of the show, managing the production in accordance with mutually approved
parameters and a mutually approved production budget, and engaging in the party -- of third-
party vendors to assist in the production of the show. "The parties will work together to prepare
a mutually approved tour rider for the shows."
Q. Okay. And how much was AEG being paid to engage the services of third-party vendors?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay. I want you to assume it was 5 percent. Okay?
A. 5 percent of what?
Q. I don't want to get -- it's -- of money at the end after certain adjustments. Okay?
A. I mean 5 percent of the contracts with the vendors? I'm sorry.
Q. 5 percent of the artist's net income.
A. From --

Q. The tour.
A. Net or gross.
Q. Net.
A. Okay.
Q. All right? And they get to deduct the producer’s fee. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. And that's 5 percent. Okay? Producer’s fee. Okay?
A. All right.
Q. So did you know that?
A. I had seen some reference to percentages. I wasn't tracking that because it wasn't relevant,
nor was I did not ask to ever review that, nor does it affect my opinions.
Q. But it's your opinion that AEG Live had no, from a human resources standpoint, obligation to
check out Dr. Murray, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Whether they're getting paid to retain people or not, correct?

A. Correct, especially when I’m reading this and talking about the types of people they're going
to be engaging.
Q. So you're -- from a human resources standpoint only, in your opinion, they had no obligation
to do anything, right?
A. In terms of checking out Dr. Murray and his background, no.
Q. Okay. But you do understand that AEG Live undertook to draft a written contract with Dr.
Murray, correct?
A. At the request of Michael Jackson, yes.
Q. And you do understand that AEG Live negotiated with Dr. Murray for a contract price didn’t
A. My understanding is that there was an agreed-upon price that Michael Jackson had Okayed.
Q. First of all, did Michael Jackson ever ask AEG Live to do a written contract?
A. I don't know as I have specific information on that.
Q. Well, tell us all -- you just told us that they did a written contract at the request of Michael
Jackson. Tell us all the information you have that Michael Jackson requested a written contract
between Dr. Murray and AEG Live.
A. Well, right on the last page of that agreement, it says the undersigned hereby confirms that he
has requested producer to engage Dr. Murray on the terms set forth herein on behalf of and at the
expense of the undersigned, and its Michael Jackson.
Q. Michael Jackson never saw that, did he, ma’am?

A. Not yet.
Q. So --
A. I mean -- I understand that he did not receive this.
Q. Right. So other than that document language that was drafted by a .e.g. Live, you have no
evidence whatsoever that Michael Jackson ever requested a written contract between Dr.
Murray and a .e.g. Live, do you?
A. I don't recall the specific -- no, I don’t recall the specific testimony of the parties involved.
Q. Ma'am, you're aware of no evidence that supports your statement that Michael Jackson
requested a contract in writing between AEG Live and Dr. Murray, correct?
A. I have not seen any written evidence, no.
Q. Well, have you seen any video evidence?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen any audio evidence?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen any evidence of any type whatsoever?
A. Not that I can specifically think of, no.
Judge. All right. Let's take a break. 15 minutes.

(18-minute recess taken.)
Judge. You may continue.
Mr. Panish: Thank you.
Q. Ms. Young, you were talking about dangerous jobs. Do you remember that?
A. I do.
Q. And you reviewed materials on that?
A. I did.
Q. And were you -- and you doing think being a doctor is a dangerous job, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. For anyone?
A. Nor does the bureau of labor standards.
Q. Were you aware of the Harvard study that last year, 100,000 people died in hospitals as a
result of medical malpractice?
A. No.

Q. Were you aware that many more people were injured severely as a result of medical
A. No.
Q. And when you say the job is not dangerous, you mean doing the job, not the third party,
A. That's the traditional definition, yes.
Q. Well, that's your definition, correct?
A. No. It's the traditional HR definition.
Q. Well, in the documents that you reviewed and considered on dangerous jobs, one of them
was a keeper of crocodiles, right? Do you remember that? Crocodiles, dangerous jobs,
crocodile keeper, need to undertake training and gain knowledge to work with and be around
crocodilians. Do you remember reviewing that?
A. I will be happier if you show it to me.
Q. So you don't remember that as being in the exhibits to your deposition, crocodile's keeper?
A. I'm not sure. I'm looking for the documents right now; I thought I had them with me.
Q. And like wild animal handlers, that was another one. Do you remember that, Ms. Young?
A. What I have are fishers and related industries -- this is from the bureau of labor standards --
logging, aircraft, refuse and recyclable, refers, structural iron and steel workers, farmers,
ranchers, drivers, sales workers and truck drivers, electrical power line installers and repairers,
and taxi drivers and chauffeurs.

Q. And then as part of the materials you have produced --
Ms. Bina: Before you show her something, Mr. Panish --
Mr. Panish: I’m just going to show her the page so she can find her own.
Ms. Bina: Can you show it to me first?
Mr. Panish: Sure, I can. I'm just trying to get done, no problem.
Ms. Bina: Which I appreciate, but --
Mr. Panish: Here you go. Right there, exhibit to her deposition. It has the boat on the front.
Here it is, ma'am. You can see here --
A. "Danger on the high seas"?
Mr. Panish: There you go. And in that publication that you reviewed and considered from the
bureau of labor statistics, I’m going to point you out here where it talks about crocodiles, wild
animal keeper of crocodiles, wild animal handlers. Do you remember that?
A. What page?
Q. I don't know. It doesn't have a page number.
A. Yeah, it does, right here.
Q. Okay. 12. That was part of the materials that you reviewed. Does that refresh your
recollection, ma'am?
A. It does. Crocodiles are nasty critters.

Q. Have you ever trained a crocodile?
A. Not recently. Been cross-examined by a few, I'm sorry.
Q. That's okay. Let's tab up how much you got paid to get cross-examined here. How much
was it for the 32? You said 11,000 something, right?
A. 11, 2, I think.
Q. 11, 2 plus 71, that's 82, 2, correct?
A. I'll trust your math.
Q. And then we have for today at 4:15, that’s six and a quarter hours. At 450 an hour, how
much does that come out to?
A. A nice contribution to the American Cancer Society.
Q. Ma'am --
A. Seriously.
Q. I just want to ask you how much that comes out to. So about 85,000?
A. I'll, again, trust your math.
Q. And you said you're an independent contractor working for O’Melveny & Myers; is that

A. No. I am an independent contractor working with O’Melveny & Myers.
Q. Okay. Well, did O’Melveny & Myers -- did anyone ever tell you that you need to remember
who’s paying you?
A. No, I don't think they used that exact language.
Q. Did they ever tell you need to remember what’s expected of you?
A. No.
Q. That wouldn't be appropriate, would it?
A. They could tell me, it wouldn't do any good.
Q. Now, ma'am, you're giving the whole $85,000 as a donation, right?
A. No; I’m giving the money from trial testimony.
Q. Oh, just today, then. So if I keep you tomorrow, there will be more money that you'll give to
the American Cancer --
A. You've got it.
Q. So you don't mind staying, do you?
A. That's okay. I'm booked over.
Mr. Putnam: Your honor, please.

Mr. Panish: I’m all in favor of American Cancer, right?
A. I’m in favor of the society, not in favor of American cancer.
Mr. Panish: That's what I mean. So let's talk about now, ma'am, background checks. Okay?
A. Okay.
Mr. Panish: And you reviewed the Frasco authorization that AEG Live has in their handbook,
did you not?
A. Has as -- it was attached to the version of the handbook that I received, yes.
Q. And that is -- let's put it up. That’s exhibit 13090, and that's page number 383. We gave that
to you already. I gave you a copy of that -- let’s go to the Frasco --
Judge. It should be this one.
A. No, it's actually the other one. It's this one.
Mr. Panish: Now, ma'am -- can we put that up? You know, before we do that, you told us that
generally these independent contractor agreements are reduced to writing. Do you remember
saying that during direct examination?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. And you said generally, not always, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And when you said generally, you also said that the terms and the specific scope of the work
are reduced -- right? -- To writing generally?
A. Usually, yes.
Q. You said generally in your testimony?
A. Usually or generally.
Q. Well, they're -- all right. And then you said that what's reduced writing -- one thing is the
scope of the employment, correct? What the person is going to do?
A. Yes.
Q. And the term, how long it's going to last, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And how much they're going to get paid, right?
A. Right.
Q. And who's directing the work, correct?
A. No, I don't think I said that.
Q. Okay. Well, in the Dr. Murray contract, under the time for the work, the period of time, when
did the period of time start, do you know?
A. I believe it was supposed to be backdated to a man date.

Q. Okay. Isn't it true, ma’am that the contract had Dr. Murray's work to begin on May 1st? Do
you not know that?
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. Okay. Now let's go to this exhibit. This is page 11-1 of -- now I’m going to mess up the
exhibit -- 13090.0011. And you're familiar with this background check through frasco that was
attached to the AEG Live employee handbook, right?
Ms. Bina: I’m just going to object; misstates the document to the extent it was attached to the
AEG Live employee handbook.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish: Where was this document, ma’am?
A. When I received it, it was clipped to the handbook version that was sent to me.
Q. Okay. Have you ever received a bound version of the handbook from AEG Live?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen the version that they give to the employees?
A. I don't know what shape it's in when they give to the employees.
Q. Okay. So "as part of the evaluation process for employment, promotion, retention,
consulting, subcontract work, volunteer work, AEG Company may obtain information about you
for employment purposes from a third-party consumer reporting agency." Did I read that right,

A. Yes.
Q. And subcontractors, those could be independent contractors, correct? You told us all about
that, right?
A. No, I didn't talk about that.
Q. You didn't talk about people on a job site, subcontractors in a construction job site,
subcontractors being independent contractors?
A. No, I didn't say that. What I said is that independent contractors may bring on subs.
Q. And then it says "thus, you may be the subject of a consumer report and/or investigative
report, background check, which may include information," and it lists all the various areas,
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, Frasco profiles performs background checks for AEG; don't they?
A. Yes.
Q. And Frasco has an arrangement with AEG, don’t they?
A. That, I don't know, other than my assumption is that they do their third-party contracting --
I’m sorry -- third-party background check work.
Q. Does AEG have an arrangement with Frasco profiles?
A. I believe so.

Q. Do you remember testifying to that in your deposition, ma'am?
A. I don't; but if you point me to the page, I’ll be glad to look at it.
Q. Can you look at your deposition, page 146, lines 12 to 15.
A. Got it.
Q. Okay. Do you remember testifying -- does that refresh your recollection, ma'am, about
whether or not Frasco has an arrangement with AEG Live?
A. And I said that's my understanding.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection, is the question.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, ma'am, in 2009, AEG Live had the ability to check out independent contractors
through Frasco if the person that they were checking out consented to that, correct?
A. Yes. I think you previously asked that, and I said yes.
Q. And the background check from Frasco would cost about 40 to $125 per person.
A. Was that a question?
Q. Yes.
A. My understanding, that's what hire right charges. I don't know what Frasco charges.

Q. Okay. Well, ma'am, so you don't -- it's -- is it your understanding that Frasco could do a
background check for AEG Live for between 40 and $125?
A. That would be my estimate; but those costs, I drew from hire right, and I think I said that in
my deposition, which is a different and competing background check.
Q. That's your best estimate; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Frasco, they could do a credit check on a contractor, correct?
A. If the contractor signed the release and met with all of the legal requirements about doing
credit checks.
Q. If somebody authorizes it, you could do it, right?
A. If it meets with all of the standards that are there, yes.
Q. And if somebody authorizes it, then you can have the information and you could share it with
that individual, correct?
A. You would have to share it with that individual.
Q. And you can question them about what you find, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you could also do a civil judgment search on a contractor, couldn't you?

A. If its job related, and the same thing goes to credit checks.
Q. Ma'am, if somebody signs an authorization, you can do a civil judgment check, can't you?
A. If it is job related.
Q. Ma'am -- okay. Are you familiar with the Nevada law in that regard?
A. No.
Q. Do you know where Dr. Murray lived?
A. My understanding is he lived in Las Vegas and also did work in Texas, Hawaii and
Q. He did work in Hawaii?
A. Or was licensed in Hawaii.
Q. No. You just said he did work. Did Dr. Murray ever do work in Hawaii?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. And you're familiar with credit checks, are you not?
A. I am, in general.
Q. Pardon me?
A. I don't do them myself.

Q. Are you familiar with them?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. Okay. As far as you know, AEG -- you saw no evidence that AEG Live did any type of
background check on Dr. Murray, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You did or you didn't?
A. I did.
Q. You saw evidence that they did?
A. I saw the wording in Ms. Jorries’ statement that she checked out his licenses and whether or
not they were current and whether there had been any complaints about him.
Q. Okay. Well, I’d like to read your deposition, ma’am that you testified under oath, page 176,
lines 9 through 11. And this was taken on April 7. Did you review your deposition and sign it
under penalty of perjury, ma'am?
A. I did; and at that time, I did not know about Ms. Jorrie's inquiry.
Q. I just asked the question, ma'am.
A. Yes and I were explaining.
Q. And I’m going to play –

Mr. Putnam: It's not an inconsistent statement, it’s prior to her trial testimony.
Judge. If you want me to review it, I’ll review it.
Mr. Putnam: No. Let's just go.
Ms. Bina: let's just get through it.
Mr. Panish: Let's play it.
(The following videotaped deposition testimony was played :)
Q. Did you see any evidence in this case that AEG Live did a background check on Dr.
A. I did not.
Mr. Panish: Now, ma'am, you're aware that judgments existed in 2009 against Dr. Murray,
A. Yes.
Q. And you reviewed Dr. -- excuse me. You reviewed detective Orlando Martinez’s trial
testimony, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. And you saw that he was a well-credentialed detective with 19 years’ experience with the Los
Angeles police department, correct?
A. I knew he was experienced, I did not know quite how long. I don't remember how long.

Q. And you know that detective Martinez found
A. Card of Dr. Murray and a contract in Dr. Murray’s car, correct?
Ms. Bina: Objection; misstates the evidence.
A. I don't recall that.
Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Panish: You don't recall reading the trial testimony and detective Martinez found a
business card from Randy Phillips, the CEO of AEG Live, and the contract between AEG Live
and Dr. Murray that was drafted by the AEG Live lawyers?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Okay. And do you recall that as a result of that, detective Martinez believed that Dr. Murray
had a motive for doing what he did for his own financial gain?
Ms. Bina: And I would object that that misstates the testimony, your honor.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish: Let's put up 2415, line 6 to 11, the trial testimony, and let’s see what it says.
Judge. "Potential."
Ms. Bina: Also, being motivated by financial gain is different than being motivated by a

Judge. That's all right.
Mr. Panish: Does this refresh your recollection that detective Martinez said that when he found
the card and the contract, that that would have potentially been a motive as to why Dr. Murray
did what he did, and that he wanted to investigate that?
Ms. Bina: I would just object that this doesn’t actually state that.
Mr. Panish: I just read it.
Judge. Well, it doesn't have the preamble about the business card.
Mr. Panish: No. I could go back and go to that testimony if we want to.
Judge. Why don't you just ask what's in there.
Mr. Panish: She reviewed it.
Judge. Do you want to ask what's there, or --
Mr. Panish: Yes, I do.
Q. Did you review that testimony, ma'am?
A. I did.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection about detective Martinez’s testimony?
A. It does.

Q. And when did you first review detective Martinez’s testimony?
A. I'm not sure; but it was maybe at least two weeks ago, maybe three.
Q. Did you take any notes of that?
A. No.
Q. Okay. By the way, those notes that I marked, do you have those somewhere? And I know --
I marked this as an exhibit. I don't know why you took off the tab?
A. I didn't take off the tab.
Q. Somebody did. Here we go. Is it okay if I have these two exhibits?
A. No. They're my originals.
Q. I'll give them back to you.
A. Okay.
Q. All right. So did you write out in your billing statements when you reviewed detective
Martinez’s testimony?
A. No.
Q. Okay. All right. Just for the record, that was exhibit 1107, and apparently it's lost its tab, so
I’ll give it another one. And we'll take a copy and we'll give this back to you.
A. Okay.

Mr. Panish: Okay.
Ms. Bina: I’m having a little trouble hearing. Could you possibly move closer to the mike?
A. Sorry.
Ms. Bina: thank you.
Mr. Panish: Did you review detective -- you can take that down. -- Detective Martinez’s
testimony that based on his background check of Dr. Murray, he believed that Dr. Murray was in
desperate financial trouble?
A. I don't recall word for word. I recall similar testimony to that about his speculations about
Dr. Murray.
Q. Okay. Well, let's look at his testimony, then. 2417, lines 9 to 11, from the trial. Does that
refresh your recollection that detective Martinez testified when questioned, "Did you find
anything that led you to believe that Dr. Murray was in desperate financial trouble?" answer,
"yes, sir" -- does that refresh your recollection, ma'am?
A. I'm not questioning that. It was in the deposition.
Q. It was in his deposition?
A. Trial testimony. I'm sorry.
Q. And, ma'am, did you read that detective Martinez classified Dr. Murray's financial condition
in May and June of 2009 as severely distressed?
Ms. Bina: Objection; misstates the testimony, your honor. If you'll recall, he didn't have any
understanding until a bit later in the time period. I think an objection was sustained at that time.

Judge. What is your question?
Mr. Panish: Do you recall detective Martinez testifying that Dr. Murray -- that he classified
Dr. Murray as being in severely distressed financial condition as of May and June 2009?
Judge. And what was your objection?
Ms. Bina: The objection, your honor, was that a large part of what detective Martinez
reviewed was post -- the foreclosure on his home was several months after June, so there was
some ambiguity in terms of what he testified as to when. I think he was consistent in saying
there were financial issues all along, I just --
Judge. Overruled. He can still be in financial desperation prior. Overruled.
Ms. Bina: I can't remember if the severe part was prior.
Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Panish: Let's look at the testimony.
Q. Can you answer that first?
A. I basically remember, but this is so far beyond what I was asked to look at and consider in
terms of the work that I was doing.
Q. Well, who provided you with detective Martinez’s testimony to review?
A. O’Melveny & Myers. I asked for it.
Q. Okay. And did you tell them it was so far removed from what you were asked to do?

A. No; but there was a lot of testimony I reviewed that was not exactly on point.
Q. Okay. Did you review it all?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you bill to review it?
A. I did.
Q. Now, did you learn that Dr. Murray's house was about to be taken away?
A. I learned that he was late on his home payments. I don't know where it was in the
Q. Well, there was a lien on -- the lien placed on his house by the bank that he owed the money
to. Did you see that?
A. I don't recall.
Mr. Panish: Just show the witness 2419, 4 to 12. See if this refreshes your recollection.
Don't put it up on the main screen.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, the only issue here is that this is somewhat similar.
Judge. Time frame?
Ms. Bina: Time frame is the concern, your honor, because it actually was not in May or June, it
was substantially later.

Mr. Panish: It was six months before that he was not paying.
Ms. Bina: Well, that's a big difference in that.
Judge. Six months.
Mr. Panish: before this.
Ms. Bina: No, no, no. This is when he was at the house. If I recall correctly, your honor, the
last mortgage payment was in April of 2009, and it was not a complete payment, there had been
-- the last full payment was in January of 2009, so it was in arrears by May, but I believe the
foreclosure proceedings were initiated substantially later and, in fact, it was about a year later it
was actually foreclosed on.
Mr. Panish: That’s not true, number one; and numbers two, that's not evidence.
Judge. Well, if it misstates the evidence, then you shouldn't be asking --
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I’m asking this witness based on the testimony that they gave her to
review if that’s what she recalls or not. She can say no, that’s not true; yes, it is true; or "I don't
Judge. Yes, but it may be misleading.
Mr. Panish: It's not. For counsel to get up here and start saying all these facts that are not in
evidence that she's testifying, that is misleading.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I’m basing it on evidence that was admitted in connection with detective
Martinez’s testimony. If I’m misremembering -- I don’t think I am. My concern was just
showing this little snippet might be confusing to this witness, and she said she wasn't really
paying attention to this portion of Martinez’s testimony. That's all. I don't want to hold up

Judge. Keep going. Just take it down.
Mr. Panish: It's not up.
Judge. Okay. Keep going.
Mr. Panish: It was never on the screen, your honor.
Judge. All right.
Mr. Panish: Well, ma'am, did you review detective Martinez’s testimony about whether or not
because of Dr. Murray's money problems, he was more likely to break the rules?
A. I recall something to that effect, but it was not information upon which I based my opinions.
Q. So is that a yes?
A. Kind of sort of.
Q. Ma'am, at the time you gave your opinions in this case at the deposition, you said you hadn’t
reviewed -- strike that question. Let's put up exhibit number 1 -- it's got several numbers, but it's
a June 20 e-mail, 13094. It's also 363, I think. Right? I'll just put it up as 13094. Do you see
that, ma'am? You've seen that before, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And when Dr. -- strike that. Mr. Phillips, do you understand what his position was
with AEG Live?
A. I believe he was the president, yes.

Q. How about --
Q. Okay. Fair enough. And where he says "this doctor's extremely successful, we check
everyone out, and doesn't need this gig, so he totally unbiased and ethical," did I read that right,
A. You did.
Q. And, ma'am, you had no idea how Randy Phillips determined that Dr. Murray was extremely
successful, did you?
A. My understanding is based upon reading Ms. Jorrie's trial testimony and Mr. Phillips' trial
testimony that they had had a conversation and that she had done a search on Dr. Murray's
license status.
Q. Okay.
A. I did not know that at the time of my deposition.
Mr. Panish: I want to play 217, lines 2 to 4, of her deposition.
A. I didn't know it then.
Mr. Panish: Well, my question was did you know, and the answer -- I want to play it right now,
its impeachment.
Ms. Bina: And, your honor, I would say it's not impeachment. She specifically stated it was

Judge. She said it under oath, you can play it.
Ms. Bina: It was true at the time, your honor.
Mr. Panish: No, it wasn't.
Judge. You may play it.
(The following videotaped deposition testimony was played :)
Q. How did Randy Phillips determine that Dr. Murray is extremely successful?
A. I have no idea.
Mr. Panish: And, ma'am, you testified under oath that you had seen no evidence that Randy
Phillips knew Dr. Murray was extremely successful, correct?
A. If you want to show me the direct testimony, it's not inconsistent with what I would have
Mr. Panish: Okay. Let's play deposition page 217, line 17 to 21.
Ms. Bina: And I would object there, your honor, as improper impeachment. She said she didn't
recall what she said.
Mr. Panish: She just asked to see it. Play it right now.
Ms. Bina: I think she was asking for her recollection to be refreshed, your honor.
Judge. Okay. Refresh it.

Mr. Panish: No, your honor. I asked the question directly, and she said no.
Mr. Putnam: She said, "I don't recall that."
Mr. Panish: She didn't say --
Judge. Refresh her recollection, see if it helps. Do you know the reference page and line?
Mr. Panish: She knows.
A. Did you say 217?
Mr. Panish: I sure did.
Q. Do you have it yellowed out?
A. I said that --
Q. First -- that's not the way it's done. Okay? So the first question was, did you testify under
oath that you see no evidence in this case that Randy Phillips knew Dr. Murray was extremely
successful? And you said you don't recall; so now that you’ve read that transcript under oath,
does that refresh your recollection?
A. On April 7th, that's what I said.
Q. Okay. So you testified under oath in this case that you'd seen no evidence that Randy
Phillips knew Dr. Murray was extremely successful, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And did you testify under oath --
A. No, that is not what I said.
Mr. Panish: Okay. Well, let's just play it, then, since there's a debate, we'll get through this
Judge. All right.
Ms. Bina: I would object, your honor. It’s improper impeachment. I think she was trying to
clarify what she said.
Judge. Just play it.
(The following videotaped deposition testimony was played :)
Q. You haven't seen any evidence that Randy Phillips knew that Dr. Murray was extremely
successful, have you?
A. No.
Mr. Panish: And, ma'am, you also testified under oath that you don't know how Randy Phillips
checked out Dr. Murray, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you know how to advise an employer on how to check out prospective hires, right?
A. I do.
Q. And you advise them to do reference checks, correct?

A. If an employer is hiring an employee, yes.
Q. And you also advise them to go through the interview process that is job related, correct?
A. That's correct, if an employer is hiring an employee.
Q. And where you talk about Dr. Murray’s licenses, were you aware that his board certification
for internal medicine had lapsed as of 2009?
A. No.
Q. You never heard that before today?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what a board certification is, ma’am?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. And do you know what you have to do to get a board certification -- to get it re- -- to
not have it lapse?
A. There are certain continuing education things that you have to go through in recertification.
Q. And you have to take a test, right?
A. I believe so.
Q. And do you know how long the test is for internal medicine?

A. In what state?
Q. Do you think it's a state-by-state certification, internal medicine boards?
A. It often can be.
Q. Ma'am, aren't you aware that it's a national board, and there's one certifying agency
nationally for the internal board of -- the board of internal medicine? You're not aware of that?
A. I know that there are different states that have different criteria for what they designate as
board certification and various trainings that are required.
Q. Okay. So tell us, ma'am, are you saying under oath here today that California or Nevada has
a special board certification for internal medicine?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Isn't it true, ma'am, that it's a national board and no state has a specific certification
for internal medicine?
A. I'm not familiar with that.
Q. Well, you told us about all these doctors you’ve been involved in consulting with that they’ve
been hired, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us, what board certifications -- what states have board certifications.
A. I am not familiar with states other than California.

Q. Okay. What board certifications specifically does California have, ma'am?
A. I'm familiar with ones on oncology, plastic surgery, and cardiology.
Q. So you're as sure today of any opinion you’ve given that the state of California has specific
board certifications for plastic surgery, cardiology and oncology; is that correct?
A. That's my understanding; but I’m not an expert in this, I haven't checked it out, and I haven't
reviewed it.
Q. Well, you told us you're an expert on physicians being hired, didn't you, ma'am?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You told us what the standard is about physicians in all these cases that you've worked on,
didn’t you, ma'am?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Ms. Bina: I’m going to object as to "all these cases."
Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Panish: You talked about the Sutter hospital and the Silicon Valley and all this work
you’ve done with hospitals and hiring physicians, didn’t you, ma'am?
A. I told you that I had worked with those clients, and I had been engaged in helping design
recruiting programs.

Q. You're not an expert at all in the criteria and the credentials for hiring a physician, are you,
A. I am familiar with what the California board does when they certify a physician. I did not
look at other states in this case.
Mr. Panish: That wasn't my question; and I’d ask, your honor, if it could be re-read and she
could answer the question.
Judge. It may be re-read.
(The question was read.)
A. I am very familiar with the California criteria that are listed on their applications for a
Judge. Does that mean you are an expert?
A. No.
Mr. Panish: Ma'am, board certifications -- wouldn't you expect someone who is an expert in
hiring physicians to know what board certifications are?
A. I don't have that knowledge.
Q. You don't know anything about board certifications for physicians, do you, ma'am?
A. That has not been part of what I’ve been asked to do.
Q. The answer to the question is you know nothing about board certifications for physicians, do
you, ma'am?

A. I would not say "nothing," but that is not an area of specialization.
Q. Okay. Well, tell me, are they statewide or are they national for internal medicine?
A. We've been through that, and I don't have that information.
Q. And, ma'am, who does the certifying for board certifications?
A. I don't have that specific information; but part of it is contained in the application for
Q. Well, ma'am, when you go -- when you’re giving criteria to hire someone, don't they say
board-certified physician?
A. They do, but that's -- but I’m not designing that, the physicians are. I talk about the process
of hiring.
Q. But you have to determine whether the candidate meets the criteria, don't you, ma'am?
A. No, that is not what my role is.
Q. So you don't determine the criteria and whether a specific physician meets the criteria; is that
A. That's not part of my role in that.
Q. Okay. And you don't determine whether the physician is certified by any board, do you?

A. That's up to the physicians I’m working with in making that assertion who know a lot more
about it than I do. I advise them on how to interview, how to get the kind of information that
they want to find the right fit for the person that they need to do the job.
Q. Well, ma'am, my question was not that.
A. But my answer was.
Mr. Panish: My question was -- I don't want to argue with you. I would just ask that the
question be read back and the witness please answer the question.
Judge. Answer the question.
(The question was read.)
A. No.
Mr. Panish: And, ma'am, let's look at this e-mail that I was just -- 373. Let's go back to that.
Ms. Bina: Is that the same one as 13094?
Mr. Panish: Yes. I'm sorry if I marked it twice.
A. Can it be put up?
Mr. Panish: Yes. It will be.
Q. Okay. Now, ma'am, do you think when a company is going to engage or retain a physician,
they should at least know what kind of physician it is?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And, ma'am, where it says that Dr. Murray doesn't need this gig -- do you see that,
A. I do.
Q. And do you know, ma'am, whether he had closed his practice in Las Vegas?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you know if he had any other practices?
A. No. I think Ms. Jorrie said that she found two locations.
Q. Ms. Jorrie didn't say they were offices, she just said they were addresses, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Ms. Jorrie -- if we're to believe Ms. Jorrie's testimony, her testimony was she did a ten-
minute Google search on Dr. Murray, correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. And she could only find evidence of two addresses for Dr. Murray's alleged four practices,
A. That, you'll have to ask Ms. Jorrie.
Q. Well, you read the testimony, didn't you, ma’am?

A. I did, but I don't recall it word for word.
Q. Well, if somebody was extremely successful and had four practices, and they represented
that to an agent of a prospective employer, and they found out that wasn't -- they could only
find two, wouldn't that be important, ma'am?
Ms. Bina: I’m just going to object; lacks foundation as to whether practices can be found on
Google. I think we're getting a bit far afield from this witness's expertise.
Mr. Panish: Ms. Jorrie said it could.
Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Panish: You can answer.
A. I’m sorry. Can you have it repeated?
Mr. Panish: Do you know what a red flag is?
A. I do.
Q. What is it?
A. A red flag is something that on first opinion or first contact may raise questions and
additional questions that need to be asked.
Q. Okay. Well, in all your experience of working with hiring of physicians, have you ever seen
a physician request $5 million?
A. Can we back up? I have -- I need to correct what you said.

Q. Ma'am, in all the --
A. I mean, I’m trying to -- I’m sorry. I’m trying to answer the question, but I don't -- okay. I
don’t -- I don't understand what you said at the beginning of your question.
Q. That's fine. If you don't understand the question, I’m happy to repeat it.
A. Okay.
Q. I thought you testified, correct me if I’m wrong, of all this experience you've had with
physicians getting hired or retained. Was I wrong in understanding it that way?
A. Yes.
Q. So you don't have experience, then, in physicians being hired or retained; is that correct?
A. Can I correct what was -- what I said?
Q. Can you answer my question? Do you have experience in -- are you an expert in hiring or
retaining physicians?
A. No.
Q. Now I forgot where I was. Okay. Ms. Jorrie's testimony that you said you reviewed. You
said -- or you said you reviewed it, right? When did you review Ms. Jorrie's testimony?
A. Part of it was last week. I think it was all last week, part of it may have been the week
Q. How many days did she testify for?

A. I had it in parts.
Q. Okay. So when you reviewed Ms. Jorrie’s testimony, did you see that she thought Dr.
Murray had four offices, but she could only find two addresses?
Ms. Bina: Objection; asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. That's not what I recall.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. So tell me how many addresses did Ms. Jorrie testify that she could find?
A. My recall is she found two addresses, and that he was licensed in four states.
Q. Okay. Did she say that he represented to her that he had four practices -- four successful
A. That, I don't recall. I do recall that he had evidently told her that he was making a certain
amount per month.
Q. A million a month, right?
A. I believe so.
Q. And these physicians that you said that you assisted in the criteria for hiring, is that what you
told us you did?
A. No.

Q. Did you tell us that you were involved in the process of hiring physicians?
A. I was involved in the process of designing programs for the hiring of physicians.
Q. Okay. So you weren't directly involved at all, then, in the interviews, for example, right?
A. No, I was not.
Q. You weren't involved in the job postings for the physicians?
A. I reviewed them for non-technical, medically related.
Q. Well, when you reviewed them, did any of them say they were going to pay $5 million?
A. No, they didn't.
Q. Did any of them say they were going to pay 150,000 a month?
A. No, but some of the physicians would have been very pleased with that amount.
Q. Is that a no, ma'am? I can't hear you. I'm sorry.
A. I said no. I'm sorry. I said no.
Q. All right. I'm trying to finish here. And do you think a ten-minute Google search is, as you
would say, a good and thorough background check?
A. It can be. I think Ms. Seawright even said it only takes about five minutes to do a check.

Q. So it's your opinion that a Google search of ten minutes by an attorney is a good and
thorough background check -- correct? -- Of a physician?
A. Yes and no. And may I explain?
Q. It's all right. So it can be, in your opinion, right?
A. Depends on what they're looking at. If they’re looking strictly at whether the licenses are
current and whether there have been any complaints, yes.
Q. Well, how about if their certifications had lapsed?
A. That would probably take longer.
Q. Really? Do you know how to determine whether someone’s certification has lapsed?
A. I have not done that particular search.
Q. So how would you know how long it would take?
A. I was estimating. Maybe it can be done in the ten minutes.
Q. You have no idea how long it would take or where you would look or where you would go to,
do you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You do?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So where would you go to see whether someone was board certified in internal
A. I would go to the California medical association.
Q. Okay. You're not going to find it there.
A. Then I would find the correct place to go, but I don't have it on the top of my head.
Q. You don't know anywhere you'd go to find out whether someone is certified, to check it out,
whether their certification has lapsed, do you?
A. Not specifically, no.
Q. Now, O’Melveny & Myers, when they hired you to work with you as an independent
contractor -- is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they ask to see your resume?
A. They did.
Q. And did you sign a confirmation of the terms of your engagement?
A. I did.
Q. Okay. And do you have that with you here today?

A. No.
Q. Where is that?
A. O’Melveny & Myers has it.
Q. You didn't bring that with you?
A. No. You didn't ask me to.
Q. Well, actually, I did, to your deposition; and you didn't bring it to your deposition.
A. I'm sorry. I don't recall it being in the deposition request, either.
Ms. Bina: And I would object to that, your honor. There were agreements reached as to what
would be produced at deposition, and to argue with the witness over that is inappropriate.
Judge. Okay. The question and answer are stricken.
Mr. Panish: Did they determine your qualifications, O’Melveny & Myers? Strike that.
Withdraw that.
Ms. Bina: I would object; lacks foundation as to that one.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Boyle: He misheard me. Sorry.
Mr. Panish: Can they terminate you at any time?

A. I'm trying to recall whether they can cease the contract or whether there's a notice period
Q. If they're unhappy with your services, they can terminate you -- right? -- O’Melveny &
A. I don't recall, quite frankly.
Q. So you don't know whether they can terminate you?
A. I don't.
Q. Don't you have a standard retainer agreement that you use, ma'am?
A. I used their retainer agreement rather than mine.
Q. So O’Melveny & Myers prepared the retainer agreement for you to sign in this case?
A. Because it had terminology that was not in my standard retention agreement.
Q. Is that a yes, ma'am?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have a standard agreement that you use in all your cases, right?
A. I use it as a template in most of my cases. Sometimes the law firm or the company has a
standard agreement, especially if a confidentiality order is involved.
Q. How many law firms draft -- who is the last law firm that drafted your retainer other than
O’Melveny & Myers, ma'am?

A. Oriole (phonetic).
Ms. Bina: Objection; relevance.
Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish: She answered. It's already --
Ms. Bina: I’d like a couple of minutes for redirect, your honor. If you're about done, I can be
like two minutes. Maybe I would like five.
Mr. Panish: Two, I’ll give you. All right. Let me just get through this real quick.
Q. In the agreement between Dr. Murray, AEG Live, that Dr. Murray signed, you're familiar
with that, right?
A. I am.
Q. And in the agreement that Dr. Murray signed, the producer -- that's an .e.g. Live, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And Dr. Murray signed this agreement and sent it back to AEG Live, correct?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And the one that he signed, the responsibilities were that Dr. Murray was to perform
services requested by the producer, correct?

A. I don't have it in front of me. I'm looking for it, so if you can give me just a second.
Q. Do you want another copy?
A. I've got my own copy.
Q. I'm happy to give you one.
A. Here it is. I have it.
Q. Do you remember the question?
A. No.
Q. In the agreement that Dr. Murray sent back, did it state that Dr. Murray was to perform
services requested by the producer?
Judge. Do you want to direct her to a paragraph?
Mr. Panish: 4.1. I'm sorry.
Judge. 4.1.
A. That is what it said, my understanding is that was altered and changed by mr. --
Mr. Panish: The one that Dr. Murray signed, was that ever altered, ma'am?
A. Not that I’m aware of.
Q. The one that Dr. Murray signed and sent back to AEG, was that ever altered, ma'am?

A. Not that I’m aware of.
Q. Okay. And you read Ms. Jorrie's testimony where she called that the final version, didn't you,
A. She called it the final version, but she didn’t say that it was her final version. She said she
called it that.
Q. That's all I asked you.
A. She had -- okay.
Q. Ma'am, I want to get done. All right. I have two more questions. I need to find them so I
ask them exactly right so we can get this done. Just take me a minute. Ma'am, if AEG -- you
know what? As long as I can ask this question, I’m going to let Ms. Bina go while I find it so we
don't waste time. But I’m reserving that and whatever else.
Judge. That's fine.
Ms. Bina: I won't object to beyond the scope if it really is that one question.
Mr. Panish: Well, I may have others, but just on this.
Ms. Bina: could we put back up exhibit 13090. I would like page 11. Zoom in on that first
paragraph there that Mr. Panish zoomed in on.
Redirect examination by Ms. Bina
Q. Ms. Young, do you have a copy of this? I have one here if you'd like, since we're short on

Judge. It's highlighted on the screen if that will help.
A. I’ve got it.
Ms. Bina: This is what I’m going to ask you about, this part right here. It's on the screen, too.
A. Okay.
Q. I just want you to read the last sentence of the first paragraph.
A. Out loud?
Q. Yes, please.
A. “credit history may be requested, but only where such information is substantially related to
the duties and responsibilities of the position for which you are applying."
Q. And does that address the concept of job relatedness that we were talking about earlier today?
A. It does sure does.
Q. So even on the Frasco background check company’s standard form, there's still this
requirement of job relatedness?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Panish asked you some questions about this document, and it says the word
“subcontract." Is it your understanding that AEG Live ever conducted background checks on
independent contractors?

A. No.
Q. And you were also asked about whether they had written policies on what should be done
with background checks. Do you recall that?
A. I do.
Q. As per independent contractors?
A. Yes.
Q. In your experience, is it common for companies to have retention -- written policies outlining
the process for retaining independent contractors?
A. No, I don't think I -- I may be seeing one or two companies in all the companies I’ve worked
with that have a specific direct policy on independent contractor retention.
Q. Is it common for companies to have written policies on the retention of employees?
A. Yes.
Q. So it's another difference there between independent contractors and employees?
A. A significant difference.
Q. Okay. You were also asked about whether Michael Jackson asked AEG Live to enter into a
written contract with Dr. Murray. I want to ask you something different. Have you seen any
evidence to suggest that Mr. Jackson asked AEG Live to engage Dr. Murray on his behalf?
A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen a lot of evidence to that effect?
A. Well, I’ve seen, I believe, statements by Mr. Gongaware about that, perhaps Timm Woolley,
and I believe also Kathy Jorrie mentioned that in her testimony.
Q. Do you recall Ms. Jorrie testifying to the effect that she asked Dr. Murray about a specific
term of the contract and he said he had discussed that with Mr. Jackson?
A. You mean money? Well, there was a particular term about extending --
Mr. Panish: That misstates what the testimony was.
Ms. Bina: I believe Ms. Jorrie testified your honor that she said -- she asked him about it, and
he said he wanted to extend the contract date. She asked him is that okay with Mr. Jackson, he
said, "yes, I’ve discussed the term with Mr. Jackson." That is the testimony I’m referring to,
your honor.
Mr. Panish: Who said that to her?
Ms. Bina: Dr. Murray.
Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Panish: Isn't that hearsay?
A. Overruled.
Ms. Bina: It was testified to, her understanding of the contract.
Q. Do you recall Ms. Jorrie testifying that?

A. I do.
Q. And as you noted earlier, there was a signature block on the contract that was for Mr.
Jackson to sign, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Jackson did not want AEG Live to enter into a
written contract with Dr. Murray on his behalf?
Mr. Panish: Objection; speculation, no foundation.
Judge. Overruled.
A. No. I think the discussion of the salary alone indicates that he wanted to have that taken care
Mr. Panish: Your honor, move to strike. It’s speculation.
Judge. Motion denied.
Ms. Bina: Nothing further, Ms. Young, unless I have a response to Mr. Panish’s question.
Recross-examination by Mr. Panish
Q. Ms. Young, do you know of any -- first of all, did Ms. Jorrie ever talk to Michael Jackson?
A. No, not that I’m aware of.
Q. Did Mr. Woolley ever talk to Michael Jackson?

A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. And the only one that you -- that you think talked to Mr. Jackson is Paul Gongaware,
A. Yes.
Q. And you're relying on Paul Gongaware for that, aren't you?
Ms. Bina: Object; vague as to "that." Are you talking about Michael Jackson’s request?
Mr. Panish: that's right.
A. That's my recall.
Mr. Panish: You believe the testimony of Mr. Gongaware, correct?
A. Well and the fact that there was an agreement.
Q. There was an agreement -- right? -- Between Mr. -- Mr. Gongaware, right?
A. No; the fact that there was a draft written agreement is also part of what I’m relying on.
Q. Right. And, ma'am, that agreement called for the retention of Dr. Murray, didn't it?
A. It called for the engagement of Dr. Murray.
Q. Well, you say that's the same thing as retaining someone, right?

A. I just prefer the other terminology. I don’t want to get close to areas that are not --
Q. Fair enough. And that was the one that Dr. Murray signed and sent back, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And then Ms. Seawright and you disagreed on whether or not backgrounds checks
should be run on people that are involved in jobs that could be dangerous or highly sensitive,
A. We disagree on what jobs are dangerous.
Q. Right. And you don't think that a physician in any way is dangerous, right?
A. From the information and research I’ve done, no.
Q. Okay. But you didn't research medical malpractice and people that are injured or died as a
result of care from physicians, did you?
Ms. Bina: Objection. Asked and answered; and we’re well beyond two questions here, your
Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Panish: I didn't say I just had two questions. I said one that I didn't ask before.
Ms. Bina: But he asked this one an hour ago.
Judge. Overruled. You can answer.
A. I’m sorry. Can you repeat --?

Judge. It is getting repetitive. I think you did ask this question.
Ms. Bina: He did, an hour ago, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. Ma'am, if AEG Live came to you in 2009 and asked you whether or not it was okay for them
to enter into a contract with someone else's doctor, you would advise them not to do that,
wouldn't you?
A. I don't know.
Mr. Panish: play the deposition, page 232, line 24, to 233, line 5.
Ms. Bina: what line are you finishing with?
Mr. Panish: 5.
A. I’m sorry. Can you give me the page number again?
Mr. Panish: Your lawyer is checking it for you.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, that's not complete. Also, I believe there was a correction to this
testimony. It's also not complete because it goes on -- to 25, your honor, I think is necessary to
make that understood.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, can I conduct my exam without the other lawyers telling me and
adding everything in and speaking --

Ms. Bina: I’m making a completeness objection to the deposition testimony he intends to read.
I believe it should be read to line 25.
Mr. Panish: I want to play the impeachment directly to the question I just asked her, and I think
that’s appropriate.
Ms. Bina: It's not impeachment, your honor.
Mr. Panish: It's definitely impeachment.
Ms. Bina: She never said she would advise them not to do it. She said it wasn't something she
advised on.
Judge. You know what? You two keep talking and I can't read.
Mr. Panish: I’m not talking.
Judge. Okay. You may.
Mr. Panish: thank you, your honor.
(The following videotaped deposition testimony was played :)
Q. I mean, if you had a client who came to you and said, "we are thinking about hiring a
doctor of one of our clients, and there's going to be a contract between us and the doctor,
should we do it?"
A. No. There's no way in hell I would ever advise on that.
Mr. Panish: Nothing further.

Further redirect examination by Ms. Bina
Q. Ms. Young, why did you say there was no way in hell you would ever advise on that?
A. Because it's a contract. I'm not a lawyer.
Q. And did you, in fact, say, "I’m not offering an opinion on contracts. I'm not a lawyer. That
isn't the role. I tell people -- I avoid legal recommendations with a 10 foot pole, or maybe a 20
foot pole"?
A. Yes.
Ms. Bina: Nothing further.
Further recross-examination by Mr. Panish
Q. Ms. Young, you were testifying as a human resources expert, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Mr. Panish: that's it.
Ms. Bina: all right. Nothing further, your honor.
Judge. thank you, ma'am. You may step down. You're finished. And 10:00 o'clock. 10:00
o'clock tomorrow. Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors :)
Judge. Okay. What do we have tomorrow?

Ms. Bina: The videos, your honor; and there are a couple -- it will be Dr. Gordon, Dr. Adams --
Ms. Cahan: -- And Mr. Adams.
Mr. Panish: The Adams family.
Mr. Putnam: And they're all ready.
Judge. That's the whole day?
Ms. Bina: Yes, actually, your honor. It's about three and a half hours of video, I think.
Mr. Putnam: Think of it this way, three witnesses in one day.
Ms. Bina: We're trying to move things through, and it's kind of a blessing that Ms. Young
finished today because I think it will help us get the case forward.
Ms. Cahan: And that should also afford us time to do argument for the Shimelman motion after
we let the jury go in the afternoon tomorrow.
Judge. So it will be shy of --
Mr. Panish: We want to call him in rebuttal.
Judge. I’m sorry?
Mr. Panish: Kidding.
Judge. okay. All right. See you tomorrow at 10:00.

(Proceedings adjourned to Wednesday, August 21, 2013, at 10:00 a .m.)

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->