JACKSON V AEG LIVE July 17th

This is Sabrina Strong for defendant

Witness - Arthur L. Erk
(Entertainment Industry Certified Public Accountant)
Plaintiffs' Expert Witness.
(Sidebar):
Judge: Okay. I was told about what happened yesterday out in the hall. My understanding is that both
sides were giving interviews to the media right outside department 28. There was some shouting going
on. My staff went out there and saw both of you yelling at each other in front of the public, in front of
the media. My staff attempted to quiet both of you down, unsuccessfully, until you were told that I was
going to be told about it, until you were told the sheriff was going to be informed of it, and only at that
point did you stop doing that. And I have to say, it's embarrassing. You both should really be ashamed
of that. I expected more of you. I mean, you're both fine lawyers from great law firms, and I'm just
really shocked that that happened. You know, the media is out there. They're the face of the public. This
isn't televised, so they're the face of the public. And what do they see you doing? Yelling at each other
in the hall, disturbing the public, disturbing the courtroom, disturbing the proceedings that are

happening. I mean, I don't know what to do with you. And a lot of times this stuff is happening outside
of my presence, and then I get told of it later. Now, I can tell you that I talked to Judge Buckley about
this situation, because, you know, I control what goes on in my courtroom, but it's a little difficult to
follow you around and monitor what you're doing in the hall. I don't want to do that. Now, Buckley
tells me if I need to, I've got 128(a)(5) which says: "Every court shall have the power to do all of the
following: "To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and all other
persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining
thereto." Pretty broad sanction statute. I don't want to sanction you. I've done everything to avoid doing
that. And, you know, by and large, you get the message. I mean, when things get a little heated, and I
talk to you, by and large, you back off, and things go well. But I can't follow you around, what you're
doing out there. But yet you're in the courthouse. So what Judge Buckley has told me to do is this: I'm
going to order both of you to conduct interviews at the end of this hall, the east end; okay? And it's
highly likely -- or outside the building. No more interviews outside department 28, because, as you
know, there are jurors around department 28 and on this floor. The closest you will be to this
department will be the east end of this hall. The absolute closest. Or outside the building. And if you're
on this hall, you will be monitored by the sheriffs. So probably the best thing to do would be to do it
completely outside the building. But I just want you to know, if you're going to do it here, you're going
to be monitored by the sheriff. If you violate that in any manner, then you will be sanctioned; okay? I
don't want to have to do that, but that's what it's going to come to. I don't want to run into a situation
where jurors see you arguing and making statements like that, because, as I've mentioned to all of you
before, we're going to end up in a mistrial situation. I know nobody wants that. I don't want that. I don't
think you do, either. And then I don't want to have to send you to Buckley, which I think may happen,
okay, because we've had this discussion. Buckley and I have had this discussion. What goes on in here
is my jurisdiction; what goes on in the building is his, so if people are fighting in the hall or doing
whatever, then technically that's his jurisdiction. He may have to step in. I don't want to do that; he
doesn't really want to do it. Frankly, he'd like me to take care of it. So I'd really prefer to just have all of
us deal with that and control ourselves, because it's in our interest to do that. Because I don't want this
case to get out of control. It's been going pretty well so far. Do you want to say something?
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I apologize to the court and to Mr. Putnam for arguing with him, and I'll do
my best not to argue or have any discussions that are inappropriate with Mr. Putnam, or anywhere, per
your order.
Judge: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Putnam: Sorry, your honor.
Judge: Okay. Please don't do that again.
Mr. Panish: We won't.
Judge: Because it's disturbing to everybody. And that's the face you're presenting to the public. You
know, I don't -- do we really want to present that?
Mr. Panish: No, we don't. At least we don't, and I'm sure Mr. Putnam doesn't either.
Judge: You were two -- all of you are some of the finest lawyers of the city, and that's the face we're
showing to everybody. I just --

Mr. Panish: Okay. We get the message.

Judge: You deserve better.
Mr. Panish: We get the message.
Judge: All right.
Mr. Panish: Both of us -- I'm sure I speak for Mr. Putnam, but -- he can speak for himself. But I'm
sure we hear the court loud and clear.
Judge: Okay. So interviews, understand --
Mr. Panish: No problem.
Judge: -- east end of the hall outside. Make sure jurors don't see you.
Mr. Boyle: Are Ms. Stebbins and I allowed to fight?
Judge: No. Please, no fighting.
Mr. Boyle: I was joking.
Judge: I don't really want to --
The clerk: Put me out on stress leave.
Judge: And I really don't --
Mr. Panish: I would say that the clerk did a very good job of handling the situation.
Judge: Okay. She did the best she could.
Mr. Panish: She did.
Judge: Anyway, I just hope the media doesn't make more of it than --
Mr. Panish: Well, that's their job.
The clerk: And, your honor, this morning I did tell the media that the attorneys will let them know
where to meet and where to conduct their interviews, so the attorneys will let the media know that they
can't do it outside the courtroom.
Judge: Okay. Let's try to get through this.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Judge: We're more than halfway done, I think. All right.

Mr. Boyle: Your honor. Thank you, your honor.

The court reporter: Is this sealed, your honor?
Judge: No.
(the following proceedings were held in open court):
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Good morning.
Mr. Panish: Morning, your honor.
Judge: Counsel, make your appearances.
Mr. Panish: Brian Panish for the Plaintiffs.
Judge: Mr. Boyle, you want to make your --
Mr. Boyle: I'm sorry. Kevin Boyle for the Plaintiffs, your honor.
Ms. Strong: Sabrina Strong for the Defendants.
Ms. Stebbins: Jessica Stebbins Bina for the Defendants.
Mr. Putnam: And Marvin Putnam.
(pause in the proceedings)
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. We were just discussing the defense estimate for the case,
and the defense estimate is the end of august, if possible.
Mr. Putnam: I'll try to work really hard to do that.
Judge: But it sounds like it may bleed into September.
Mr. Panish: Why don't we just say the first week of September. Well, there's actually a lot of holidays
the first week.
Mr. Putnam: Yeah. That's the problem. What happens is the three weeks, we're never here more than
two days.
Judge: You mean in September?
Ms. Stebbins: In September.
Mr. Putnam: And so the problem, your honor, as we've been noting, we've been going for 50 days.
Mr. Panish: No.

Mr. Putnam: Yes. I checked it. 50 days. Nine of those half days. 42 full days. Of those, one and a half
were a defense witness. So we're talking about a long time, as you know. And, unfortunately, the
situation we've found ourselves in, the jury believes -- that's probably why the question was asked, was
there was an outside date of three months. We're there. And I'm really worried about the impact it has
on our ability to provide a proper defense. So I'm weighing who I get to bring and have to bring versus,
you know, the fact that I could find myself at the end of September. So that's why I'm really aiming --
Judge: You do what you have to do.
Mr. Putnam: I understand, your honor. And that's why I'm saying it the way I'm saying it. So I'm
really going to endeavor to be the end of august.
Judge: I would say mid September --
Mr. Panish: I think that's --
Judge: -- just to be safe.
Mr. Panish: I mean, if it stays as is, and Mr. Putnam -- the days are the same, there are four days in the
first two weeks of September.
Judge: That are off?
Ms. Stebbins: That are on.
Mr. Panish: So that's why I'm saying, if he's off by four days, he's at September 16th. And nothing has
really gone exactly as scheduled. And I would note, I mean, they did call two of the witnesses and had
extensive days of examination of Mr. Trell, Mr. Gongaware, Mr. Phillips, Ms. Hollander. I mean, they
had a lot of stuff, too. So it wasn't that they had a day and a half of testimony. The record will speak for
itself. But I think they're going to have to tell the jury -- I mean, so then if he finishes hypothetically by
the 12th, instructions, argument, I don't see how it's done before September, if you look at the schedule
now.
Judge: Well, I'm not including their deliberations. I have no control.
Mr. Panish: I'm counting argument.
Mr. Putnam: I repeat, I am going to endeavor to be done by the end of august.
Judge: That's okay. Nobody is going -- you do what you have to do. Nobody is going to push you
earlier.
Mr. Panish: I think we should give them an accurate estimate. That's all. He can take as long as he
wants. I have nothing to say about that. I think it's best to tell the jurors.
Judge: I'll tell them what the estimate is.
Mr. Panish: That's all.

Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: So back on Dr. Brown,
And I know the court did have --
Judge: Dr. Brown. Just remind me. Dr. Brown is a --
Mr. Panish: An anesthesiologist.
Judge: -- a defense expert?
Ms. Stebbins: Plaintiff.
Mr. Panish: Plaintiff. We had an issue regarding the chart of Czeisler.
Judge: And the thing I was trying to figure out is how your objection about the LAPD/Murray
interview impacts the brown testimony. There seems to be an intersection between Czeisler, Murray
and brown, and I'm trying to figure that out. I remember what my ruling was concerning Murray.
Mr. Panish: I think Mr. Koskoff's going to argue this since he did the depo, but the only thing, when I
read the transcript, Mr. Koskoff did his direct, Ms. Cahan began her cross. She brought up the Murray
statement during the cross. It was not brought up during the direct. There were objections. She was
getting into it. We did not designate any portion -- even though we think the door was open, got into
some other stuff, just for the record, but we didn't designate any of it. Ms. Cahan has designated
portions of it. So that's where it is. And I think as far as specifics, Mr. Koskoff should be able to argue it
since he did the deposition. I read it. I didn't do it. And you put question marks, and that's an issue that
needs to be argued. And I'm sure Ms. Cahan wants to argue that, I'm sure. But I don't think we should
argue that now. Certainly we should argue it.
Judge: Well, since you've had an opportunity to speak, I'll let Ms. Cahan speak. But ultimately my
decisions will be made later since Mr. Koskoff --
Ms. Cahan: Yes, your honor. Thank you. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs' counsel did open the door on
the police statement earlier in the examination of Dr. Brown. They did it in sort of an indirect way by
asking about his opinion that Propofol created a sense of euphoria, which is the reason that Mr. Jackson
felt he was having restful sleep in the time that he was being treated by Dr. Murray. And he said that he
got that from the police statements. So there was some testimony. It may not have been intentionally
elicited from Plaintiffs. But the important point here, your honor, is that on cross, I am entitled to
explore hearsay issues. And the fact is that Dr. Czeisler came in and testified that, in his opinion, Mr.
Jackson had not gotten any real sleep at all for 60 days. Initially, you remember, there was that 25-
minute hypothetical.
Judge: Yes.
Ms. Cahan: The basis for it was --
Judge: That's where my confusion is --
Ms. Cahan: Right.

Judge: -- in terms of the intersection with Czeisler's testimony, his testimony and, somewhat, Dr.
Murray.
Ms. Cahan: Right. So Dr. Brown testified -- I asked him on cross, which was fair cross-examination,
because I am allowed to inquire about hearsay in order to test his opinions. So he came in and on direct
said, "Well, from -- I'm not a sleep expert, but from what I understand about Propofol and anesthesia, I
think it's a reasonable inference for Dr. Czeisler to be making that Propofol would destroy the natural
process of sleep." But then I said, "Okay. Let's talk about the initial piece, the facts for this idea that Mr.
Jackson was not getting any real sleep for 60 days," because that's what Dr. Czeisler's opinion was. He
didn't get any sleep for 60 days. And as a result, he was exhibiting symptoms on the 19th of June that
were consistent with not having slept at all for 60 days --
Judge: Right. That was Czeisler's opinion.
Ms. Cahan: Right. And so I asked Dr. Brown, you know, "Do you think there are any facts in the
record? You've reviewed the record, you've reviewed the autopsy report, you're an expert in Propofol.
Do you think there are facts in the record to support the idea that Mr. Jackson had gotten no real sleep
whatsoever for 60 days and instead only Propofol?" And he had testified in his deposition about the fact
that he believes Dr. Murray's police statement was untrue in certain respects, because he's compared the
autopsy and toxicology information to Dr. Murray's self-report about how he administered Propofol.
And he says the two don't match up, and that's within his expertise. So he has this idea that Dr.
Murray's statement is something that is to be looked at, but not always to be trusted. And so I inquired
about, "Do you think there's any evidence, have you seen any evidence to say 60 days of continuous
Propofol use and no sleep -- did you consider the fact that Dr. Murray said he took sunday's off? Did
you consider the possibility of naps? Did you consider whether it was given as a bolus dose rather than
continuous infusion?" There are all these pieces that are not supported by any evidence in the case, and
that's fair cross-examination, to address whether there's a factual premise for this opinion that Dr.
Czeisler put forth and Dr. Brown was addressing about whether one could reasonably conclude that
Michael Jackson had gotten no sleep whatsoever for 60 days.
Mr. Panish: We're kind of arguing the merits of it now.
Judge: Yeah. Okay.
Mr. Panish: And when she says "deposition," she's referring to the prior deposition before the court's
ruling on the Murray statement, so -- just to clarify.
Judge: When was brown's depo taken?
Ms. Cahan: In April.
Mr. Panish: Well, no, no.
Mr. Boyle: For trial testimony, we just took -- because if the court will recall, we had Czeisler. We
wanted to put in the second half of the chart about Propofol. One side was sleep, one side was Propofol.
Czeisler was the sleep guy. Your honor said he could talk about the Propofol side of the chart if we got
some testimony from brown to back it up, and the court ordered a short trial preservation that just
happened last week.

Mr. Panish: Oh, no, no. It was actually on July 8th.

Ms. Cahan: July 8th at 6:30 in the morning.
Mr. Panish: West coast time. 9:30 --
Judge: Oh, all right.
Mr. Panish: All right. And it was set at that time so we could avoid the trial schedule, and we also
didn't call certain witnesses to accommodate them on that date. But his other deposition that she's
referring to where he talked about the statement was in April. And I believe Ms. Cahan was there. I
don't know that she --
Ms. Cahan: I took it.
Mr. Panish: So that was before the court's ruling on the Murray. But I don't want to get into arguing
this back and forth --
Ms. Cahan: We can get the specifics later, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Right.
Ms. Cahan: I was just -- my ultimate point is that your ruling was that it's hearsay. As you know, on
cross-examination you're allowed to inquire into hearsay. When we dealt with this with Dr. Czeisler, we
had the sidebar. You said, "You're entitled to do this, but think about whether you want to do this."
We've thought about whether we want to do this, and we want to do this.
Mr. Panish: No. I disagree with how she's characterized it. It's happened with multiple witnesses.
Judge: Asked you to think about whether you want to do what?
Ms. Cahan: Ask on cross-examination about the hearsay in the Murray police statement and --
Mr. Panish: No. I don't believe that's what happened.
Ms. Cahan: We can pull the transcript over lunch, and we will probably want to address some of the
specifics --
Mr. Panish: We're going to have to address, I think, all the question marks, and I think there's four or
five of them.
Ms. Cahan: And it's not just the question marks, your honor, to be clear. I think it's clear already. We
want to talk about the objections that were sustained as to the questions regarding the police interview
because we think it's fair cross-examination.
Mr. Panish: Well, we disagree. I think we've been down this --
Judge: I'm trying to remember what Czeisler said, and how much he relied on the Murray interview.

Mr. Panish: He didn't rely on it at all.

Judge: I remember having a discussion about that, and I just don't remember --
Mr. Panish: And you said -- to go back, I tried to argue that certain parts of the statement should come
in on different exceptions. You said no.
Judge: No.
Mr. Panish: You said "No, that's not happening." You said "no" to just part. "If you get into it, the
whole thing."
Judge: Right.
Mr. Panish: And we did not get into it at all.
Judge: See, I thought the statement of "Do you really want to get into that" was really not directed to
you but directed to the Plaintiffs.
Ms. Cahan: I think --
Mr. Panish: It was.
Judge: If I remember, it was directed to Plaintiffs, "Do you really want to get into that? Because if you
want to get into parts of it, I'm not going to let you get into parts of it. It's going to open the whole
thing."
Mr. Panish: That's what you said.
Judge: "I don't think you want to do that." Plaintiffs.
Mr. Panish: We didn't.
Ms. Cahan: That was the first sidebar. And that's when they changed the 25-minute hypothetical to
say, "We're not" -- okay. "Take out what Dr. Murray told the police. Don't assume that. Instead, assume
that there were four gallons of Propofol ordered" --
Judge: That's right.
Ms. Cahan: -- and a couple of other things that didn't actually establish anything about 60 days. And
Dr. Czeisler went ahead and said everything that he was going to say before, based on this premise of
60 days. And on cross we got close to it, and he sort of paused at one point, and he said, "Do you really
want me to say what this is based on?" Clearly, averting the police interview. And we had another
sidebar, and it was close to the end of the day. And you said "sleep on it, counsel. Think about whether
you want
to open the door. You have a right to." and now that we've --
Judge: Okay. Do you have the transcript?

Mr. Panish: That's not what happened.

Ms. Cahan: I'll pull it during the break, your honor.
Judge: Let's do that.
Mr. Boyle: Well, your honor, what happened was, Dr. Czeisler testified to 60 days based on the
reported symptoms. And he said "There's never been a better reported case of sleep deprivation,
because everybody was e-mailing about it," staying away from Murray completely. Then when she was
crossing, she kept asking questions, trying to elicit the police statements. You kept looking at us,
basically saying she's opening the door. And she was basically directly trying to open the door to the
police statement, and that's how it ended. And that's what happened.
Mr. Panish: And we never brought it in.
Ms. Cahan: Right. And, your honor --
Mr. Panish: She was trying to bring it in.
Ms. Cahan: The questions were, how do you get 60 days from the new thing from the hypothetical,
the four gallons of Propofol?
Judge: I don't think he said 60 days. I think that was eliminated. But I --
Ms. Cahan: He said six to eight weeks, is what he switched it to.
Mr. Putnam: Six to eight weeks.
Judge: I have to find out what the basis of that was. Was it all the people reporting the problems of
what Michael Jackson was having over the six to eight weeks? Was it the quantity of Propofol used?
Mr. Panish: All of it.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, what he was going to opine, and didn't, was that -- about the weaning off of
the Propofol for the last two days. But he was still able to opine that based upon the witness statements
by email and testimony, that it looked like Michael was suffering from sleep deprivation for a period of
60 days. But he was not able to testify about the weaning off on the last two days because that would
have invaded the hearsay --
Judge: The Murray.
Mr. Boyle: The police -- yeah.
Mr. Panish: All right. Can we --
Ms. Cahan: We'll get the transcript.

Judge: I'll think about it.

Ms. Cahan: Okay.
Judge: And if you could, please, pull Czeisler, and I'll think about it.
Mr. Panish: I would just thank you for doing this; for ruling on it so we can get it ready, subject to
those discussions.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: And other than that, I think we're ready to go.
(the jury enters the courtroom)
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Good morning, everybody.
The jury: Good morning.
Judge: And good morning, counsel. If you would make your appearances, please.
Mr. Panish: Yes. Good morning. Brian Panish for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Boyle: Good morning. Kevin Boyle for the Plaintiffs.
Ms. Strong: Good morning. Sabrina Strong for the Defendants.
Ms. Stebbins: Good morning. Jessica Stebbins Bina for the Defendants.
Mr. Putnam: And Marvin Putnam for the Defendants.
Judge: Okay. Just one matter before we start with the examination. Regarding the estimate, I talked to
counsel. It looks like probably the best estimate we have is mid September. I know we estimated the
end of august, but I think mid September is a better estimate. And the reason is because of the days off
that we have. Some of them are vacation; some of them are appointments; some of them are doctor
things we've all had accumulated. So we're doing our best, and I think, honestly, the attorneys have
moved the case as best as they can, given the magnitude of the case, and the amount of documents and
evidence, the witnesses. I think they've done a good job. I can't put the fault there. So even though
we're going over a little bit, I think it's not a huge amount. But I apologize if it's going to put some
people out. Let me know. Write me a note if there's something we can do to accommodate you because
it's going a little bit longer than we anticipated; okay? Thank you. All right. You may continue.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.
Continued cross examination by Sabrina Strong:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Erk.

A. Good morning.
Q. I'm going to try to focus on your endorsement part of your opinion. Your opinion is that Michael
Jackson was going to get endorsements and sponsorship deals worth $317 million in connection with
the "This Is It" tour; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And of course, this endorsement/sponsorship income that you predicted, you said it's associated
with the "This Is It" tour; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And so it depends on the shows that you projected actually happening; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so if there's no tour for "This Is It," then there's no endorsement revenues as well; correct?
A. According to my calculations, correct.
Q. And if we break down what you did with respect to endorsements, you indicated that 50 million of
that would come from a clothing endorsement deal; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the rest of it, 267 million, would come from what you refer to in your work papers as an
implied Pepsi endorsement deal based on Beyonce; correct?
A. Yeah. But it wouldn't have been just Pepsi. It would have been a number that encompassed other
endorsements.
Q. We'll talk about that. I appreciate your clarification. So let's focus first on the clothing portion of the
deal. I'm a little confused about that, because the first day of your deposition -- or your testimony here
in court, I believe you testified that you didn't put anything for clothing in Tier 1.
A. Clothing line, not necessarily clothing endorsements.
Q. So you're distinguishing between a clothing endorsement and a clothing line?
A. Yes.
Q. And the difference would be?
A. Just that if he associated his name with a clothing line, they could promote it that "Michael Jackson
endorses our line." It doesn't necessarily mean they have to put his logo or set up a whole separate line
that this is Michael Jackson's t-shirt or clothes, or whatever it might be.
Q. So that's -- what you just described there was what? Is which one of the two? That was the line or

that was the endorsement? I'm trying to understand the difference.

A. What I'm describing to you is the endorsement.
Q. The endorsement?
A. Yes.
Q. So that would not be a Michael Jackson line?
A. Well, what I said during my deposition is that I probably should have separated out that clothing
portion from the endorsement portion, because it did encompass some clothing, yes.
Q. Okay. So you are including clothing in Tier 1?
A. To a certain extent, yes. Probably not to the broadest extent.
Q. So you're changing your testimony from what you said two days ago that you weren't including
clothing in Tier 1, you actually are including clothing in Tier 1?
A. Look at the endorsement number. Like I said in my deposition -- if you bring my deposition up, I
clarified it during my deposition, yes.
Q. I just want to be clear. You're saying something different than what you said two days ago?
A. I'm clarifying it now.
Q. And one of the reasons that you think there would be a $50 million clothing deal or endorsement
deal for Michael Jackson, had he lived, is because you believe he'd become a leader in fashion where
the kids would want to imitate; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. At the age of 50, Michael Jackson was going to live, and he was going to go on to become a leader
in fashion. That's your opinion?
A. Depends what you mean by "leader," but I think that kids would have liked his designs.
Q. And you created that $50 million number, even though you didn't have any evidence that anybody
had any interest at all in a clothing endorsement deal with Michael Jackson in 2009; isn't that right?
A. I don't know that that's correct.
Q. Let's go ahead and look at your deposition.
Ms. Strong: At page 218, lines 10 through 13. Ready, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish: I would ask that you read through 21 to be complete. I have no objection to 10 through
21.

Judge: Okay. Where are you reading?

Mr. Panish: 218.
Ms. Strong: 10 through 13, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Well, I would like -- I think it takes it out of context. I would request it be through line 21
to be read.
Judge: Let me get to 218 first.
Mr. Panish: Sure.
Judge: 218. What line?
Mr. Panish: She's requested 10 through --
Ms. Strong: 10 through 13.
Mr. Panish: And I've requested the next question and answer which clarified exactly what he's saying.
Ms. Strong: I disagree, your honor. He can do it on redirect. The question was limited.
Judge: Okay. You can read down to 21. Am I missing something?
Ms. Strong: I think we have Mr. Panish making faces at me.
Mr. Panish: No. The reason I'm sitting -- she's been making faces the whole time, so I'm watching.
Can't I watch what she's doing?
Judge: No. I want to see your face.
Mr. Panish: How about if I move?
Judge: You can make faces at me.
Mr. Panish: I wasn't -- I was watching -- it was reported to me that she was doing it, and I wanted to
see, because I can't see behind my -- I don't have eyes behind me when she was -- when I would object,
she was raising her eyebrows and doing other things, and I wanted to see if that was true. And so that's
why I wanted to watch. And I haven't interrupted her -- I haven't made an objection yet.
Judge: The good thing about where I sit is I can see everything, so --
Mr. Panish: Well, but you're not necessarily watching her.
Judge: Well, I'll watch her. I'll watch her and you. You leave that to me. Okay. Thank you. All right.
Ms. Strong, read it to no. 21. Line 21.

Ms. Strong: Why don't we go down to 23, if we're going to add on?
Judge: Sure.
Mr. Panish: 23? That's good. No objection.
(a video clip from Mr. Erk's deposition is played):
Question: And, again, did you see any evidence that anybody was interested in endorsing Michael
Jackson with respect to clothing in 2009?
Answer: Not in the papers that I reviewed.
Question: So how is it that you can be reasonably certain that he would have gotten that $50 million
endorsement deal?
Answer: Well, Michael Jackson, you know, based on even what happened in the '80s, had a
particular style. And I assumed that he would, you know, again be a leader in fashion, and the kids
would imitate him.
Question: And that's based on your personal opinion?
Answer: That's my personal opinion.
Q. So Mr. Erk, you agree that your $50 million clothing endorsement opinion is speculative, don't you?
A. No. I was reasonably assured that, because of a wild, excessive demand for his tickets -- and
"demand" being that people put their money down -- that's not speculative. Speculative is hope, which
is a word you like to use. It was my belief that a clothing endorsement deal would have come along.
Q. And on the first day of the deposition when you put out that $50 million, just like you did on your
first day of your testimony here, you actually said you didn't have enough information to calculate that
number for clothing; isn't that right?
A. No. What I went back to was the Chuck Sullivan deal, which was a $28 million deal, and brought it
forward for inflation in current dollar terms for 2009.
Q. You did testify that with respect to movies and clothing, you didn't have enough information to do
that; correct?
Mr. Panish: It's compound, "movies and clothing."
Judge: Sustained. Just clothing right now.

Q. All right. With respect to clothing, you didn't have enough information to do that? That's what you
testified to at your deposition on your first day of your deposition?
A. Clothing to the extent of calculating out what it would have been, eventually the sales of clothing
lines would be.
Q. So you didn't have enough information to calculate a clothing number as of the first day of your
deposition; right?
A. Except that I interpolated the 28 million to current dollar terms and thought that he would have
gotten a similar endorsement deal.
Q. And on the second day of your deposition, again, you admitted it still would be speculative for you
to opine as to potential earnings associated with any clothing deals as to Michael Jackson; right?
A. Except for what I put in my report, yes.
Q. That's not what you testified at your deposition; right? At your deposition, you said it still would be
speculative for you to opine -- you agreed it still would be speculative for you to opine the potential
earnings with respect to any clothing deals with Michael Jackson; correct?
A. If that's what I testified to, then that would be my answer, yes.
Q. So is the answer "yes" or should we look at it?
A. I guess you can refresh my recollection.
Q. I'm asking you, is your answer "yes" or "no"?
Mr. Panish: Objection. He said he didn't recall.
Judge: Well, yeah. He said he didn't recall.
Ms. Strong: We'll put it up and play it if he doesn't recall. That's page 269, lines 1 through 7.
Mr. Panish: I think first you need to try to refresh.
Judge: If they don't recall, you refresh first.
Ms. Strong: I initially asked the question and didn't get the same answer, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Your honor -- which page are we on?
Ms. Strong: 269, lines 1 through 7.
Mr. Panish: This is day two?
Ms. Strong: I'm sorry?

Mr. Panish: Day two?

Ms. Strong: Yes.
Mr. Panish: 1 through 7, you said?
Ms. Strong: Yes. 1 through 7. May I approach, your honor?
Judge: Yes, you may.
Ms. Strong: (hands the witness a document)
The witness: (reviewing document) Okay.
Q. And so at your deposition, you were asked at this point is your testimony the same; that it still
would be speculative for you to opine any potential earnings associated with any clothing deals with
Michael Jackson. Is that fair to say?
A. And my answer was, "yes."
Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to turn to the other components of your $317 million endorsement number.
And, again, this is a net number to Michael Jackson. You're saying this is what he would have taken
home for endorsement deals; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. It's not a gross number --
A. Well, it would have been adjusted for professional fees if it applied.
Q. But the number you're putting forth, the net number, $317 million, is what you think Michael could
have taken home from the tours?
A. Well, the 317, as I said, if you broke out the clothing component separately, you'd be back to 267
million.
Q. But you included the 317 in the number you put to the jury a couple days ago?
A. Well, it was an addition in my schedule. But the calculation, going back to the Beyonce
relationship, was the 267. The clothing endorsement was separate on the schedule.
Q. Okay. So let's focus on the $267 million component of the endorsement deal. And you said you
came up with that -- that includes both endorsements and sponsorships; right?
A. Would have included both, yes.
Q. What's the difference?

A. Sponsorships is where you would give -- let's say it's Pepsi, just on a sponsorship basis. They would
pay a certain amount of money to get signage within the venues, put up signs, whatever. They might be
the only provider of soft drinks during the shows or things of that nature. And it's very similar to an
endorsement where you'd be able to do commercials promoting the tour. But, basically, sponsorship
money would defray costs of the tour, as opposed to endorsements wouldn't be defraying costs of the
tour.
Q. Okay. So when you say the sponsorships would be defraying the costs of the tour, it's because that
goes into the pool revenues for the tour; is that right?
A. Generally. But I think all of this deal, all the money would have went into the pool of revenues.
Wouldn't have just gone to Michael Jackson himself.
Q. You mean, then, the endorsement money would have gone into the pool revenues, too?
A. Well, I mean, under the AEG Deal. I have it where it would be the ending -- you know what? Yes, I
have it going to Michael Jackson.
Q. Right. You have it -- all endorsements and sponsorships all going to Michael Jackson, and none of
that going into the pool revenues; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that's the way you think it works?
A. Well, to the point that all costs are recoupable to Michael Jackson before distribution of funds, it
works out that way.
Q. So you don't think that AEG Live gets a portion of --
Judge: Mr. Panish.
Q. You don't think that AEG Live gets a portion of the pool revenues?
A. They may. I'd have to recall what the contract terms were. But, yes, they may.
Q. They may. So you don't really know?
A. It's not that I don't really know. I don't recall. I'd have to look back at the contract.
Q. All right. So you -- with respect to this portion, you explained on the first day of your testimony
your methodology for coming up with a $267 million endorsement deal; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you said it was based on a $50 million deal that Beyonce had; right?
A. Correct.

Q. And that was something that was reported in the press?

A. Right, because most of these deals are private. It's not public information.
Q. So you haven't actually seen the Beyonce deal; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that's just something you relied upon from the news reports about the deal?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you believe news reports are always accurate about the deals they report on?
A. I didn't see anybody disputing the amount of the deal.
Q. So what's the answer to my question?
A. The answer is: I think in this case, it was correctly reported.
Q. And do you think that the news stories actually get the amounts of endorsement deals right and put
an accurate number in their news reports? Is that what's known in the industry; that accurate numbers
go in news reports?
A. I think --
Mr. Panish: Well -- sorry.
The witness: I think I testified in this particular case, I think the number would be accurate. Nobody
disputed it. Yes, the media does tend to exaggerate.
Q. And the media tends to inflate endorsement numbers at times; right?
A. It's been reported that it's happened.
Q. You're not familiar with that personally?
A. We all know the media doesn't always tell the truth.
Q. But you relied on that $50 million number that was reported in the press for Beyonce to come up
with your $267 million number for Michael Jackson in this case; right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So you used that basis for your number, what you've learned about in the press, and then you
explained that you created a percentage; right?
A. Correct.

Q. And the way you did that was by comparing the gross revenues of one of Beyonce's tours; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you -- which was -- do you remember the gross revenue number?
A. About 123 million.
Q. 119, 120 million. Say 120 million. And you said that 50 million is about 42 percent of that number;
right?
A. Roughly.
Q. And then you went ahead, and you applied that percentage. You said, okay, if Beyonce has an
endorsement deal that's 42 percent of her gross revenues on her tour, you projected that Michael
Jackson could get an endorsement deal that would be 42 percent of the gross revenues on the tour that
you projected for him; right?
A. Just for the '09 and 2010 revenues.
Q. Meaning you just applied the 42 percent to the gross revenues of the first two years of the tour that
you projected?
A. First year and a half, yes.
Q. That 260-show tour with all these huge stadiums, and things like that; right?

A. Correct.
Q. And the reason why you just applied it to the first two years, your methodology doesn't really call
for that; right? You think it should be 42 percent of the gross revenues of the tour; right? That's your
methodology?
A. Well, the number ended up being boiled down to a much lower percentage, effectively, because I
applied it to the
First year and a half of the tour.
Q. All right. But your methodology is that it's 42 percent of the gross revenues, and that should be the
amount that you can predict for a future endorsement deal for Michael Jackson; right? That's the
methodology?
A. With respect to the revenues that he grossed in the first year and a half of the tour.
Q. Right. But you based this on a Beyonce endorsement deal and gross revenue numbers; right?
A. Yes.
Q. So if we're looking at your methodology, we need to look at what you did there; right?

A. Right.
Q. And there you took total gross revenues of her tour; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you determined that $50 million that was reported in the press was about 42 percent of that;
right?
A. Correct.
Q. And so your methodology is that 42 percent of someone's gross tour revenues is what you should
look to to determine what a potential endorsement deal would be; right?
A. In this case, yes.
Q. And so you would think -- you went and looked at the gross revenues that you projected with
respect to your 260-show tour with all those huge stadiums; right?
A. First year and a half, not all 260.
Q. Well, that's inconsistent with your methodology; right? Because your methodology, you looked at
all of Beyonce's gross revenue tours; right?
A. Yes. But on my exhibit, it clearly says 2009 and '10.
Q. Right. But I'm focusing on your methodology. Your methodology calls for looking at all the gross
revenues; right?
A. When I used the Beyonce comparison, yes.
Q. Right. And that's where you established your methodology, was the Beyonce comparison; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And that called for looking at all of the gross revenues; right?
A. If you just took that relationship, yes.
Q. And the reason why you didn't do that with Michael Jackson is because to do so would be to grossly
exaggerate the endorsement number; right?
A. In my personal opinion, professional opinion, yes, I thought the number was way too high.
Q. Right. So you didn't use that methodology that you created in this case?
A. Yes, I did. I just modified the amount of revenue that I put against it.

Q. Okay. You just thought your methodology resulted in

A. Grossly-exaggerated figure, so you had to reduce it? It just wouldn't pass the smell test otherwise?
Mr. Panish: Objection. Argumentative.
Judge: Overruled.
A. Not that it wouldn't have passed the smell test. I, being a conservative accountant, thought it was
just too large of a number.
Q. You thought it was conservative to have a $267 million endorsement projection?
A. Compared to 5, 6, $700 million, yes.
Q. You know of no one who has an endorsement amount anything close to that in terms of an artist; is
that right?
A. It's not publicized. Most endorsements aren't publicized, so we have no idea of the terms of the
deals.
Q. You have no idea -- let's talk about this for a little bit. Do you know if anyone else has ever used
your methodology for projecting an endorsement deal?
A. No.
Q. And in fact, you've never used that methodology that you just described before yourself, have you?
A. I wasn't called upon to do it.
Q. And in fact, you've never been asked to predict potential revenues of any endorsement deal before,
have you?
A. Doesn't usually come up.
Q. And you actually know of no other artist who has an endorsement deal that is 40 percent of the
gross revenues of one of their tours; isn't that right?
A. As I said, most deals are private. This was the only one really publicized.
Q. So my question is: You know of no other artist who has an endorsement deal that is 40 percent of
the gross revenues of one of their tours?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So with respect to the endorsement deal that you went ahead -- or deals you projected, you
said that the Michael Jackson's "This Is It" tour would have been sponsored by Pepsi; right?
A. No. I said somebody like Pepsi. I said a Pepsi-like deal.

Q. Well, you said Pepsi and others, right, likely?

A. No. I said a Pepsi-like -- could have been Pepsi; could have been others. I didn't specifically say. I
used that as an example.
Q. Well, you actually thought that Pepsi would have had an exclusive on beverages; right?
A. No. I said somebody like Pepsi. That's possible. I didn't say specifically it would have been Pepsi.
Q. All right.
A. I used them as an example.
Q. Let's look at your deposition, then.
A. Okay.
Ms. Strong: Page 178, lines 9 through 13. Ready?
Mr. Panish: No. Okay. I'm okay, as long as she reads the question before. 2 through 13 is fine because
it puts it exactly in context.
Judge: Okay. Probably should put it in context.
Mr. Panish: So that would be 2 through 13.
(a video clip from Mr. Erk's deposition is played):
Question: Is that the same answers with respect to Nike?
Answer: Well, that might have been part of all this. In other words, it's not just strictly Pepsi. We
used just Pepsi as the name in there, but there might have been multiple endorsements in there. It
wouldn't have been just Pepsi.
Q. So Pepsi would have had --
Mr. Panish: She didn't read the whole thing. She didn't do the whole thing.
Ms. Strong: She's adjusting on the fly. Pam's doing her best. I'm sure we'll get it up.
Judge: Okay. The part you wanted read didn't get read.
Mr. Panish: Can we start over?

Ms. Strong: While we're waiting for this --

Mr. Panish: No. Go ahead and play it.
Ms. Strong: She's putting it together, Mr. Panish.
Q. So with respect to -- I just want to make sure something is clear. With respect to that 42 percent
endorsement deal, you actually don't even know that Beyonce's deal is 42 percent of her gross tour
revenues; right?
A. Providing the reported figures are correct, it would be 42 percent.
Q. Right. But you don't know if those reported figures are correct. You don't know that that $30 million
is correct; right?
Mr. Panish: Objection. Asked and answered that question several times.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I answered before, I didn't see the contract. So specifically not that. And my firm doesn't
handle Beyonce, so I couldn't confirm the number that's reported. Usually the concert revenues are
considered accurate.
Q. Okay. But my question was: You actually don't know if Beyonce had an endorsement deal that was
42 percent of gross revenues, right, because you haven't seen the contract?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. So you don't know.
Mr. Panish: Excuse me, your honor. I'm going to object to counsel's statement before the question
after the witness has answered, which was "so you don't know," which is an editorial summary by
counsel. It's not part of any question.
Mr. Putnam: And, your honor, I'd ask --
Mr. Panish: Nor is it a question.
Mr. Putnam: And, your honor, as we've seen throughout the morning, he refuses to give an answer.
He's trying to qualify it, so it's necessary to ascertain whether his answer is his answer.
Mr. Panish: That's not true.
Judge: Overruled. You may continue.
Q. The answer to my question is you don't know; right? I think you said, "correct."
A. Yes, I did.

Q. And with respect to the history -- you know that chart that we looked at yesterday that had the
history of the top grossing tours, and u2 was at the top of it? You remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And it had U2, Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Madonna -- the list went on?
A. Correct.
Q. You don't know of anyone on that list who has an endorsement deal that's 42 percent of the gross
revenues of their tours identified on that list; right?
A. No, I don't.
Q. All right. So why don't we go ahead and go back to where we were. And I believe the question that
started this was that you believe that, although it wouldn't have just been Pepsi in your proposed deal, it
would have -- Pepsi would have had the exclusive on beverages; right?
A. Usually works that way, yes.
Q. Are you changing -- you're admitting that Pepsi would have had the exclusive on beverages?
A. No. You just asked me, if it was Pepsi, would they have had the exclusive.
Q. I believe your opinion at your deposition was that it wouldn't have been just Pepsi, there would
have been other sponsors; right?
A. I said it would have included other endorsements.
Q. But Pepsi would have had an exclusive on beverages for the tour; correct?
A. I used Pepsi as an example.
Q. At your deposition, you said that Pepsi would have had an exclusive on beverages; correct?
A. I thought we were going to look at my deposition?
Q. Well, I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.
Ms. Strong: Why don't we do that?
Judge: Why don't we start at the beginning? Let's go back to 178, I think it's line 4, all the way to 13.
Mr. Panish: It's actually 2, your honor. 2 to 13.
Judge: 2 to 13. Okay.
Ms. Strong: I think we're set to do that, your honor. Go ahead.

(a video clip from Mr. Erk's deposition is played):

Question: Is that the same answers with respect to Nike?
Answer: Well, that might have been part of all this. In other words, it's not just strictly Pepsi. We
used just Pepsi as a -- as the name in there, but there might have been multiple endorsements in
there. It wouldn't have been just Pepsi.
Question: When you're saying it wouldn't have been just Pepsi, what are you talking about?
Answer: There would have been other sponsors. Pepsi would have had an exclusive on beverages.
Q. Okay. So as you just explained, an exclusive on beverages means that Pepsi would have had an
exclusive on beverages at the 02?
A. It depends on when the endorsement or sponsorship would have started.
Q. You believe it would have been associated with the "This Is It" tour; right?
A. Yes. But I only calculated on a portion of the revenues. It didn't mean it was going to run for the
Entire tour.
Q. You calculated on the portion of the first year and a half of revenues; right?
A. Right.
Q. So you think Pepsi would have come into sponsor the tour at the beginning of the tour; right?
A. No. It could have come later. If you recall the testimony, they said they had to rehabilitate his
reputation, or whatever, so success breeds deals.
Q. Yeah. And the sell-out of the tickets in march, that wasn't sufficient to demonstrate that his
reputation had been rehabilitated, was it?
A. There were ongoing negotiations that I wasn't privy to. So maybe; maybe not. I don't know.
Q. Do you have an opinion one way or the other as to whether his reputation was rehabilitated after
you saw those sales in march of 2009?
A. Well, you know what? What I do know as fact is that the demand was there; people put their money
down. And, you know, according to Phillips's testimony, he could have sold 200 shows there. The
demand was there. I think that is unquestionable at
This point.
Q. So was his image rehabilitated by June of 2009?

A. I don't think it was a matter of image. The demand was there to see Michael Jackson.
Q. You just testified a moment ago that there was talk about a need to rehabilitate his image; correct?
A. I believe that was in AEG emails previously, yes. That the plan was to take him around the world.
By the time they got done outside the united states -- because I think they were more concerned about
what it was in the united states, not the rest of the world.
Q. And my question to you is: Do you believe that his image had been rehabilitated by June of 2009?
A. I didn't look at it that way. I looked at the demand of the tickets.
Q. My question -- it's a "yes" or "no" -- do you believe his image was rehabilitated by June of 2009 for
purposes of evaluating potential endorsements and so forth?
A. And I said that wasn't -- hopefully this answers your question: It wasn't a consideration on my part,
since he sold so many tickets so quickly in record time, that I don't think it was a matter of image.
That's what I'm saying.
Q. So I don't think you answered my question. Do you have an opinion as to whether his image was
rehabilitated?
A. If you need a "yes" or "no" answer, my answer is, "yes."
Q. His image was rehabilitated by June of 2009?
A. By selling so many tickets, I have no other way of coming up with that relationship. I'm not a
publicity person, as we established before. I'm basing it on facts of numbers.
Q. Right. And so you believe he was rehabilitated as of June of 2009, so he could have been able to get
endorsement deals by then; right?
A. I think in the current business climate, when you have somebody that is a hot commodity, you get
deals.
Q. Okay. And so if Pepsi was going to have the exclusive on beverages, the way that would work is
that Pepsi would be able to serve all the drinks at the 02 if he was able to get an endorsement deal,
based on his rehabilitated image, they could have served all the drinks at the 02? Is that how it works?
A. Well, AEG Owned the 02. They would have been the ones that would have approved it.
Q. But -- and I just want to make sure that that's what the opinion is. To have an exclusive on
beverages means that Pepsi would have been able to serve the beverages at the 02; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you see anything in your internet research that you did that indicated that Pepsi actually would
not be able to serve beverages at the 02 in July of 2009?

A. No.
Q. And so assuming that coca-cola had a partnership with the 02 arena in 2009 where it had the
exclusive right to serve its beverages at the 02, that would actually make it impossible for Pepsi to
serve its beverages at the 02; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if Pepsi couldn't serve its beverages at the 02, then it wouldn't make much sense for Pepsi to
sponsor a tour at the 02; right?
A. But I think I also said it wouldn't have necessarily started at the 02.
Q. So this figure is sometime after the end of the run at the 02?
A. No. If you look at the way I did the calculation, I used the '09 and 2010 numbers. By that time,
seeing the wild success of the tour, endorsers and sponsors would have come on board if they couldn't
get in in the beginning.
Q. But sometime -- you have no idea when. Maybe it was after it left London?
A. Yes. I used the '09 and 2010. That means it was after London, they had results in, they were able to
strike deals at a later date.
Q. Even though all that had been agreed to at the time Michael Jackson died was the 50 shows in
London; is that right?
A. He had a 3-year contract.
Q. And just to -- all that had been agreed to at the time Michael Jackson died was 50 shows; right?
A. That's all that was scheduled at that time.
Q. That's all that Michael Jackson had agreed to at that time; correct?
A. I don't know that for a fact.
Q. I don't want to recover ground. We already covered that.
Mr. Panish: Well, I would object. Asked and answered about five times.
Ms. Strong: But it's been covered.
Mr. Putnam: Move to strike.
Q. Have you tried to change your testimony?
Mr. Panish: Objection. Asked and answered.

Judge: I'm sorry. The question is?

Ms. Strong: That all that had been agreed to at the time Michael Jackson died was Michael had only
agreed to 50 shows.
Judge: Asked and answered, sustained.
Q. You're not changing your testimony as to that?
Mr. Panish: Same thing. Asked and answered.
Judge: Asked and answered. I thought you said you covered that and wanted to move on?
Ms. Strong: Until Mr. Panish objected and piped up --
Mr. Panish: I said I wasn't going to object, but now that she keeps going into it, I would, and I did.
Ms. Strong: I just want to make sure the witness is not changing his testimony, and then I'll leave that
spot, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Well, this has been --
Judge: Well, I don't think he has, so we'll move on. Mr. Panish, remember what I said about turning
around so I can see you? Please?
Mr. Panish: It's all right. I have the screen now so I can see her, so I don't have to turn around.
Judge: I want to see all of you. Thank you.
Mr. Panish: You're welcome.
Q. So I take it, in coming up with your opinions, when you thought it was a potential that Pepsi could
actually serve the beverages at the 02, you actually didn't look at the 02 web site to see the partnerships
and see it had a partnership with coca-cola at that time?
A. No, I didn't.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, are we going to take a break or keep going through?
Judge: When did we start?
Ms. Stebbins: About 10:10 or 10:15.
Judge: 10:10?
Ms. Stebbins: That's my best --
Judge: Let's go to 11:10. At least an hour.

Q. So you already established that the tickets -- you recognized the tickets sold out, the tickets were
sold in march of 2009; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's part of your opinion. That's an important part of your opinion, right, the fact that tickets
sold so well in march of 2009?
A. Sure.
Q. Now, you would agree that AEG Live, to the extent that it -- assuming AEG Live shared in some of
the revenues from sponsorships, that it would have gone into -- the sponsorship revenues would have
gone into the pool, and AEG Live would have shared in those revenues. Let's assume that. Can you
assume that for me?
A. Okay.
Q. If that's correct, then AEG Live would have interest in seeing there was sponsorships for the tour as
well; correct?
A. They would have aided in the process, yes.
Q. But you're not aware of any endorsement or sponsorship deals in place as of the time of Michael
Jackson's death in 2009, are you?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that's three months after these ticket sales?
A. That's about the time, yes.
Q. And do you know anything about what AEG Live did to try to get sponsorships for the "This Is It"
tour between march and June of 2009?
A. Not specifically, no.
Q. And you're not aware of any evidence where deals were actually being discussed with Michael
Jackson, are you?
A. I saw emails where they talked about nike being involved. But other than that, no.
Q. That wasn't nike being involved with the tour?
A. I believe that they were talking about -- well, that's potential clothing lines, which may have played
into this, but --
Q. There was no -- no evidence that nike was going to sponsor the "This Is It" tour, was there, Mr.
Erk?

A. I didn't see any paperwork that they were doing it, that's correct.
Q. And you had access to all the documents that were produced in this case; right?
Mr. Panish: Objection. No foundation.
The witness: I don't know what all the documents look like.
Judge: Sustained.
The witness: I apologize.
Q. And just to be clear, in coming up with this endorsement number, the $270 million, just focusing on
the part not including clothing, but, really, it applies to all of your endorsement numbers? You didn't
consider the allegations against Michael Jackson in 1993 and 2005 when you created that number; isn't
that right?
A. As I said previously, the outstanding, unprecedented demand for his tickets took care of that. So the
answer is, "no."
Q. So let's go back to Beyonce for one moment. Has Beyonce ever been accused of criminal
misconduct?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. And never been a Defendants in a criminal trial; correct?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. In fact, Beyonce has actually never really suffered any negative publicity, has she?
Mr. Panish: Objection. No foundation. Also irrelevant.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Not to my knowledge.
Judge: I'm sorry. As far as you know, no?
The witness: As far as I know, no.
Q. And can you identify a single person
Who has gone through a public criminal trial like Michael Jackson in 2005, and then has gone on to
secure hundreds of millions of dollars of endorsements and sponsorships from major brands?
A. In terms of the criminal trial, no.
Q. Let's talk about merchandising and royalty numbers. You also projected Michael Jackson would

earn significant money in merchandise; correct?

A. Correct.
Q. The merchandise numbers you have are totally dependent on the shows that you predicted actually
happening; correct?
A. This merchandise, yes.
Q. And so it's dependent on all the 260 shows that you included in your analysis; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And to the extent that we're talking about additional tours thereafter would be dependent on all of
those tours happening; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So, again, if the shows don't happen, the merchandise doesn't come through?
A. Need the venue to sell it, so, yes.
Q. And in fact, the merchandise numbers are actually tied to the number of tickets sold; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So if you inflated your ticket sales number, your merchandise number is inflated as well?
A. He didn't sell that many tickets, he would sell less merchandise, as I used an average of $19 per
head.
Q. So if you assume those seating capacities were inflated and needed to be reduced, then you have to
reduce your merchandise number, too?
A. But as I said yesterday, I don't think the seating capacities were inflated. When you took the
stadiums into account -- and I used Paris as a specific example. I only used two-thirds capacity there
for performances. So that would have made up for any of the kill discussion we had yesterday.
Q. I don't want to go back over what we talked about yesterday. I'm moving forward. But the --
A. But I'm explaining to you the volume of ticket sales.
Q. The ticket sales and the merchandise numbers are linked?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. And that's the same with the royalty numbers; right? The shows have to happen in order to have the
royalty bumps you predicted as well?

A. The shows, yes. Not that many tickets, but the shows, yes.
Judge: Can you explain that again, the concept of royalty bump? Are you saying that because of the
concerts, Michael Jackson's prior recorded music will see an increase --
The witness: Yes.
Judge: In sales?
The witness: Historically, that's always happened.
Judge: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's what -- I understood that's what you meant.
The witness: Okay.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, I'm about to go into a new section, if we can take a break.
Judge: How long is that section?
Ms. Strong: I don't know, but I can tell you it's more than 10 minutes. Judge: All right. 10-minute
break.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.
(the jury exits the courtroom)
Judge: Okay. 10 minutes.
(Break)
Judge: Okay. Let's call the jury in.
(the jury enters the courtroom)
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Juror no. 6, I got your note, and we're going to try to --
thank you for letting us know earlier. We're going to try to assist you in that matter and will keep you
posted. Thank you. You may continue.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.
Q. Mr. Erk, I think you said you relied, your work papers, on an AEG Live budget in coming up with
your numbers; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So I'd like to show you an exhibit here. It's exhibit 693-88 through 693-89.
Ms. Strong: May I approach, your honor?

Judge: Yes.
Mr. Panish: Is this in evidence?
Judge: Yes.
Ms. Strong: I don't -- (counsel spoke in undertone)
Q. Is this the budget that you relied upon in your work papers, Mr. Erk?
A. Yes.
Q. This is the AEG Live budget from where you get your numbers?
A. That's correct.
Ms. Strong: And so let's go and put this up on the screen, Pam. Is that okay, counsel?
Mr. Panish: Out of the whole exhibit, we're just using these two pages?
Ms. Strong: Correct.
Mr. Panish: Just so we clarified that he relied on the whole thing, that's fine.
Ms. Strong: Those two pages.
Mr. Panish: No. There's many more pages.
Ms. Strong: We're referring to the two pages.
Q. You relied on those two pages, Mr. Erk?
Mr. Panish: Right. No problem.
The witness: As a basis for my calculations, correct.
Ms. Strong: So let's go ahead and look at it. Pam, if you could pull up your second page first. The
second page is actually the first page of the document. So let's go and highlight the first part of it.
Q. You see at the top there, top left-hand corner, "Michael Jackson uk 02 shows"?
Ms. Strong: Let's pull it up. There you go.
Q. "Michael Jackson uk 02 shows 2009/2010 summary of Prod 2"; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And this is the budget for the 02 shows in London; correct?

A. Correct.
Ms. Strong: And if you go up to the corner, you could see where it is printed, Pam.
Q. Printed there June 24th, 2009; correct?
Mr. Panish: Well, I'm sorry. You just asking him to confirm what it says?
Q. The document indicates it was printed on June 24th, 2009?
A. Yes.
Q. You have no reason to believe it wasn't printed on some other date, sir?
Mr. Panish: Objection. No foundation. How does he know?
Judge: Overruled.
A. No.
Q. And this is what -- again, you relied upon this? You thought this was the most current budget to rely
on in terms of AEG Live's numbers?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. So let's go ahead and -- I want to -- before we move on with this, you previously testified
that you looked at two different budgets with two different exchange rates; right?
A. Right.
Q. They're both in this document; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And so that's Prod 1.
Ms. Strong: Pam, if you can get it. It's such a small document. Prod 1 and Prod 2, there's two
columns. Highlight the first one on the left, "Prod 1"; correct? Draw them out a little bigger, Pam. Prod
1 and Prod 2 with the exchange rates.
Q. You see Prod 1 there, Mr. Erk?
A. Correct.
Q. You mentioned Prod 1 and Prod 2 have two different exchange rates; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Are those the exchange rates you were referring to? Prod 1 is the exchange rate of 1.45; correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Prod 2, exchange rate of 1.60; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Again, this is the totality of the AEG Live budget you relied upon for your numbers in terms of the
budget document?
A. As a working document to pull the numbers from.
Q. Right.
A. To come up with our assumptions, yes.
Q. And when you say you relied on AEG's numbers, this is what you're talking about?
A. For the touring numbers, yes.
Q. So let's move down on the document and to the line where it says, "net net income."
Ms. Strong: If you can pull that up, please. The whole line across, Pam.
Q. You see that net net income number?
A. Correct.
Q. That reflects the net income to Michael Jackson; correct?
A. According to the numbers here, yes.
Q. Right. And those are AEG Live's numbers about what they're projecting Michael Jackson would
take home from the 50 shows at the 02; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's two sets of numbers there. We have Prod 1 is one budget; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And so the Prod 1 number, can you -- that's hard for me to read on this, but can you see it's a
little over 22 million?
A. Yeah. But it's not for 50 shows.
Q. You don't believe it's for 50 shows?
A. It's 30 shows.

Q. Why do you believe it's for 30 shows, Mr. Erk?

A. If you look down at the bottom, they have it broken out.
Q. Turn around and look on the back -- let's go to the other line in the document. Note "Prod 1" and the
note.
Mr. Panish: Where are we?
Ms. Strong: I'm sorry. It's the other page.
Mr. Panish: What page?
Ms. Strong: First page, 693-88.
The witness: I'm sorry. I take it back. It's 50 shows.
Q. It's for 50 shows?
A. Yes. What's down at the bottom refers to something else. I apologize.
Q. Okay. So this is for the 50 shows at the 02; right?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. And so the first budget for the 50 shows at the 02, Prod 1, is -- it has a net --
Ms. Strong: Go back to that net line, please, Pam. If you could highlight the full net net income line
across the way. Right.
Q. Okay. So this is the net income, the amount of money that AEG Live was projecting that Michael
Jackson could take home if he did the 50 shows at the 02 in London; correct?
A. At the time that they did that particular budget, yes.
Q. Right. And the net net income on Prod 1 is a little over 22 million; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then the second budget, the alternative budget, Prod 2, it has Michael Jackson with a projected
net income number of $30 million. A. Little over $30 million; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So the range that AEG Live was projecting Michael Jackson could have made and taken home from
the 50 shows at the 02 for "This Is It" was between 22 and $30 million; correct?
A. Well, they changed the numbers from Prod 1 to Prod 2. It wasn't just merely exchange rates.

Q. Right. But my question is: What they were projecting

with respect to what's on this document is that Michael Jackson could potentially take home 22 million
under one budget, or 30 million under the other budget?
A. I believe the second budget is the budget they relied on.
Q. Okay. And that would include selling 750,000 tickets; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And so that's the 50 shows; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that would include merchandise as well; correct?
A. In this calculation, yes.
Q. And let's just make sure we're all clear on that.
Ms. Strong: Let's go up, Pam, if you could. Highlight the top part of the document, the income
section. There's a merchandising line.
Q. So it includes merchandising in here, too; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's nothing
For endorsements in this document; right?
A. No.
Q. A .E.G. Live is not projecting a single dollar of revenue for endorsements in this document; right?
A. Not in this document, no.
Q. Nor in any other document; isn't that right, Mr. Erk?
A. Not from what I've seen, correct.
Q. And so let's go ahead --
Ms. Strong: Pam, I'd like to actually keep track of AEG's numbers. Jessica, could you give me a -- so
we'll just go ahead, and, Pam -- any objection?
Mr. Panish: I thought we were supposed to exchange demonstratives.
Ms. Stebbins: Not on cross-examination, only direct.

Mr. Panish: Well, demonstratives are supposed to be both. That's fine. If that's the rule, then I don't
have to exchange any when I do it.
Judge: Normally you would show it in advance.
Mr. Panish: That's okay. If that's the rule, if it applies to me, I'm okay with it.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: So later they can't ask --
Ms. Stebbins: I think the rule at the beginning is that demonstratives on cross would not be exchanged
in advance.
Mr. Panish: I don't think so.
Ms. Strong: I checked the record.
Judge: Let's go forward.
Ms. Strong: Let's go ahead. Pam, if you could put this up on the screen for us.
Q. We have AEG Live 2009 projections for "This Is It," and that includes -- it's a net to Michael
Jackson of 22.3 to $30.7 million; correct, Mr. Erk?
A. Yes.
Q. And that includes 750,000 tickets; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. 50 shows; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Merchandise projections; correct?
A. According to their numbers, yeah.
Q. And nothing for endorsements; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, your projections, Mr. Erk, for the "This Is It" tour are $890,571,436; correct?
A. I have to refer back to my exhibit. But if that's the number, that's the number.
Q. Okay. Well, let's go ahead and walk through it. You don't need to put it up unless you need me to. I

can give you a copy. But you projected net revenues to Michael Jackson from the tour, the "This Is It"
-- the 260-show "This Is It" tour that you created of 452 million, approximately; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And merchandise associated -- this is net to Michael, not gross numbers. You're projecting that
Michael would take home $121 million in merchandise; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're projecting that Michael would have taken home $317 million in endorsements; right?
A. Correct.
Ms. Strong: Okay. So let's go ahead and put that up for a net number of -- if you would like to add it
up, let's go ahead and put it up.
Q. $890.5 million, does that sound about right?
A. Well, let's assume it's correct for your question.
Q. I'm sure you'll correct me if it's not.
Mr. Panish: What number is this?
Ms. Stebbins: It's just a demonstrative.
Mr. Panish: Yeah, but it has to have some number.
Ms. Strong: 13,466. Exhibit 13,466.
Mr. Panish: Thank you.
Q. So you've got a total net take home to Michael Jackson for "This Is It" of $890.5 million. And let's
see what that includes. You've got approximately 13 million tickets; right? 12.9 tickets. For shows,
you've got 260 shows?
A. Yes.
Q. And the merchandise number in there, and endorsement numbers?
A. Yes.
Q. Right? So we've got AEG Live's numbers on the left from an actual budget; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And we've got your projections on the right for the "This Is It" tour; right?

A. Yes.
Q. A .E.G. Live was projecting that Michael Jackson would take home on the "This Is It" tour, that had
been agreed to at the time he passed away, 22 to $30 million, approximately; correct?
Mr. Panish: I'll object. Misstates what -- she keeps saying "tour." she means 02 only? She keeps
saying "AEG Tour."
Judge: Well, the "This Is It" tour.
Mr. Panish: Well, no, but it's not --
Ms. Strong: I'll rephrase, your honor, to make sure it's clear.
Judge: Okay.
Q. With respect to the time Michael Jackson had died, AEG Live had projected a budget for the "This
Is It" concert, which were the 50 concerts at the 02; correct?
A. That's not the only budget they projected.
Q. This is the budget that you relied upon?
A. To do my ultimate calculations. But they had a previous budget.
Q. So -- but when you said you relied on AEG's numbers, this is the budget you're talking about; right?
A. To do my calculations.
Q. And there's no budget that has the numbers that you've projected; right, Mr. Erk?
A. No. But they have another budget that has a lot more money than this.
Q. A lot more money than 22 million?
A. Yes.
Q. What budget is that?
A. It was produced in September of '08.
Q. So before the AEG/Michael Jackson contract was signed?
A. That's correct. They made a proposal with tom barrack and with Michael Jackson and his
representatives to propose a tour. And they laid out what the elements of not only the tour, but all the
other plans that they had for him, and what the net amount would be to him. And it far exceeds this
amount.

Q. And the net amount to him in that budget? Do you have any idea?
A. I believe it was 132 million.
Q. And in September of 2008 -- so that's contemplating a larger tour?
A. Contemplating a 27-month tour with 186 dates.
Q. And that's -- so that was in September of 2008 before they had ever signed a deal with Michael
Jackson; correct?
A. They were discussing what their plans were over a number of fronts, including records, movies and
otherwise.
Q. And they had no idea whether Michael Jackson would actually agree to do the tour at that point;
correct?
A. It was a proposal, and Michael Jackson was interested. They were dealing with tom barrack, who
was his financial advisor, who was putting him on the path to straightening himself out.
Q. And there was no projection or no understanding of the costs associated with Michael Jackson's
tour at that time; correct?
A. No. That's incorrect. It was in that budget.
Q. Do you know whether the costs went up over time once they started to prepare for the tour?
A. As I said, it was a preliminary budget. Costs can go up. Yeah, obviously costs can go up.
Q. And costs for Michael Jackson's "This Is It" tour did go up, didn't they, Mr. Erk?
A. Well, if you compared apples to apples, then we could figure that out. But I don't know all the
components.
Q. Right. And that was a very preliminary budget, if you're referring to something in September of
2008; right?
A. No. I think it indicated that they were going to take him out on a worldwide tour, 27 months, 186
shows. And if he extended it to the 37 months I used, you would be awful darn close to my 260 shows,
and average shows per week, 1.6 shows. We were within 3/100ths of a percent.
Q. Mr. Erk, is it your testimony that wasn't a preliminary budget?
A. I said it was a proposal. So they put a budget together, so --
Q. So it was something less than a preliminary budget. It was a proposal?
A. Budgets are fluid. They change over time. But it shows that they clearly intended to take him out
around the world.

Ms. Strong: Your honor, if he could answer my question.

Q. If asked whether that was a preliminary budget?
A. I said a proposed budget.
Mr. Panish: He answered that.
Q. It was a proposal. Is that what it was, a proposal? So something less than a budget?
A. They laid out a plan for him. No, it wasn't something less than a budget. They laid out the plans,
they gave what they thought in this budget the revenue and the costs would be, what the net -- and it
literally said "net to Mikey" in the email; okay? They laid it out there. Yes, obviously, there would be
adjustments when they get the components of what the production's going to be.
Q. And they said the cost "net to Mikey" 132 million in September of 2008?
A. Yeah.
Q. And that's for the tour, the whole tour you think AEG Was contemplating back in 2008?
A. They laid out the countries. They --
Q. "yes" or "no." "yes"?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's a lot less than $890.5 million, isn't it?
A. I think you'd have to look at the components and look at everything that could have been added to it
in terms of income exploitation. At that time they had no idea what the demand would be for tickets.
March comes along, bang, 750,000 in five hours, sold out the 50 shows. 500,000 in the cue, which
meant another 2 million tickets. Phillips testified, "I could have sold out 200 shows." so you've got 3
million tickets there. We have almost 13 million tickets. The rest of the world. 10 million for the rest of
the world? They would have gobbled up those tickets in a second.
Q. So they were projecting 3 million tickets?
A. No, I'm not saying that Randy Phillips said that he could have sold that many tickets. Four times as
many shows that they sold.
Q. And so at the time Michael Jackson died, though, right, at the time he passed in June of 2009,
correct, all that was agreed to was the 50 shows?
Mr. Panish: Your honor, asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.

Q. And so at the time -- the most recent budget, the current budget at the time that Michael Jackson
passed away in June of 2009 was the budget on the left-hand side of the screen; isn't that right, Mr.
Erk?
A. I don't think it was the only budget in existence. It was the budget closest to the date starting the
shows that I had to work with. They could have had another version of that September '08 budget that I
wasn't given access to.
Q. This was the budget you chose to rely on on the left-hand screen?
A. To construct my numbers, yes.
Q. That was the budget active in June of 2009, as far as you understand it; right, Mr. Erk?
A. The most recent that I saw, yes.
Q. But you went ahead and projected $890 million. Just a question: Do you know of any tour that's
ever grossed that amount of money? Grossed.
A. No. This would have been a world record-breaking tour.
Q. So just so we're totally clear, you were projecting net profits to Michael Jackson that are hundreds
of millions greater than what any tour has ever grossed; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. With respect to movies, you'd acknowledge that Michael Jackson was interested in making movies
for decades; right?
A. Well, he did them before, and from all the testimony I read, that was his interest after doing touring.
Q. But Michael Jackson never had success in the movie industry during his lifetime, did he, Mr. Erk?
A. I don't know that for a fact.
Q. In terms of how you view success, Michael Jackson never had any success in the movie industry
during his lifetime; isn't that right, Mr. Erk?
A. I think what we discussed at my deposition, that's probably correct.
Q. That's what you said in your deposition; right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you have no idea why Michael Jackson never had success in movies prior to his death, do you?
A. No, as well as anybody else that failed at movies.

Q. So you have no idea -- you testified at your depo, you have no idea why Michael Jackson never had
success in movies prior to his death; right?
A. That's correct.
Ms. Strong: Pam, can you put up the exhibit we had up yesterday with the history of the Michael
Jackson shows?
Mr. Panish: Which one?
Ms. Strong: The graph showing Michael Jackson's prior shows and --
Mr. Panish: That's 12,465.
Ms. Strong: That one. Thank you.
Q. All right. So with respect to -- we went over this yesterday. Just want to reorient us. This is Michael
Jackson's prior solo tours on the left-hand side; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that includes "Bad" when he was 29 years old; "Dangerous" when he was 33 years old; and
"History" when he was 38 years old; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's 275 shows from his 20s up to 50; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then you have your projection for "This Is It" where you think that Michael Jackson would
have gone on to do 260 shows; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. But your analysis here, we talked about your numbers with respect to that 260-show proposal there;
right? We already discussed those numbers?
A. Yes.
Q. Your analysis goes on to say that Michael Jackson would have actually gone on to perform more
tours after that; right?
A. Well, it was my professional opinion that the artist usually comes back to the well.
Q. And in making -- coming up with that opinion, you ignored the testimony of the Plaintiffs in
coming up with that prediction; is that right?

A. I just said that was my professional opinion. Nothing other than that.
Q. And you remember that Katherine Jackson testified that her son didn't want to be moonwalking at
the age of 50; right?
Mr. Panish: Excuse me, your honor. Asked and answered. We went through this all yesterday.
Judge: We did.
Ms. Strong: Just trying to move on.
Judge: Remember, I said we're going to try to finish, so --
Ms. Strong: I'm trying, your honor.
Mr. Panish: It's the same thing.
Judge: Overruled.
Ms. Strong: Thank you.
Q. You recall that, Mr. Erk?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also reviewed the deposition testimony of Paris Jackson; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And let's see what Paris Jackson had to say about her father's plans after doing the "This Is It" tour.
Ms. Strong: I'd like to play from Paris Jackson's deposition. Lines -- page 64, lines -- I'm sorry. Page
63, line 17, through 64, line 6.
Mr. Panish: Can I see it?
Judge: Remember, you're going to have to file these separately because --
Ms. Strong: Yes.
Judge: You've been doing that, but I just want to remind you.
Ms. Strong: Yes. Thank you, your honor. Go ahead.
Judge: Have you finished reading?
Mr. Panish: No. I'm still reading.
Judge: Okay.

Mr. Panish: Okay. I don't object, as long as I can play the rest of it in my part. So go ahead.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Strong: That's actually not the way that rule works, but we can talk about that later.
Judge: Maybe there's some completeness issues. I don't know.
Mr. Panish: Then I object. It's incomplete.
Ms. Strong: We'll discuss that.
Mr. Panish: Well, under the completeness doctrine.
Judge: How much more do you want to read?
Mr. Boyle: We have to find it.
Mr. Panish: There's a different day.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, may I suggest, if he has something to read for completeness, he play it
during redirect?
Mr. Panish: Actually, it gets played at the same time for completeness. And there is another --
Judge: Go ahead and look.
Mr. Panish: It's another day of the testimony.
Ms. Strong: There's nothing incomplete about this, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I --
Ms. Strong: And we're just taking --
Mr. Boyle: There is, your honor. That's a misrepresentation.
Ms. Strong: I'm sure you'll point it out.
Judge: Okay. That's another volume? Can you try to find it --
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Judge: -- so we can do it all at once? I'm not going to cut this off of your time.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: Yes, your honor. For completeness, we would also like played page 94, lines 1 through 8.

Ms. Strong: This is not necessary. What we're talking about contemplating --
Judge: Okay. Then I'll need the --
Mr. Boyle: I'm sorry. 94, 1 through 13.
Ms. Strong: This is --
(counsel conferred in undertone)
Mr. Panish: We need to show the court. I don't want to debate it in front of the jury.
Judge: Okay. Let me take a look at it. Although, I'll need to see what was designated, too.
(counsel conferred in undertone)
Mr. Panish: Also, two other places that's different. Also page 160, lines 21 to 25; and 161, lines 1 to
10 where that issue is discussed.
Judge: Okay. I have volume 1.
Ms. Stebbins: What are the other ones?
Judge: You want me to start reading volume 1?
Ms. Strong: If you could look at 63 through 64/6.
Judge: Page 63.
Mr. Panish: 17.
Ms. Strong: Line 17.
Judge: Okay. Hold on. 63, line 17. Okay.
Ms. Strong: Through 64, line 6.
Mr. Panish: Right.
Judge: Line 6. Okay.
Ms. Strong: This is about after the "This Is It" tour.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: No.
Mr. Boyle: And then, your honor, first, the Plaintiffs would add for completeness page 94, 1 through

13.
Judge: Okay. Let me read that. (reviewing document) well, all right. And then -- are those the only
two things?
Mr. Panish: Well --
Mr. Boyle: Well, and then -- I mean, I think that one will involve it, but there's more that go on to
support the 94.
Ms. Strong: We're talking about after the "This Is It" tour. This is not after 50.
Mr. Boyle: That's not how 63 reads. It reads "02."
Judge: It says, "02."
Ms. Strong: We're not trying to represent --
Mr. Panish: It's misleading.
Judge: Okay. Play the whole thing. Page 63 and 64, and page 94 as well.
Ms. Strong: Okay. Let's go ahead.
Mr. Boyle: Thank you.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.
(a portion of the videotaped deposition of Paris Jackson was played):
Q. Okay. So that's what she said with respect to her father's plans with respect to tours; correct?
A. It appears so, yes.
Q. And when you projected that after the "This Is It," after there was a world tour associated with
"This Is It," you don't think he's going to retire with respect to tours; right?
A. I think I already answered that. I said it was my -- only my professional opinion that he was going
to continue to tour at some point in time in the future.
Q. Right. And you actually went out and plotted out these four additional tours in connection with
coming up with the figures that you talked about the first day on the stand; correct?
A. Tier 2, yes.
Q. And Tier 2 means you just don't know if it's going to happen?
A. Because it's in my professional opinion.

Ms. Strong: Pam, if you could help me, put that back on the screen and scoot that over and put up --
Mr. Panish: Can I ask a question? Your honor, can I get an electronic copy of these exhibits?
Judge: We'll talk about it at lunch.
Mr. Panish: Well, I want to use it when I go on.
Q. So let's look at your projections here. You said that after he finished this world tour, he would have
gone out at the age of 56?
A. It would have been years after, yes.
Q. And he would have done 56 shows on that -- I'm sorry -- 60 shows on that one?
A. Correct.
Q. And then let's go ahead and look at the next -- just one --
Ms. Strong: Pam, before you put anything up, I want to make sure Mr. Erk is with me on this.
Q. He was going to take another two years off; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then come back and do another 50 shows at age 63; correct?
A. If that's
how it works out, yes.
Ms. Strong: Okay. So let's put that up.
The witness: No. It's at 60, isn't it?
Q. He was going to come back, let's see, when he was 60 and do 40 shows; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then he'd take another two years off and come back at age 63; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And do another 50 shows, on your analysis?
A. Correct.
Q. And then you've got him coming back one more time after that at age 66; correct?

A. Yes.
Q. And performing another 45 shows; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you have Michael Jackson doing five world tours and 455 shows in the 16 years from age 50 to
66; is that right?
A. At a much reduced rate.
Q. You've got Michael Jackson from his 20s to his 50s, 275 shows; right?
Mr. Panish: Your honor --
Ms. Strong: Correct, Mr. Erk?
Mr. Panish: Your honor, asked and answered extensively on this.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I'm sorry. Repeat the question?
Q. You acknowledge Michael Jackson, between from his 20s up until he's 50, 275 shows and three
tours; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And your projections assume that Michael Jackson was going to go on from age 50 to age 66 and
perform 455 shows over five world tours; correct?
A. 260 is Tier 1 where we're reasonably assured. The other 195 was in my professional opinion, and it
does add up to 455 shows.
Q. So the answer to my question is, "yes"?
A. Yes.
Q. And you projected this, even though you were not aware of any artist who had done five tours
between the age of 50 and 66 when you came up with your calculations?
A. I don't know about the number of five tours, but you have much older artists constantly touring.
Q. That's not my question.
A. Sorry.
Q. You came up with your numbers without knowing of any other artist who had done five world tours
between the age of 50 and 66; correct?

A. I didn't consider that, so the answer is, "yes."

Q. And you have no idea whether these additional four tours would have happened at all; correct?
A. They're in Tier 2. That's the more speculative part of the calculations. They may or may not have
happened. I said it was in my professional opinion. There was no other testimony that said he would do
this.
Q. So the answer to my question is, "yes"?
A. What was the question again?
Mr. Panish: I think he answered the question. Objection. He answered the question.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I'm sorry.
Ms. Strong: Can the court reporter read it back?
Judge: Okay. You may read the question back.
(requested question read back)
The witness: Correct.
Ms. Strong: That's all for now, your honor.
Judge: Okay. 1:30.
(the jury exits the courtroom)
Judge: Okay. 1:30.
Mr. Panish: Can I get an electronic copy so -- I want to use those in my redirect. I've been giving
them electronic --
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I'm not sure that there's any obligation for us to give them electronic
exhibits for them to remake it in their own image that --
Judge: I don't think they have an obligation to do that.
Mr. Panish: Well, Ms. Cahan had asked us -- okay. So from now on, just want to make sure the
record's clear: No. 1, there's no exchange of demonstratives when I'm cross-examining --
Judge: Apparently that's fine.
Mr. Panish: And no. 2 -- excuse me, Mr. Putnam. No. 2, there's no need for me to give them any of

my electronic exhibits; is that right? I just want to make sure I'm clear now.
Judge: Well, you need to give them the exhibits in hard copy.
Mr. Panish: Right. No electronic version. So that's fine. I just want to make sure of the rules, because
now it's my turn to start cross-examining, and it's my turn to do this, so what's sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander; okay?
Judge: Right. Ms. Panish: Okay.
Ms. Stebbins: We're talking about demonstrative work product, not electronic exhibits. Plaintiffs have
a number of videos. Obviously, those have to be exchanged in electronic format.
Judge: He's talking about demonstratives.
Ms. Stebbins: As well as actual documents he's going to use in the case.
Mr. Panish: I've given them my demonstratives that I've used. They don't want to give them to me,
that's fine.
Judge: Did you give them --
Mr. Panish: Yes, I did.
Mr. Boyle: We gave all of those --
Ms. Stebbins: I don't --
Mr. Panish: That's okay. If they don't want to give them to me, that's the way it goes.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, with respect to Dr. Scholl, that was necessary because the printouts they gave
us were not --
Judge: Whatever the reason, they gave you demonstratives.
(several counsel talking at the same time)
The court reporter: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Your honor? Your honor? I cannot take six people talking at the
same time.
Judge: So guess who gets to talk first? So my point is that if they gave you theirs, what is the reason
why you won't give yours?
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, they gave theirs in one instance when it was unreadable in paper format.
The reason we don't want to give ours is, they want to take our chart, dismantle it and reuse it with this
witness. It's our work product, and I don't think we have any obligation to do that. The only issue -- the
only time -- as a general matter, Mr. Panish has been giving me demonstratives in hard copy only, and
that has been the way they've been done, and I made no objection or raised any issues with that.

Mr. Panish: Whenever they've asked, I've given it to them. I've asked. They've refused to give it to
me. Par for the course. It's not a big deal. If that's the way they want it to be, remember how the rules
are going from now on. So I just want to make sure, now that I'm going to get a chance to start cross-
examining their witnesses, the way the rules are. So they refuse to give it to me, and that's fine. That's
the ruling they made, they want to do it, they can have it.
Ms. Stebbins: Demonstratives during cross, and the paperwork is my understanding --
Mr. Panish: No.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.
Mr. Panish: The court's ruled. We'll see how it goes.
(Lunch)
Redirect examination by
Mr. Panish:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Erk.
A. Good afternoon, Mr. Panish.
Q. I'm not going to go through everything that counsel asked, but I want to go through a few areas.
A. Sure.
Q. First thing, counsel was questioning you about your background; and you reviewed the two experts,
Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Briggs, who the defendants have hired in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they get paid a similar amount as you?
A. Yeah. Well, yes, but higher hourly rates.
Q. What are their hourly rights?
A. I think with respect to Mr. Briggs, $800 an hour. I think Ackerman was probably about 475 like
mine.
Q. Okay. Did Mr. Ackerman or Mr. Briggs have they ever produced a concert?
A. No.

Q. Has Mr. Ackerman or Mr. Briggs, the experts retained by AEG have they ever promoted a concert?
A. Not according to their depositions.
Q. Now, you were asked a lot of questions about endorsements by Ms. Strong. Do you remember some
of those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were asked about allegations made against Michael Jackson quite a few times. Do you
remember those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a United States citizen?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Have you ever heard there's a presumption of someone's innocence until proven guilty?
A. Yes.
Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever been proven guilty of any of these allegations that AEG Is making in this
case?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Phillips or Mr. Anschutz or Mr. Gongaware have any concern that they shouldn't enter into
a contract with Mr. Jackson because of these allegations your honor, Mr. Putnam is talking out loud
when I'm trying to question. It's interrupting my questions.
The Judge: are you making an objection?
Mr. Putnam: I was noting something to my co-counsel
Mr. Panish: I'd like him to keep it down.
Mr. Putnam: can I finish, sir? Would you mind? Thank you.
Mr. Panish: you were talking while I was questioning.
The Judge: I can't hear two people talking at the same time.
Mr. Putnam: I was noting something to my co-counsel about the question, and what I wasn't doing is
muttering under my breath to the jury the entire time. I was turning to speak to her.

The Judge: you were speaking

Mr. Panish: I was trying to ask a question. I just ask that he doesn't do that while I question. That's all.
The Judge: continue questioning.
Mr. Panish: yes.
Q. So Mr. Putnam's clients, Mr. Anschutz, Mr. Gongaware, Mr. Phillips, did they not enter into any
contract or deal with Mr. Jackson because of any allegations made against him?
Ms. Strong: objection; lacks foundation.
The Judge: overruled.
The witness: they entered into the three-year touring contract, as well as a three-picture development
deal.
Q. Have you seen any evidence that Mr. Anschutz wanted to personally meet Mr. Jackson, that he had
any concerns about entering into this contract with Mr. Jackson?
Ms. Strong: objection; lacks foundation, calls for speculation, your honor.
The Judge: it does. I mean
Mr. Panish: the question is have you seen any evidence in this case, was the question.
The Judge: all right. Overruled.
Mr. Panish: and that's the same question that she's been asking.
The Judge: overruled.
The witness: yes, there was an e-mail from Mr. Phillips that copied Mr. Anschutz on it about meeting
with Richard Nanula and, ultimately, Tom Barrack to meet with Michael Jackson to talk about the
upcoming tour.
Q.And did you see any e-mails where anyone from AEG Did not want to enter into this contract with
Mr. Jackson because of allegations that defendants have raised in this case?

Ms. Strong: objection to the extent it misstates the testimony. Defendants are not raising any
allegations, your honor.
The Judge: well, let's be clear what the allegations are. You mean the allegations in the case, or
Mr. Panish: no. Allegations that Ms. Strong kept referring to when she questioned.
Q. Did you consider an allegation that his child was held on a balcony do you remember those
questions?
A. Yes.
Ms. Strong: And just objection, your honor. To be clear, there's not allegations made by AEG Live in
connection with his actions. He's referencing things from the past and allegations asserted by others
against Michael Jackson, your honor. Nothing to do with any allegations asserted by AEG Live as to
Michael Jackson.
Mr. Panish: can I get an objection?
The Judge: sustained.
Mr. Panish: okay. The questions that Ms. Strong and Mr. Putnam was telling her to ask were about the
allegations against Mr. Jackson.
Q. Whoever made them, did you see any e-mails where AEG Didn't want to make money with Mr.
Jackson because of any of those allegations?
A. Not anywhere in those e-mails.
Q. Did Mr. Anschutz raise that in any e-mails; that "we shouldn't do business and make money off of
Mr. Jackson" because of these allegations that were out there?
A. I didn't see anything to that effect.
Q. How about Mr. Phillips? Did he ever say anything about that?
A. Absolutely not. Not from the documents that I've seen, at least.
Q. How about Mr. Gongaware?
A. No.
Q. We talked about endorsements, and Ms. Strong asked you about people that had criminal cases. Do
you remember those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Have people that have large endorsement deals had issues in their life that could be viewed as
negative?

Ms. Strong: objection; vague, lacks foundation, outside the scope of this expert's area of expertise.
The Judge: it's a little vague, "negative." let's be specific.
Mr. Panish: okay. Let's talk about some of the superstar athletes and their endorsements. Tiger Woods,
do you know who he is?
Ms. Strong: objection, your honor; irrelevant, outside the scope of the area of this expert's opinion and
expertise. There's been no information that he has knowledge with to respect to sports, your honor.
The Judge: overruled.
Q. Do you know who Eldrick Tiger Woods is?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is he?
A. The number one golfer in the world.
Q. Now, has Mr. Woods, in his background, had some things that could be viewed as negative
allegations against him?
A. I believe so.
Q. In fact, did he admit to some of the allegations?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And how is Mr. Woods doing as far as his endorsements after these allegations and events occurred?
Ms. Strong: objection, your honor; lacks foundation, outside the scope of this witness's testimony.
Sports endorsements are completely different than artist endorsements, your honor.
The Judge: well, I don't know about that; but foundation as to whether he knows that.
Q. Well, do you know all right. Good question. Do you know what the highest-paid athlete
endorsements are?
A. I know a couple of them.
Q. Which ones do you know about?
Ms. Strong: again, your honor; objection. Irrelevant, completely unrelated. There's no sport athlete at
issue in this case. I don't believe there's any allegations that Michael Jackson was going to be engaging
in sports and getting any endorsements related to any sport activities, your honor. It's irrelevant to case.
The Judge: overruled.

The witness: in tiger woods' case, I believe in 2012 it was reported he his endorsements were going
back up, he was back up to $70 million.
Q.And did he just sign a new contract with Nike?
A. Yes.
Ms. Strong: objection, relevance. If I can have a standing objection, your honor, to any sports
The Judge: you can have a standing objection to sports questions.
Q. How about Alex Rodriguez? Do you know who he is?
A. He's one of our boys back home. Yes. He's
A. New York Yankee.
the way, are you a knick fan?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you think about Metta going to the Knicks?
A. I know you're not happy about it.
Q. We're not.
A. They've needed a banger for a while.
Q. All right. So let's talk about a. Rod, Alex Rodriguez, also known as.
A. Okay.
Q. Have there been allegations against Mr. Rodriguez regarding certain activities?
A. Yes.
Q. Ongoing allegations?
A. Still coming about surfacing every once in
A. While.
Q. How is Mr. Rodriguez doing for endorsements?
A. Seems to be, at least according to media reports, doing fairly well.
Q. Now, Beyonc. There were a lot of questions about the 42 percent and do you remember those

questions by counsel?
A. Yes.
Q. If you apply all right. Strike that. The amount of money that you assessed for the tier 1
endorsements okay? Are you with me?
A. Yes.
Q. If you apply that over the assessed amount of the concert revenue, what percent does that come out
to?
A. My calculation?
Q. Yes.
A. It worked out to be 18 and a half percent.
Q. Did you use 42 percent that Ms. Strong asked you about?
A. Well, I presented it incorrectly. I applied it to a portion of the tour receipts.
Q. But if you took it out the whole way, it's 18 percent; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, you were asked a lot of questions about Michael Jackson's past. Do you remember those?
A. Yes.
Q. You were asked a lot of questions about did Michael Jackson have this lawsuit or this judgment. Do
you remember all those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, does that have anything to do with how much money he could earn in the future?
A. I didn't think so.
Q. Why not?
A. It happened a while ago. One big reason would be AEG, who he ended up contracting with I'm sure
they did all their due diligence. They certainly had the resources to do it. And one of the reasons I didn't
check it out for myself is because if it was good enough for them, it was good enough for me. And they
signed him to a contract, a three-year deal, and spent $34 million on setting up the tour before he even
got to London to do even one show at this point.
Q. And let's look at exhibit 113, which is in evidence. Do you know who Randy Phillips is?

A. Yes. He's the CEO. Of AEG

Q. Okay. And here's an exhibit I showed Mr. Phillips when he was here. And these are some statements
made by Mr. Phillips. And the first statement that Mr. Phillips made was "Phillips clearly understands
how to whet the appetite of Jackson's scrums of fans." this is an English newspaper. "more than
250,000 joined the online queue, with 800 turning up to the 02 itself to get seats for the 50 dates." did
you consider did you want to object?
Ms. Strong: objection; lacks foundation.
Mr. Panish: I haven't finished the question.
Ms. Strong: I was waiting for you to finish, Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish: well, Mr. Putnam was objecting, too, so
The Judge: okay. Finish the question.
Mr. Panish: can I just have one object at a time?
The Judge: I only heard Ms. Strong.
Mr. Panish: okay.
Ms. Strong: finish your question, and
Q. Did you review Mr. Phillips' testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you review Mr. Phillips' testimony about this exhibit?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider Mr. Phillips' statements as to whether or not Michael Jackson would be successful
in touring?
A. Absolutely.
Ms. Strong: objection, your honor; lacks foundation. This is a media report. I don't believe there's been
any testimony in this case about whether or not Mr. Phillips made this statement.
Mr. Panish: she wasn't here when Mr. Phillips testified. It is in evidence. I asked him
The Judge: I think I recall this.
Mr. Putnam: the document is in evidence, your honor; but there was no foundation made for whether
he made certain of these statements because they're hearsay, your honor. He has to have adopted them

Mr. Panish: it's an admission by a party opponent.

Ms. Strong: Mr. Panish, you said that we've interrupted you.
The Judge: I can only hear one person at a time.
Mr. Panish: how come when I start questioning, there's two of them interrupting me?
Mr. Putnam: your honor, he indicated that Ms. Strong was not here that day; and since I was, what I
wanted to indicate is that when he testified as to this document, he indicated certainly there was no
foundation as to whether he made certain of the hearsay statements. He has to adopt them in order for
there to be a foundation he actually made the statements. The fact that an English newspaper, as has
been established in this case, states he said these things doesn't mean he necessarily said them.
The Judge: sustained.
Mr. Panish: well, Mr. Phillips testified, your honor. This is what he he didn't dispute that this was said.
The Judge: I don't recall if he's admitted that he said this.
Mr. Panish: he did, and it was admitted into evidence because of that, as an admission of a party
opponent. If he hadn't adopted it
The Judge: hold on. If he said it, yes, it's an admission.
Mr. Panish: otherwise, it would be hearsay and not admissible.
The Judge: right. Which is why I sustained it. Can you point to me whether he, in fact, said that he
said these statements?
Mr. Panish: I don't have the transcript. It's in evidence. I would assume it wouldn't be in evidence if he
denied saying this. Is that a fair assumption?
Mr. Putnam: that is not fair, your honor; because when he asked him about it, he said, "do you recall
seeing this article at the time that you were there?" seeing an article about you is not the same as
saying, "did you make the statements "
The Judge: all right. Let's take it down for now.
Mr. Panish: I want you to assume that Mr. Phillips said that.
Q. Is that consistent with your belief?
The Judge: said you're going to have to repeat what it was.
Mr. Panish: I'll get the transcripts. That's what I'm going to have to do here. I didn't know okay.
Number 1, let's get to the I want you to assume that Mr. Phillips estimated that Michael Jackson would
make 50 to 100 million for the London dates.

Q. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. And that he testified to that in this trial. All right?
A. Okay.
Q. Is that consistent with what you're saying?
A. Yes.
Q. I want you to further assume that Mr. Phillips stated under oath and to the newspaper and anyone
that would listen that Mr. Jackson could rise to 500 million if he does a world tour.
Ms. Strong: objection; vague, your honor, as to what we're talking about. Is it gross or net? There's
A. Difference, your honor.
Mr. Panish: 500 million, gross, net, anything. That Mr. Phillips said that not only in articles here we
have his trial testimony. Here we go.
Q. Is it consistent with what you found with Mr. Phillips' statement, assuming he said it, that he could
make 500 million?
A. Yes.
Ms. Strong: objection; vague as to gross or
The Judge: overruled.
Mr. Panish: okay. Now, I'm getting the testimony where he admitted saying these things, your honor.
The Judge: when you get it you can pull it up on my screen and show it to me, and the defense screen,
as well.
Mr. Panish: okay. Now, let's talk about
The Judge: but you can continue while
Mr. Panish: that's fine.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether if Mr. Anschutz was involved and liked Michael Jackson and
had his backing of his resources, that would increase the chances of Michael Jackson's world tour being
successful?
A. Absolutely.
Q. What is your opinion?

A. When you have a billionaire behind you, and he also had tom barrack behind him, I think he would
have been pretty confident he was involved with two very successful businessmen.
Q. And I want you to assume that Mr. Randy Phillips said that; that having Mr. Anschutz
A. Billionaire, and Mr. Barrack, a billionaire, behind him, that would increase his chances of success in
a worldwide tour.
Ms. Strong: objection, your honor. Motion in limine.
Mr. Panish: not for that.
The Judge: overruled.
Q. Is that consistent with your opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, we've heard a lot of questions about debt. Do you remember those questions, some of them?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. First of all, did was there somebody helping Mr. Jackson at the time that he was in contact
with AEG Before the deal was eventually consummated for the 02 and onward, with his finances?
A. Yes.
Q. And who was that?
A. Tom barrack.
Q. And did do you know whether Mr. Barrack had anything to do with AEG And Michael Jackson
getting together?
A. According to the correspondence I saw, he introduced Michael Jackson to Mr. Anschutz.
Q. But he do you know whether or not Mr. Jackson had meetings before that?
A. With AEG?
Q. Yes.
A. I believe there was yes, I believe that Mr. Gongaware testified he spent two years helping him make
his decision to sign on.
Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Strong asked you a lot of questions about that there was no evidence at any time
before the death of Michael Jackson that he was planning to do more than the 50 shows. Do you
remember those questions from Ms. Strong?

Ms. Strong: objection; misstates the record.

The Judge: overruled.
The witness: yes, I do.
Q. Did you rely on some evidence in this case, contrary to the questions of Ms. Strong?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What evidence was that?
A. His daughter paris's testimony.
Q. Which we saw this morning?
A. Correct.
Q. And what else?
A. Mr. Ortega's deposition testimony, where Michael Jackson where he said Michael Jackson took him
aside and talked about, "we're going to take this tour on the road through the world, and I'd like to you
come with me."
Q. And did Mr. Jackson discuss with Mr. Ortega taking this tour to India?
A. He absolutely did. He said to Mr. Ortega, "have you ever been to India?" he said, "you have to go.
We're going to go."
Q. And did he discuss going to japan with Mr. Ortega?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Ortega discuss with Mr. Jackson, in addition to that, doing some other type of work after
touring?
A. Well, as we've heard in this case, the testimony, Mr. Jackson ultimately wanted to produce movies;
and he spoke to Mr. Ortega about partnering up with him or getting together and and doing movies
together.
Q. And have you put any amount of money for that loss in this case?
A. No, I haven't.
Ms. Strong: objection; asked and answered.
The Judge: movies, that portion?

Mr. Panish: yes.

The Judge: overruled.
Q. Now, you reviewed okay. Back on this whole debt issue, did Mr. Phillips make any statements that
he was aware that Mr. Jackson had financial issues?
A. The only place I seem to recall that is this particular article that you made assumptions about
A. Little while ago.
Q. Okay. I want you to assume that Mr. Jackson and Mr. strike that. You did review the testimony of
the meetings with Mr. Phillips where Mr. Jackson's finances were discussed, did you not?
A. Oh, yes, that's correct.
Q. Okay. And is there any question in your mind that AEG Knew about Mr. Jackson's financial
situation before they entered into the contract with him?
A. No, absolutely not.
Q. And is there any question in your mind that AEG. Had the resources to find out anything they
wanted about someone's finances before they entered into a deal with them?
Ms. Strong: objection; argumentative, lacks foundation.
The Judge: sustained on speculation.
Q. Can you tell us in your personal experience what AEG Has been able to go back and try to find
about your financial experiences yourself?
Ms. Strong: objection; relevance, lacks foundation, outside the scope of this witness's testimony.
Mr. Panish: it goes to the foundation.
The Judge: what AEG Has been able to learn about Mr. Erk's
Mr. Panish: yes.
Ms. Strong: relevance, your honor.
Mr. Panish: it goes to foundation. That was the objection.
The Judge: but even if they did, how would that whether they can find out about others
Mr. Panish: because Ms. Strong asked all these questions; that Mr. Jackson was this, that. They knew
all that, they had the resources to find out.
The Judge: sustained. We're getting a little far afield.

Q. Did AEG Go, Ms. Strong, investigate your background, Mr. Erk?
Ms. Strong: objection; relevance, your honor, lacks foundation.
The Judge: I assume that you all investigate everybody's experts, find out their qualifications, et
cetera.
Mr. Panish: it has nothing to do with qualifications, it has to do with finances, what Ms. Strong and
AEG And the lawyers did to investigate Mr. Erk.
The Judge: sustained.

Mr. Panish: did you read Taj Jackson's testimony in this case?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you learn whether or not AEG Investigated Taj Jackson?
Ms. Strong: objection; lacks foundation, relevance.
The Judge: don't you all investigate all of the witnesses
Mr. Panish: not
The Judge: as to I mean, isn't that how you
Mr. Panish: I don't go look on someone's twitter for four years and say that he was some nanny, he
said something bad, who was a TV. Reporter.
Mr. Putnam: no; he hired someone to go to the polo lounge, which is a slightly different
Mr. Panish: or I go meet with Mr. Dileo like Mr. Putnam did when the lawsuit was filed.
The Judge: I think we're getting a little far afield.
Mr. Putnam: thank you, your honor.
Mr. Panish: by the way, I didn't hire anyone at the polo lounge. They were just way in the open.
Q. So can you tell us by the way, we've heard a lot of questions from Ms. Strong about how Mr.
Jackson's health do you remember all those questions about his health?
A. Yes.
Q. And he would never be able to do tours, and you couldn't say that; right?

A. Correct.
Q. But then we heard all this testimony about how healthy Mr. Jackson was, and he could do all the
shows at the 02 and such. Do you remember those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain how on one hand it can be said one thing; on the other hand, the other?
A. I can't. I mean, my opinion is and why I don't focus on his health, is AEG, in order to sign that
contract and spend that kind of money, had the resources to determine whether they wanted to go
forward with the deal or not; and, obviously, they did; and they spent the money even before they went
to London.
Mr. Panish: okay. Well, let's look at exhibit 271 that's in evidence.
Ms. Strong: before we put it up, can I see it, please?
Mr. Panish: it's in evidence.
Ms. Strong: well, can I check?
Mr. Panish: it is. It's in evidence. I don't put things up that aren't in evidence.
The Judge: Mr. Panish, I heard that.
Mr. Panish: well, but, your honor, they did.
The Judge: Mr. Panish, please.
Mr. Panish: it's an exhibit used with Mr. Phillips when he was here. Okay.
Q. Now
Ms. Strong: your honor, we don't see it on our list of admitted exhibits.
The Judge: you need to take it down for now.
Mr. Panish: page 4459, line 13
The Judge: take it down for now.
Mr. Panish: page 4459, line 13, of the trial transcript and the testimony of Mr. Phillips. It was
introduced into evidence in this courtroom when Mr. Phillips was sitting on that witness stand. Page
4459, line 13.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: what date was that, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish: line 3. 4459, that's the trial transcript, official courtroom proceeding, line 3. 5/20. Okay?

Still objecting?
Mr. Putnam: we're checking. The clerk: 271?
The Judge: dash, 1.
Mr. Panish: through 7.
Mr. Putnam: through 7.
Mr. Panish: do you have the trial transcript?
Ms. Stebbins Bina: we have 274, dash, 1.
Mr. Putnam: the court doesn't have it, either.
The Judge: you two, not with each other. You can address me. Okay?
Mr. Panish: it also is an AEG Document, but it is in evidence. Are you objecting that this is not an
AEG Document? Let's talk about that first.
The Judge: wait a minute. First we have to determine if it's in evidence. Madam clerk, what is your
record? The clerk: I do not have 271.
Mr. Panish: 271, dash, 1.
The Judge: okay. And defendants, you don't have it in your records?
Ms. Stebbins Bina: not in our records, and not on the page if I have the page right 4459, 1 through 7,
they introduced 274, dash, 1.
The Judge: that's not these. Some of this sounds familiar, but I think he just testified to it. I don't think
he used the document. But some of it sounds familiar, but I think it was just testimony, not the
document.
Mr. Panish: let me go on to the next one and we'll come back we'll find the transcript. Okay. Ms.
Strong asked you a lot of questions about whether Mr. Jackson Mr. Jackson took Demerol, and
whether you took that into consideration.
Q. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see information where AEG Executives discussed Michael Jackson's physical condition?
A. Only to the extent that he passed his physicals and was healthy and ready to go.
Q. Before anything began?

A. Yes.
Q. And did Mr. Phillips make statements as to whether or not he felt Mr. Jackson could perform a
worldwide tour?
A. Yes.
Q. Now I want to show you first let's look at Mr. Gongaware's testimony. Page 5140, line 1. Show that
to counsel, please. By the way, while they're looking at that, do you know what Wembley stadium is?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. It's a huge sports stadium in
Q. Had Mr. Jackson played there before?
A. Yes.
Q. Had he had any problems selling seats there?
A. I don't think so.
Mr. Panish: okay. So can I show that now?
Ms. Strong: yes.
Mr. Panish: okay. Thank you. So let's look at what Mr. Gongaware testified about the demand.
Because there were all these questions about Demerol, babies, allegations of all that.
Q. Do you remember that, and whether he was going to be popular?
A. Yes.
Q. So if we go up, we start off with this is me questioning Mr. Gongaware, I think. (reading:)
Q. But you're here telling everyone in the management that on the "bad" tour, Michael Jackson sold out
ten Wembley stadiums at 75,000 per night, which would equal 750 people?
A. Yes. Thousand. (reading:)
A. Yes.
Q. And that's a pretty big deal, isn't it, sir?
A. Huge.
Q. Huge? Exactly. And you didn't know how much this thing would sell out, the 02, right? You didn't

know for sure? You thought you knew, but you didn't know for sure, right?
A. Nobody knows until you do it. It's up to the public to decide.
Q. The public had a pretty resounding answer, didn't they?
A. They did.
Q. In two hours, how many tickets were sold for the 02 arena for Michael Jackson? Well, over the
course of I don't know about the two hours, but over two hours but over over two hours, we sold, in
the initial pre-sale we sold 31 shows. I don't know if it was two hours, but a very short period of time.
Q. Fastest you'd ever seen, isn't it, sir?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. You've never seen anything like that in your career, in the history of your career?
A. Right. That's right.
Q. It was hot, wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you take that into consideration in determining whether or not there would be a demand for
Michael Jackson's ticket sales in touring?
A. Absolutely.
Mr. Panish: let's look at the next part of what
AEG Testified to.
Ms. Strong: objection. Your honor, this is cumulative. We don't need to run through trial testimony. I
don't understand the basis for showing it to this expert.
The Judge: overruled.

Mr. Panish: there were all these questions about Michael Jackson's demand, whether these tickets that
you assessed could be sold, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you rely and consider the testimony of the AEG Defendants being represented by Mr.
Putnam in this case?
A. Yes.

Q. Why did you consider what they said?

A. They're the ones selling the tickets, so they should be in the know.
Q. Okay. So let's look now at page 6064, lines 1 through 10, of Mr. Gongaware's testimony. Show that
to counsel please. Would you think that Mr. Gongaware would be in a good position to assess whether
or not Mr. Jackson could sell tickets?
A. I would think so.
Mr. Panish: okay. Is that okay, counsel?
Mr. Putnam: yes.
Mr. Panish: thank you. (reading:)
Q. Was it true that you could have sold out over 100 concerts at the 02 arena?
A. If every I checked the queue, the amount of people still in line to buy tickets when it sold out; and if
everyone would have bought the limit, which I think was four tickets, we could have sold it out, yes.
Q. 100 shows?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that further evidence supporting your opinion, despite any allegations against Mr. Jackson, that he
was popular and could have sold concert tickets?
A. Absolutely.
Mr. Panish: let's look at what Mr. Phillips testified to. 7016, lines 4 to 28, and the next page, and the
next page, to line 15. Is that okay counsel?
Ms. Strong: yes.
Mr. Panish: okay. Let's see what Mr. Phillips, the CEO. Of AEG, testified about Mr. Jackson's
popularity.
Ms. Strong: your honor, if we're going to run through this all and say, "do you " it's leading questions
and cumulative. Objection, your honor. It's not appropriate to do with this expert. We weren't allowed
to explore things that he reviewed but chose to ignore for purposes of his opinion on cross.
Mr. Panish: does counsel have an objection or want to make a speech?
The Judge: what is the objection?
Ms. Strong: objection, your honor; to the extent that this is leading. He's not asked the witness
anything relevant to this, yet he's going to read the testimony with some leading type of question to be

cumulative with respect to testimony the jury has already heard. If there's some relevance, he can ask
the expert questions that the expert can respond to. But he's feeding testimony to the expert. That's
leading, your honor.
The Judge: overruled.
Mr. Panish: (reading:)
Q. Mr. Phillips, you announced ten shows. Now, how many shows had you contracted up to?
A. 31.
Q. So you could do up to 31 shows under the contract?
A. Correct. But we've heard testimony that ultimately it was 50 shows. Is that true?
A. That is true.
Q. And do you have an understanding how it came to be 50 shows?
A. Yes.
Q. How was that, sir?
A. Okay. When we had a pre-registration for his shows, which is unusual they're doing it more now.
This was early times for this where people would register because we weren't sure what the demand
was going to be, so it kind of gave us
A. a first look into how big the demand was going to be. So people went online and they registered to
buy tickets. And we could tell them from the number of registrations in what we call the queue, which
is a fancy word for a line, online and we could tell that not only were the ten shows going to blow out
immediately once we fulfilled the orders, but the 31 shows, we would end up with no tickets left on
sale for what we call the public general on sale where people would go to the box office the day of the
show. So Paul Gongaware asked me
The Judge: no. "Paul Gongaware called me."
Mr. Panish: thank you, your honor. (reading:) and I remember distinctly I was at the l street studios, or
one of those studios outside of London where Lionel Richie was mounting his production for his tour. I
was in the production office. I got a call from Paul Gongaware, who said to me said, as he speaks,
"dude, we're going to sell we're going to sell out at a ridiculous amount of tickets. It's much bigger than
I even thought." and he was the most optimistic. "we've got to get " he used to call Michael "Mikey."
"we've got to get Mikey to add more shows." and I said "okay. Let me call Dr. Tohme." so I called Dr.
Tohme and I said, "doc, this thing is out of control. Would you speak to Michael?" they had returned to
the united states. They were all back in the united states. And I said, "would you talk to Michael and
see if he could add shows for the general for the general public on sale?" and Dr. Tohme called me
back and said, "okay. I'll go call him now and I'll get back to you. He called me back almost
immediately, called me back and said that Michael would agree to do up to 50 shows, and he could go
ahead and do that. So we went from 31 to 50. I'm not going to read the rest of it

Mr. Putnam: oh, no. Go ahead. That's my point, your honor.

Mr. Panish: no. I'm going to ask is there an objection, or a free-for-all here now?
Ms. Strong: yes. Objection; improper question for an expert on direct. It's cumulative.
The Judge: it's not direct, it's redirect.
Mr. Panish: I haven't got to the question yet.
Ms. Strong: it's cumulative.
The Judge: well, it's in response to your questioning.
Ms. Strong: I don't think there was any question outside the scope, as well, your honor, to the extent
that there was no question about whether there was demand for tickets.
Mr. Panish: was I somewhere else?
Ms. Strong: demand for tickets for 50 shows, there's no dispute about that, your honor.
The Judge: overruled.
Mr. Panish: do you want me to read it all, Mr. Putnam? I'll be happy to.
The Judge: Mr. Panish, I overruled their objection, so proceed.
Mr. Panish: my question, sir, is, Ms. Strong asked you all these questions about allegations against Mr.
Jackson.
Q. Seeing all this testimony, is there any question in your mind that the AEG People not only believed
that they could sell out London, but a worldwide tour?
A. No question.
Q. Now, would you describe the demand for tickets for Mr. Jackson as a hope?
A. No.
Mr. Panish: now I want to show you exhibit 21, dash, 1. By the way, that other exhibit I was supposed
to show was 274, not 271. They told me that. So I was wrong. It's 274, not 271. We're back to that. But
Mr. Putnam was right, it's 274. I didn't put anything up yet. I believe it's in evidence.
Ms. Strong: that's right.
Mr. Panish: you're with me? You're okay with that?
Ms. Strong: yes.

Mr. Panish: thank you. This is what Ms. Strong part of what she was referring to earlier.
Q. Now, there were a lot of questions about whether AEG Ever even I know it looks terrible, can't read
anything. So let's, first of all, see who are the people on this e-mail. The top. Who is involved? Okay.
Randy Phillips and Richard Nanula. Who is Richard Nanula?
A. He's one he's Tom Barrack's partner in Colony Capital.
Q. Actually, he's not anymore.
A. Okay.
Q. We won't get into that. It actually was never mind.
A. He was, and then he became president.
Ms. Strong: objection.
The Judge: sustained. Mr. Panish, please, no comments.

Mr. Panish: do you know what his next position was?
The Judge: irrelevant. Let's just talk about this e-mail that you got started on.
Mr. Panish: actually, his position is very relevant as to
The Judge: his current position?
Mr. Panish: his position that he took immediately upon leaving, that he just left within the last two
weeks, where he was replaced by Mr. Barrack in that position. And I don't want to say the name of the
company, but it has to do with
Ms. Strong: objection; relevance, your honor.
The Judge: sustained. Let's just e-mail. Stick to the e-mail.
Mr. Panish: okay. I'll bring that up with you later. Okay?
The Judge: all right.
Mr. Panish: fair enough.
Q. Okay. So this is Randy Phillips writing to Richard Nanula, Mr. Leiweke, Mr. Gongaware, Mr.
Meglen, Mr. Hallett, and a gentleman Mr. Furhman. He's from colony capital. And if we look there oh,
let's go to the top. Proposal MJ. Proposal PDF., and this is communications now with the Colony
Capital people and AEG, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now let's see what the plans were in their timeline that they had set up and what they
described as the linchpin of MJ's come back. All right?
A. Okay.
Q. Let's go back well, go up a little. So then we have July, august, September and October. There was
going to be some work on some albums; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Then they were going to do January and February working with Mr.
A. Ehrlich.
Q. Ehrlich, an AEG Executive, regarding the Grammys?
Ms. Strong: objection; lacks foundation.
Mr. Panish: okay.
Q. Tell us what Mr. Ehrlich was going to do with Mr. Jackson.
A. He was going to have him be awarded a presidential award Grammy award, and possibly have him
as a presenter.
Q. And then in February of 2009, what was AEG's proposal at that time?
A. That they were going to take him out on a worldwide tour well, they said they would have a
significant marketing presence worldwide, and they were using paid advertisings through various
vendors or whatever. But primarily they were setting up the tour.
Q. And how about February, March and April of 2009?
A. That they were working on a live production of "thriller," and do you want me to just read the
yellow, or
Q. Well, no. Was there going to be a residency show somewhere?
Ms. Strong: your honor, objection; calls for speculation. There's been no foundation that the witness
has any understanding as to what was actually intended. He's reading the document. The jury can read
the document just the same. And he's actually suggesting that these things were happening when that's,
in fact, not so, your honor.
Mr. Panish: what is the grounds for the objection?
The Judge: overruled. I think it's understood this is in June of 2008, right?

Mr. Panish: right. Mr. Phillips writing this. Her client.

Q. Okay. What was Mr. Phillips proposing was going to happen between February and April of 2009?
A. Well, besides working on the live production of "thriller," they were going to have Michael Jackson
do press and television to support the residency at the 02, and the new music they're going to release
simultaneous. So it was like a duel promotion.
Q. Okay. And then in May of 2009, they talk about running their 10 to 30 shows; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it goes on to say if London goes smoothly, what do they say?
A. "we could migrate the show into our brand-new state-of-the-art arena in berlin, the 02 world. And
then they were service central and Eastern Europe due to overwhelming demand. And since this is a
unique one-time-only production, it will not cannibalize the potential world tour and actually help set it
up and create demand for all things MJ.
Q. Okay. So is this a proposal that Mr. Phillips is making regarding a world tour potential world tour
for Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What does it say then from July to December of 2010?
A. It says "if all goes well, we embark on a well-routed and spread-out world tour taking advantage
of the gigantic secondary ticket market, VIP. Packages, et cetera, massive sponsorship opportunities
subject to how well we have rehabilitated him, and very lucrative exotics, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, china,
et cetera, and privates starting at 3 million to 10 million, plus costs, per show. "we would produce
another primetime television special and continue to release new singles during this period. We
would also start the development process of an only-in-Vegas style spectacular at one of colony's
properties or another suitable venue."
Q. Let me ask you this. This is what Mr. Phillips was proposing to do with Mr. Jackson; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And we've heard numerous times that he'd agreed to the 50 shows in London, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You've told us about what and you've seen his daughter's testimony, Mr. Ortega, and such. Do you
believe, based on all of this evidence, there would have been a world tour after the 02 arena shows
were completed?
A. I do believe that.

Q. Well, let's look the figures that you came up with for the world tour, were they consistent with the
statements that Mr. Phillips had made regarding the amount of money Michael Jackson could earn?
A. Within a
Ms. Strong: objection; vague, lacks foundation.
The Judge: consistent with which statements?

Mr. Panish: the money that you project in your calculations.
The Judge: but which statements are you referring to?
Mr. Panish: well, there's numerous. I mean do you want me to list them all off?
The Judge: were these deposition statements or the trial statements?
Mr. Panish: they're statements in trial, statements in e-mails, statements in the newspapers, statements
Ms. Strong: improper use of hearsay, then, on redirect, your honor
The Judge: okay. Overruled.
Ms. Strong: with an expert.
Mr. Panish: you can answer.
The witness: yes.
Mr. Panish: okay. Now, there was all this talk about Mr. Jackson's age and health.
Q. Do you remember those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Mick Jagger, do you know who he is?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What group is he in?
A. The Rolling Stones.
Q. How old is he?
A. I think he's 69.

Q. What is he doing right now?

A. He just finished up some shows that AEG Promoted.
Q. 69. Do you know who Keith Richards is?
A. Sure do.
Q. Who is he?
A. The lead guitarist for the stones.
Q. Has Mr. Richards ever had any issues relating to drug usage?
A. He had a long history of heroin abuse.
Q. Is he touring now?
A. He seems to be doing it well.
Q. How old is he?
A. He's roughly 69, as well.
Q. Do you know who Barbra Streisand is?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How old is she?
A. 71.
Q. Does she go on tours?
A. Actually, she just finished up a few shows for AEG, as well.
Q. Now, in fact, do you know how much Barbra Streisand just grossed in her recent shows for AEG
Ms. Strong: objection; calls for speculation, lacks foundation.
The Judge: well, it calls for a yes or no, but
Mr. Panish: the first question would be that, and then I'll go further.
The Judge: all right.
Mr. Panish: the question was just do you know.
The witness: yes.

Mr. Panish: and what is the source of that information?

A. Billboard, the music industry magazine.
Q. Is that the same source that you used for the things that you showed us in your powerpoint that Ms.
Strong cross-examined you on?
A. For some of them, yes.
Q. And what is your understanding of her recent tour at 71 years of age?
A. I believe she just grossed about 18 million and change for a four-show run.
Q. Okay. Now, in forming your opinions in this case strike that. Do you have an opinion strike that. In
forming your opinions in this case, did you rely on any e-mails between john Branca and Randy
Phillips before Michael Jackson died whether or not Michael Jackson could have appropriate medical
care and be healthy enough to do touring?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You were asked a lot of questions about consumption. Do you remember all those? I didn't
add them up. I think it was like 50,000 documents that Ms. Strong said you reviewed 5,000 from him
and 9,000 from him and 10,000 from him. Those kinds of questions.
A. I recall those, yes.
Q. And you were asked about this gentleman Mr. Cannon, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told Ms. Strong that you reviewed the exhibit to Mr. Cannon's deposition exhibit 11,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And let me show that to you. Do we have that? What's the trial number. Okay. Now, do you
remember Ms. Strong was asking you a lot of questions about that, and about the lawyer's memo and
such?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Strong was asking you about when Mr. Cannon was closer in time to representing
Mr. Jackson. Do you remember all those questions?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. And is this the sheet that she was referring to about the expenses that had been attached to his

deposition?
A. Well, she was referring to what I used, which is the Dewey Leboeuf, which I believe the numbers
came from there.
Q. Right. But she was questioning you about where do the numbers come from, the handwritten
numbers.
A. Correct.
Q. And how do you know that, and what did you assume, and all that. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, I recall that.
Q. And this exhibit oh, there it is. 626129 through 134. And is this the exhibit that you were referring
to
A. Yes.
Q. that Ms. Strong was asking you about?
A. Yes.
Mr. Panish: okay. Do you have any objections to this, Ms. Strong?
Ms. Strong: just objection that it mischaracterizes testimony. I was asking about the Dewey Leboeuf
memo, and the witness raised this memo in response.
Mr. Panish: well, I think you asked him what the source of the information was, and he brought this
up.
The Judge: she was questioning on the memo, and he said the information on the memo came from
this exhibit 11, I think is how the testimony went.
Mr. Panish: exactly.
Ms. Strong: I think okay.
Mr. Panish: okay. You can put that up.
The Judge: so it's going further back?
Mr. Panish: right.
The Judge: the backup to the memo, is my understanding of what
Mr. Panish: right. She raised this.
Ms. Strong: whatever the witness is testifying to.

Mr. Panish: I'm sorry. Is there an objection? I.

Ms. Strong: I believe it misstates testimony, but that's fine.
Mr. Panish: well, and on the right-hand column, if we look, it says the company, and it says either MJ
Hayvenhurst, Neverland it looks like fire mountain, Neverland, et cetera. Okay. M.j. Productions.
Okay. Do you have an understanding of what the various companies that these expenses are indicated
for?
A. Yes.
Q. And what are they?
A. They are vendors that supply services where whatever services they applied, whether it was the
mortgage, telephone, utilities, everything that you know, within reason, that we experience in our
everyday lives.
Q. Okay. So like, for example, let's look at the top of this so we can understand the document. You've
got to make it smaller. This is like what does an accountant call this?
A. Spreadsheet.
Q. Okay. We'll just look at the top. Here we go. So what we have is the vendor okay. Let's just say
AT&T. Do you see that? I assume that's like a phone bill?
A. It's got a phone number attached to it, yes.
Q. It shouldn't be up there. I guess it doesn't matter. And then it says the monthly expense, the
annualized expense, and what the phone is for. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that phone is for which location?
A. That particular one is Hayvenhurst.
Q. And do you know who was living there?
A. Mrs. Jackson.
Q. Katherine?
A. Yes.
Q. And this spreadsheet lists a lot of expenses that Mr. Jackson is paying for his mother; is that right?
A. Yes, it appears that way.

Q. Okay. So if we go to the last sheet and these are all listed down at length. Okay. And then there
were questions of you by Ms. Strong that you didn't consider any of the MJ. Company expenses, and
that you didn't consider any of the accounting fees and things like that, I think she asked; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Mr. Panish: okay. Let's go to the last page, or second to the last page, which would be exhibit page
The Judge: professional fees, I think she said.
Mr. Panish: I think that's what she said. I didn't want to misquote it. It's actually the second page. It
gives if we go to page 2 of the exhibit, that's page 130.
The witness: it's actually a duplicate of 81.
Mr. Panish: let's look at page 1 whatever.
Q. What I'm trying to get is it has monthly expenses and all expenses, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And and you were questioned all about that memo, the lawyers, and how much you used for
consumption, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And if we go to the bottom of this thing that Ms. Strong kept asking you about
Ms. Strong: objection; misstates testimony. I did not ask him a single question about the cannon
document.
The Judge: that's true. She didn't ask him anything about this particular document.
Mr. Panish: she kept asking you why you didn't rely on the cannon document in using your
consumption.
Q. Do you remember those questions?
Ms. Strong: objection; lacks foundation. I asked not a single question about relying on exhibit 11 to
Mr. Cannon's deposition. As you may recall, your honor, I said I wasn't sure what document he was
referring to, and he raised it in response to one of my questions.
The Judge: okay. The jury will remember what your questions were. Overruled. You may
Mr. Panish: can I ask counsel just state an objection, not a speech? Okay. So whatever she asked you,
there was questions about Mr. Cannon.
Q. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Cannon has a fee figure that he used for the annual consumption, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And I know you were asked all about like airplanes and do you remember all that?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. Okay. How much did Mr. Cannon use for annual consumption figures based on the actual receipts
that he was doing for Mr. Jackson?
Ms. Strong: objection; lacks foundation.
The Judge: overruled.
The witness: 7.6 million.
Mr. Panish: okay.
Q. And was airplane expenses in there?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Okay. Because you you don't get an airplane expense unless you own one, unless you're using it,
right?
A. Correct.
Q. And between 2005 and strike that.
The Judge: was it an airplane expense or was it travel?
Mr. Panish: travel by private airplane, she said, 70,000 a month, or something, I believe is what she
said.
The Judge: okay. But it was a question about ownership of the plane?
Mr. Panish: no, there's no issue about ownership.
Ms. Strong: no, your honor. There was testimony from another business manager who said that Mr.
Jackson had spent over 400,000 for two months on both airplanes and airfare and hotels. And it was
not related to Mr. Cannon's document, it was another business manager.
The Judge: thank you. It was travel, it wasn't that he owned the plane?
Ms. Strong: correct, your honor.

Mr. Panish: right. No ownership.

The Judge: all right. I just wanted to
Mr. Panish: be cheaper, maybe, to buy one. Okay.
Q. So Mr. Cannon's annual expenses, 7.634 million, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What figure did you use?
A. I used a number $570,000 a month, which would have worked out to about 6.7 million.
Q. Well, here he says average 476, annualized, 7.6?
A. Correct.
Q. You used a higher monthly figure, but a less annualized figure?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. So what was yours, 560?
A. Well, I think the one major difference between his numbers and mine, which I testified to yesterday,
were the amount of the legal fees.
Q. Okay. And then in addition to the amount that you used for consumption, did you then add on
additional amounts for professional fees?
Ms. Strong: objection; vague in terms of adding on in terms of the consumption number or graphic
number?
Mr. Panish: I couldn't hear the objection. What's the objection?
Ms. Strong: vague, your honor.
The Judge: vague as to adding on to his which number are you referring to?

Mr. Panish: okay. I'm talking about the annual figure okay? of consumption.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in addition, did you did you consider professional fees?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. How much did you consider for professional fees?

A. Considering the ranges they charge, without knowing exactly what they charge, they're 10 to 20
percent.
Q. And how much is that, generally speaking?
A. 3 to 5 million. I mean, it was in the millions.
Q. So would that be added on to an annualized amount for this?
A. No, not not in this schedule, no.
Q. Okay. Now, let I want to look at all these questions about debt, when you're in debt, does that mean
you owe money?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it usually mean that you borrowed money?
A. Yes.
Q. Do people usually lend money to people that can't pay it back?
A. No.
Q. And did Mr. Jackson have assets that would be used to secure the loans?
A. Yes.
Ms. Strong: objection; vague, your honor.
The Judge: overruled.

Mr. Panish: can you explain what it means to secure the loan? In other words, if if somebody went to
a bank and said, "I want to borrow $400 million," what is the bank going to say?
A. Well, they won't just look at your credit rating. They would want to see what assets you owned net
of any other security that might have been used for just net assets to see if, in fact, it would more than
cover the amount of the loan. Otherwise, they'd be afraid they couldn't get their money back should the
person default on the loan.
Q. Okay. Do people that loan money do they want to get paid back?
A. Most certainly.

Q. And do they usually charge some kind of interest?

A. Yes, they do.
Q. And when Mr. Jackson this money that he had borrowed over time that he owed, had he been
having
A. Working income in ten years?
A. Not a working income, no.
Q. And when I mean a "working income," performing, doing something to earn money versus just
royalties?
A. I understood it that way, yes.
Q. And so if you don't work, you don't have a working income, is it possible that you're going to spend
more than you're earning?
A. More than likely.
Q. And so Mr. Jackson had these debts that he had, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was it that secured the debt?
A. Primarily his Sony ATV. Catalog.
Q. And did they evaluate what that thing is worth before
A. They I'm sorry.
Q. Does somebody have to evaluate the worth of that?
A. They would have had to.
Q. And would it be worth if it was worth 400 million, would they loan you 400 million?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because if have you to liquidate assets quickly, you usually take a loss on what price that you want
for them.
Q. So based on what you've seen, did Mr. Phillips and AEG Know that Mr. Jackson had debts?
A. They certainly had the wherewithal to to determine that.

Q. Well, in fact, Ms. Strong asked you a lot of questions whether you've seen any AEG Documents that
showed any shows more than the 50 at the 02. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there documents that you've seen in that regard?
A. Yes.
Q. And first of all, there was exhibit 31, dash, 1 and 2, which I'm going to show you, show counsel a
copy. Did you just make up this world tour idea?
A. No.
Mr. Panish: I believe this is in evidence. You can check me before I do anything. Why don't you check
me.
Mr. Putnam: I did.
Mr. Panish: is it in evidence?
Mr. Putnam: yes.
Mr. Panish: thank you.
Q. Is this one of the documents that you were referring to with Ms. Strong when you were talking about
using AEG Numbers?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, this is, again, Paul Gongaware, who was the co-CEO. Of concerts west, along with
Mr. Meglen and Mr. Gongaware's writing to Randy Phillips, CEO. Of AEG Live, Tim Leiweke, CEO.
Of AEG, and c.c.'ing his co-CEO., Mr. Meglen. And when you were asked the question whether there
were any documents for more than 50 shows, was this one of the documents that you were referring to
created by AEG Live?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And this says "subject, MJ. First draft worldwide tour projection." and it says that here is a
draft look at worldwide MJ. Tour on paper, starts April '09 and runs January January '09 and runs
through April 2011. Now, first question. This is before the contract was entered into, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is something that was prepared by AEG Live?
A. Correct.

Q. And then they say that "we'll be we'll be " anyway, "we'll be we'll be all arenas in America, Europe,
Australia, stadiums in some places where it makes sense." we finish in America. Now, did you do
something similar to that in this case?
A. Similar, I used one or two different countries.
Q. Okay. Well, let's look at the next page. And this is what Mr. Gongaware was projecting. How many
shows in was Mr. Gongaware projecting for Michael Jackson to do in the worldwide tour?
A. 186.
Q. And what did he say just from that would be the net to Michael Jackson?
A. 132 million.
Q. And then and I think we've seen this earlier, where Mr. Gongaware says that they better tell Mr.
Jackson gross figures, something like that. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, first of all, serving as a business manager, would you have concern if somebody was telling
you gross is net?
Ms. Strong: objection; outside the scope of cross.
The Judge: sustained.

Mr. Panish: well, this 27 shows let's continue down I'm sorry. Did I say 27? 186 shows was over how
long a period of a time?
A. 27 months.
Q. And how long a period of time did you use?
A. 37 months.
Q. Okay. And if you extrapolate, how many shows were they estimating per week per week?
A. 1.6.
Q. And
Ms. Strong: objection; misstates the document.
The Judge: what part is misstated?
Ms. Strong: it says 2.5 shows per week in the document.

The Judge: in London, it's 2.5. Overruled.

Mr. Panish: okay. Let's go down to the next portion.
Q. But their estimate of the number of shows per week and your estimate of the number of shows per
week, how do they line up?
A. They're within three-hundredths of a percent of each other.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Our average is 1.62, to be exact; and theirs is 1.59 per week.
Q. And is this a document prepared by AEG That refers to more than 50 shows?
A. It certainly does.
Q. Okay. And does this refer to Michael, or Mikey, being concerned about movies?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And do you know who Phil is?
A. Gongaware.
Q. No, it's not.
A. Nanula. I'm sorry. No, it was Phil I'm sorry. I'm
Q. Do you know Mr. Gongaware's first name? It's Paul.
A. Paul. I apologize. I'm sorry.
Q. It's okay. You don't know who phil is?
A. I I don't recall right at this moment.
Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now let's go to the next pages after that. Now, this keep going. 31, dash, 4. Oh,
no. Let's go to 31, dash, 3 first, the bottom. Paul g., it says.
A. Yes.
Mr. Panish: "I'll bring the attached summary along with a detail of mounting costs and operating
budgets for 30 London 02 shows. I do not recommend wearing suits to the meeting as MJ. Is
distrustful of people in suits." so let's go to the next page.
Ms. Strong: objection; that's counsel's testimony, there's no question pending. Move to strike, your
honor.

The Judge: I'm not sure what was the purpose of that.
Ms. Strong: move to strike, your honor.
Mr. Panish: I'm trying to okay.
Q. Is this the last paragraph leading up to the attachment?
A. Yes.
Ms. Strong: objection; leading, relevance.
The Judge: okay. So "I'll bring attached summary is the importance of that one."
Mr. Panish: right.
The Judge: okay. All right. Overruled.
Mr. Panish: well, Mr. Gongaware wrote it, not me.
The Judge: I'm just trying to figure out what was the purpose of reading it. I don't understand.
Mr. Panish: because I wanted to get to what was attached. So there's three pages, and then Mr.
Gongaware attaches four pages.
Q. Okay?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's look at the first page, what Mr. Gongaware, on behalf of AEG Live, prepared. Go all the way,
just so we see the whole thing first. All right. Here we go. Now, this do you know what this is, sir?
A. This is a it looks like a tour timeline or itinerary.
Q. Okay. And does it give locations for a worldwide tour other than London?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. What are the cities that Mr. Gongaware writes out as future cities for a worldwide tour for Michael
Jackson?
A. It looks like they have Oslo in there, and then they they have berlin, Hamburg oh, that's Oslo
would be all of Scandinavia. Then berlin, Hamburg, and I can't read the other word there. And down to
Paris and Lyon.
Q. That's in France?
A. Yes. Take a break, and go to Munich, that's in Germany, and Zurich, Switzerland, Milan and Italy.

Q. Johannesburg?
A. Johannesburg, that's in South Africa. So Johannesburg and Capetown; and then break there and go
to Dubai in the middle east. Break there, bring the production to Tokyo and do japan, and and the
pacific there, and then go to India. And then from India to Australia and New Zealand. Go to South
America from there, then come to the states and start down in Florida, go to the various cities in
Florida, move to Texas, new Orleans, Houston, Dallas, san Antonio. Continue there, then go across the
country to California, to the major cities there, then go up to Canada well, it starts in Seattle and then
go up into Canada. Then it goes to Denver
Q. Salt Lake City?
A. Yes, and then to Chicago, and then move the production east, I presume.
Q. Okay. And then but these are all things that Mr. Gongaware prepared in addition to 50 shows; is that
right?
A. Oh, yes, most certainly.
Q. And then he says "show income" on one side, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then if we go to the next page actually, one more. Remember we saw that e-mail about private
shows?
A. Yes.
Q. And they had some range on it. I don't remember what it was. It was like 3 to 10, maybe. Was that
Ms. Strong: objection; lacks foundation.
Mr. Panish: well, what was it? Just tell me. Whatever the range there was a range for
A. Private show.
Q. What's a private show?
A. It's where well, in this particular one of the particular cases, if he went to the middle east, he might
have done a show for the the sheik's family, or whatever. You know, these oil guys got a lot of money;
and the money that's in here as private income is really the money to Michael Jackson or AEG And
usually the buyer for the private show would pay all the expenses for the production.
Q. So this is in addition to the 50 shows, right?
A. Can I interrupt you just one second? I'm sorry. It says 3 to 10 million in the earlier memo for private
shows.

Q. What did I say?

A. Same yes.
Q. And then the bottom line, according to Mr. Gongaware here did you do something similar to this?
A. With the exception of the private shows, absolutely.
Q. And you used did you use more stadiums than arenas?
A. Yes.
Q. And this was for 100 how many shows?
A. 186.
Q. If you take 186 shows over 27 months, and you carry it to 37, how many shows would that be?
A. It would be almost be 260 shows.
Q. Exactly what you did?
A. Yes.
Q. And you used these these are some of the figures that you used to come up to your estimates?
A. That's correct.
Q. Why did you use 37 months?
A. Because the contract between Michael Jackson and AEG Was a three-year contract. I added a
month.
Q. Okay. And I want to look at my exhibit that I made up at lunch, which is what number is that? It
may not be as pretty as Ms. Strong's, but I was in the cafeteria, so let's take a look here at exhibit 840.
It's on the computer. And Ms. Strong was making a big deal about you were proposing 260 shows, and
what Mr. Jackson had done in the past, and what his history and she made these pretty exhibits. Do
you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Well, let's see what AEG Was proposing. I know mine won't be as pretty, but let's put it up. So
here we have the "bad," the "dangerous," and the "history," and then we have AEG Projecting 186
shows in a lesser period of time than you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that more than any shows that Michael Jackson had done in the past?

A. Quite a few, yes.

Q. Do you know whether that stopped Mr. Gongaware from preparing these projections and sending
them to Mr. Leiweke and others?
A. No.
Q. And, sir, that wasn't the last time that
AEG Projected the worldwide tour for Mr. Jackson, was it?
A. No.
Q. And, sir, have you seen additional budgets prepared by AEG For a worldwide tour in addition to the
50 shows in London?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was that prepared?
A. In March of '09.
Q. Okay. Let's take a look at that. Give counsel a copy. And how many shows were in that budget?
A. 186.
Q. The same?
A. Same.
Mr. Panish: and this is defendants' exhibit 11506.
Ms. Strong: I don't believe this is in evidence, your honor.
Mr. Panish: I haven't put it up yet. It was produced by Mr. Gongaware. It's an AEG Exhibit, a defense
exhibit in the trial. Don't put it up in front of the jury yet.
Q. And did you review and consider this document prepared I think it's in April, actually, of '09. It's
hard to read, but this is how it was produced. Okay? Go to page 9. Actually, you just had it up there
right there. Page 9.
Ms. Strong: your honor, it's not in evidence, so it it would be hearsay, no foundation.
Mr. Panish: this is an AEG-produced
The Judge: maybe. If you're going to show it to the jury you can do an assumption, just like I asked
Ms. Strong to do.
Mr. Panish: conditionally I'm sorry. What did you say?

The Judge: I'm going to have you you can make assumptions if you want to ask questions in that
fashion. I asked Ms. Strong to do it in that fashion, you can do it in the same way.
Mr. Panish: but this is an AEG-produced document by Mr. Gongaware.
The Judge: that doesn't make any difference.
Mr. Panish: well, what I would like to do is since Mr. Gongaware is coming back by the defense, who
have said they're bringing him
Mr. Putnam: misstates prior testimony, your honor.
Mr. Panish: I'm sorry?
Mr. Putnam: that's not been stated, your honor.
Mr. Panish: I can't hear him.
Mr. Putnam: misstates the record, sir.
Mr. Panish: or Mr. Phillips, or I could call Mr. Trell right now and lay the foundation that this is an
AEG Document, because that is the so I would like to conditionally admit, subject to remember, Ms.
Strong was making all these questions
The Judge: okay. You both have extensive argument on this. I'm going to let the jury go early on a
break. 15-minute break. That's probably 3:10. Okay?
(the following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors:)
The Judge: let's talk about this before we go on the break.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: briefly, your honor, the reason this lacks foundation is because no witness has
identified this document, explained how and when it was created, in what capacity it was created, and
what it is intended to represent. There is an issue with parts of this, your honor. He says it was created
in April of 2009. While the first page relating to the 02 was updated in April of 2009, all the rest of it is
the original projection from September 2008, so it's a little misleading to say it was created in 2009. If
they had a witness with knowledge they were asking, who could explain the document, that's one thing;
but they're not. They're asking this expert who only has the face page of it, and that's exactly why
documents have to be admitted through a witness that can authenticate them and explain what they are
and how they work in order for this to come in front of the jury. Otherwise it's misleading and
prejudicial because this expert will give an opinion about what a document means that the defendants
had an opportunity to introduce through Mr. Gongaware and chose not to. They didn't ask Mr.
Gongaware to lay a proper foundation for it.
Mr. Panish: first of all, your honor, this document was produced by AEG If you look on the bottom,
it's stamped Mr. Gongaware's. So

Ms. Stebbins Bina: but he's disputing that.

The Judge: there's a lot of documents that are stamped with AEG
Mr. Panish: Mr. Gongaware is not producing any documents that weren't generated in the course of his
work for AEG Because that's what were requested by the subpoena. This is marked as a defendants'
exhibit, trial exhibit.
The Judge: there's 28,000 documents marked as defendants' exhibits.
Mr. Panish: but, your honor, the point is this. I could call back a witness to lay the foundation for the
document. So what I would like to do is conditionally admit it, as we did with several other documents,
subject to the witness coming here and Mr. Gongaware. I would ask that he'll come back. He produced
this. I have a signed verification from him that it's in response to a specific discovery request kept in
the ordinary course of business of AEG Live. That's how this so that would satisfy any business record
or any hearsay objection; that it's a business record of the defendant. So that is the objection, that
there's no foundation for the admissibility of the document. Ms. Strong, if you remember, extensively
questioned about there's no documents other than the 50 shows, you haven't seen any AEG Live
documents. That was misleading in her questioning.
The Judge: I'm not suggesting it's not relevant, I'm just saying it isn't
Mr. Panish: but I can call Mr. Gongaware and put that in. They're not going to stipulate to the
admissibility of a document that they've produced in this case, so I don't
The Judge: I'm not asking them to stipulate.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: if plaintiffs will acknowledge that the document was created in September 2008
and the pertinent pages weren't changed in April of 2009, or updated in any way because at that point,
everyone was preparing for the 02 tour and the original projections way in the back of the fall that
everyone kind of thought about London and then dropped the rest of the tour, perhaps to be revisited
after the 02 shows if they'll stipulate to that and not ask you know, purport with the witness that it was
created in April of 2009 that's misleading, your honor. And it's misleading to let this expert sit here and
testify about a document claiming it was created in April of 2009. So I think
Mr. Panish: that's what it says.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: I think it's extremely misleading to ask those questions with us representing that's
not the case.
The Judge: is Mr. Gongaware going to testify?
Ms. Stebbins Bina: your honor, I don't know whether we'd be calling him back or not. Plaintiffs are
now threatening to call him back. They had their chance to authenticate this exhibit with him.
The Judge: are you planning to call him back or not?
Ms. Stebbins Bina: not planning to, your honor.

Mr. Panish: they reserved the right to recall him when they did that, so did I.
The Judge: they're not going to.
Mr. Panish: well, I can call him, then, for the purpose of a limited purpose.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: plaintiffs did not reserve the right to recall the witness; and if they knew their
expert was intending to rely on this document, they should have had it authenticated by the witness
who was here who they called and questioned for, I think, five days.
Ms. Strong: and he made no reference to any of these documents in his materials, your honor. He
relied on one budget that I went over him at the time of his deposition.
Mr. Panish: but you raised this issue, and Mr. Gongaware is a defendant. He's under a 1987 subpoena,
so I can bring him back any time I want to come testify for the purposes of an AEG Live document that
he verified production that came from him.
The Judge: probably could call him on rebuttal.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: on rebuttal if there's something put at issue in defendants' case that has not been
raised in plaintiffs'
The Judge: to rebut anything in your case.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: if it was not presented in the original case and should have been presented.
Mr. Panish: that's not the standard.
The Judge: it's whatever is presented in your case.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: right. Set aside the rebuttal standard for now. This is a witness in plaintiffs' case in
chief relying on a document they had every opportunity to authenticate in their case and chief and
chose not to.
Ms. Strong: he's claiming to rely on it today, your honor. There's no reference to it whatsoever in his
own work papers. He relied on one budget, he was asked questions at the deposition, he identified no
other budgets.
Mr. Panish: but she asked all the questions on cross to make it suggest that there's no other such
documents can I finish, please? when she knew that wasn't true, but she wanted to mislead. And now
I'm trying to clear it up. The purpose of redirect with using a document produced in a response to a
discovery by a defendant Mr. Gongaware, verified under oath that this is responsive to a discovery
request in this litigation, and the objection is there's no foundation for admissibility of the document
when, in fact, they produced it, it's on their exhibit list, it's their document. It's the defendant
Gongaware's production in this case. So if they're not going to stipulate to the admissibility and
foundation, then certainly I can call back Mr. Gongaware to lay the foundation for admissibility of a
document that he produced and verified under oath.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: your honor, briefly, first of all, Ms. Strong did not suggest that AEG Never

conducted projected a world tour. In fact, she and Mr. Erk discussed the fact that their original
projection that they had come up with of 132 million as the maximum that Mr. Jackson would earn, as
opposed to the 890 or whatever million that's projected by Mr. Erk that was all discussed, brought out,
the idea that AEG Had, in fact, put up some projections for a world tour was acknowledged. No one has
disputed that. What plaintiffs are attempting to do is suggest that that was being edited and revised and
updated in April of 2009. That's what they need the foundation for, which they don't have and does not
exist, to my knowledge, because my understanding as to this document is that only the initial parts
were updated and that it was not being actively updated, the world tour portion. It was just the old
spreadsheet, and they updated the first sheet it says "UK. 02" only. So it is prejudicial and misleading
to let this be questioned without a proper foundation. I also don't believe that section 1987 gives Mr.
Panish carte blanche to call back any AEG Live employee whenever he forgot to ask a question. He had
the section 1987 is in lieu of the subpoena power. The witness still comes subject to that, they put
themselves available once and then excused
The Judge: I don't think that's the way rebuttal works.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: perhaps in rebuttal, your honor, but I'm talking about in this case in chief.
Mr. Panish: they reserved the right, and I did, too, to call him back.
The Judge: okay.
The witness: I'm sustaining the objection.
Mr. Panish: can we call Ms. Stebbins?
(15-minute recess taken.)
Mr. Panish: you know, I don't have that much more of this witness. I assume Ms. Strong doesn't have
forever. So and I have Mr. Koskoff here. So when we finish, could we address, assuming it's not too
late, the brown issue?
The Judge: okay. I was going to say 4:15; but if we need to do that, let's talk at 4:00.
Mr. Panish: I think we might even be done before 4:00.
The Judge: okay. Well, whenever we're done, we can stop, and then we'll take it up.
Mr. Panish: but if it's past 4:15, we can do it in the morning, that's fine.
The Judge: tomorrow morning is not so good for me. I have a lot of matters on calendar.
Mr. Panish: what time do you think we might
The Judge: 10:00.
Mr. Panish: okay. Well, we'll try to do it. I'll try to speed it up so we can get out of here, so we can

address that issue.

The Judge: we'll address it after we're done. If you can get done by 4:00, that would be ideal. If you
can't
Mr. Panish: I think we can. I don't think Ms. Strong is going to have
Ms. Strong: it depends how much if he's quick, then I think I can get done.
Mr. Panish: I've only got a few areas.
Ms. Strong: I do need some time, your honor.
Mr. Panish: I understand that completely. That's why I asked you.
(the following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors:)
Mr. Panish: Mr. Erk, before the break, we were talking about world tours.
Q. Have you seen multiple AEG Budgets regarding world tours in addition to the 02 arena?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the figures that AEG Used for the worldwide tours excluding the the net to Michael
excluding the 02 arena?
Ms. Strong: objection; vague to the extent we're talking about something that is hearsay, that's
addressed.
Mr. Panish: let me rephrase the question.
Q. What were the numbers first of all, did you use the AEG Numbers for your calculations?
A. Just the 02 budget.
Q. What was the total that AEG Used for 02 and worldwide tour?
Ms. Strong: objection; 02 compound. 02 and worldwide or 02, your honor?
Mr. Panish: all right.
The Judge: okay. Maybe there's some confusion.
Mr. Panish: I'm getting confused. Let's start with the difference in the months.
Q. How many months did you use, how many months did AEG Use?
Ms. Strong: objection; vague.

The Judge: for the worldwide tour?

Mr. Panish: yes.
The Judge: okay. Overruled.
The witness: 260 shows for my budget, and well, it was 37 months.

Mr. Panish: and how long is AEG's?
A. AEG's was 27 months.
Q. And how many shows?
A. 186.
Q. And if we do a pro rata, same number of shows per week to your period of time, how many would it
come out to?
A. Almost 260 shows.
Q. Now, for the AEG Budgets, what did they assess as the net to Michael Jackson?
A. Which budget?
Q. The one with the ranges.
Ms. Strong: objection, your honor; calls for inadmissible hearsay depending on what budget he's
referring to.
The Judge: I'm assuming it's to what he reviewed in connection with his expert opinion, right?
The witness: yes, your honor.
Mr. Panish: exhibit 31 that's in front of you.
The Judge: exhibit 31?
Ms. Strong: so not the document he relied upon in his work papers, your honor, a different
document?
Mr. Panish: it's not is there an objection?
The Judge: okay. Overruled. We talked about this in the testimony. Overruled.
The witness: 132 on the low end and 150 some odd million on the higher end, between the two

budgets.

Mr. Panish: that's AEG's figures?
A. AEG's figures, yes.
Q. But less shows, less months?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, in your figures, did you use, in some of the cases, bigger or smaller venues?
A. Bigger venues.
Q. So, for example, I think we saw in that one e-mail that most of theirs were arenas and some
stadiums, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you use, for Europe and Asia, more stadiums or arenas?
A. Stadiums.
Q. Why would you use more stadiums?
A. Because of the unprecedented demand for the tickets in England. England makes up 1 percent of the
population of the world. It wasn't hard it wasn't a hard leap to figure out how many more tickets they
could sell overseas.
Mr. Panish: okay. Now I would like to show you 153, dash, 1. Is that in evidence? Don't put it up. Oh,
yeah, this is this is the one that was subject to an issue. This was. When you see it, your honor, you'll
remember.
Ms. Strong: it appears that it's in evidence.
Mr. Panish: yes. There was an issue on this, it's been resolved. I think when you read it, you'll
remember. So let's put it up. This is an e-mail April 15th, 2009, from Mr. Phillips to Mr. Leiweke. And
he's talking about the dancers I'll read it. "he is happy and they have picked all male and female
dancers. "I finished Ortega's deal and assistant choreographer Travis Payne's deal, and have
mediated a deal for Dileo and Tohme to work together. I intend to shove these 50 shows up Irving
and Rapino's asses and march on to do another three years of worldwide tour. Good luck on stealing
JT. From us. RP."
Q. Now, Mr. Phillips refers to shoving the shows and an additional three years of world tour is that
consistent with your calculations that you made for a tour in addition to the 02 arena?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, this is on April 15th, 2011?

A. Yes.
Q. I'm sorry. April 15, 2009. Now I want to show you as of I'm not going to ask that. Next question. I
want to show you it's 279, dash, 60. Is that in evidence?
Ms. Strong: it doesn't look like it's in evidence.
Mr. Boyle: are you sure you don't mean 579?
Mr. Panish: I do mean 579. I'm getting a little tired. I'm sorry. Okay. Is that okay?
Ms. Strong: yes, it is.
Mr. Panish: okay. Thank you.
Q. Do you remember yesterday you were asked questions about India? Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were asked whether it was a hope that the tour would go to India. Do you remember those
questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did you review this e-mail and consider this e-mail as to whether it was more than a hope
to go to India?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And I asked Mr. Gongaware about this, but this is an e-mail from Mr. Ovesen I'm sure I
pronounced his name wrong regarding touring, and there's some reference to other stars or musicians,
including a Nigerian named Obaigbena getting involved with Mr. Jackson. Did you consider that as to
whether or not that would assist in selling tickets?
A. Yes.
Q. And how about the fact that unprecedented?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And then the bottom, it says "hi, randy." this is an e-mail to Mr. Phillips regarding that they had a
client with serious interest in MJ. Date in India. "once you decide to look at that market, please advise
so you can get my client's offer included. Best regards, Thomas." and then Mr. Phillips responded.
Now, did he respond whether he had a hope of going to India?
A. It was pretty emphatic as he "thanks, Thomas. MJ. Will be heading your way."

Q. He says "definitely"?
A. "definitely." I'm sorry, "definitely."
Q. He doesn't say "I hope that we're going to go there," does he?
A. "definitely."
Q. Okay. And then just finally, I just want to ask you do you know who bravado is?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Who is bravado?
A. The largest merchandising company in the world.
Q. And did you review Mr. Phillips' testimony about what what the plans were for bravado and the
work that was going to be done regarding merchandise for Michael Jackson?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was your understanding of what Mr. Phillips testified that they were going to do?
A. That they were just striking a deal with bravado, and that bravado was going to rent an empty store
on oxford circle and put nothing but Michael Jackson merchandise in there; that Michael Jackson spent
time with his designers and he designed two massive catalogs of Michael Jackson merchandise, and
and I believe there was a huge advance that was going along with this deal.
Q. You think that would have helped sell merchandise?
A. I think so.
Mr. Panish: all right. I know I'm going to forget something, but that's all I want to ask you at this time.
The Judge: okay. Thank you. Redirect?
Mr. Panish: recross, I think it is.
The Judge: thank you. Recross. Yes.
Recross-examination by Ms. Strong:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Erk.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. You just mentioned a huge advance from Bravado?

A. Yes.
Q. You know what was actually projected for merchandising by AEG In AEG's budget, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You do know that number?
A. In the 02 budget, if that's the budget you're referring to.
Q. I'm referring to the AEG Live budget that you relied upon and put in your work papers and said,
"this is the AEG Live budget that I'm relying upon for AEG Live's numbers to come up with my
numbers." do you know what budget I'm talking about?
A. Yes.
Q. That's the one with the prod 1, prod 2; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at your deposition, that was the budget that you referred to, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that was a June 2009 budget?
A. Yes. Well, I think it was actually may. I'm not exactly sure. That said a print date. I think that might
have been another date. But be that as it may, it doesn't matter
Q. Do you want me to pull it up?
A. No. That's not necessary, you can go on.
Q. You'll accept it was a June 2009 budget?
A. Yes, I'm sure it's the same one we looked at.
Q. And from that budget, do you know what the numbers were for projected earnings on merchandise?
A. I'd have to look back on maybe the 10 million range, or thereabouts. I don't recall exactly.
Q. You don't and the merchandise number that you're projecting for the your "this is it" tour?
A. Yes.
Q. What's that number?
A. 123 million, or 121. I forget the exact number.

Q. And the merchandise number that AEG Live was projecting was between 8 and $10 million; isn't
that right, Mr. Erk?
A. That was on their budget, yes.
Ms. Strong: and you just looked up if we can put up one of the e-mails we were just looking at,
exhibit 579, dash, 60.
The Judge: that's the last one we looked at, right?
Ms. Strong: yes, the last one we looked at. We're just getting it cued up on the screen.
Q. I believe Mr. Panish just showed you this document, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you can look at the very bottom of the first page, pam, where it says "hi randy" there's a
reference to this suggesting there was an interest in India, correct.
A. Yes.
Q. And it says there "please note that I have a Client with a serious interest in a MJ. Date in India,"
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. "a" meaning one date in India, correct?
A. You can assume that's what it means, yes.
Q. And you've projected 60 dates in India, Mr. Erk; isn't that right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And, again, this was an e-mail that was sent March 18, 2009, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that was just after the tickets were sold; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. There was a lot of hope from AEG That this would be very successful; isn't that right?
A. I think they went past hope in terms of that.
Q. You'd admit that they were hopeful that it would be very successful and go beyond the 50 shows at
the 02, right?

A. But it was successful. If you go back to it, they had the unprecedented demand, sold out 50 shows in
five hours, plus with hundreds of thousands of people in the queue, right? So if you added up all that
demand, it would be about 3 million tickets. All we had to do or they had to do was sell 10 million
tickets; and I'm sure outside the UK. They would have gobbled them up quickly.
Q. Okay. So if you could focus on my question, would you agree that AEG Live had a lot of hope after
those tickets were sold in march 2009? Isn't that right?
A. I don't know that I would call it hope. We just have different, you know, definitions of words.
Q. You're testifying that they weren't hopeful that this would be a great show?
A. Well, you're always hopeful you can do more than you anticipate, so I would agree with you then.
Q. All right. And randy seemed excited about the idea of going to India for a date; isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Not 60 dates in India, correct?
A. I think I said a date indicates a date.
Q. And you referenced exhibit 11 from cannon's deposition when I was asking you about consumption,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I was asking you questions about the document that you said you relied upon in coming up with
your consumption number, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that was the Dewey Leboeuf memo, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you told me you understood that Dewey Leboeuf was a law firm, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't know all of the authors and the recipients of that memo, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then you said that you thought that this Jeff Cannon document that had been attached to his as
an exhibit of his deposition was consistent with your Dewey Leboeuf memo, correct?
A. With the exception of legal fees, yes.

Q. Okay. And Mr. Panish showed you that exhibit, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Cannon's testimony that the document was actually not prepared by Mr. Cannon?
A. Which?
Q. The document exhibit 11 attached to Mr. Cannon's deposition.
A. No, I don't recall that.
Q. And you don't recall what Mr. Cannon then said about who prepared that document?
A. No, I don't.
Q. So would it surprise you to hear that at Mr. Cannon's deposition, Mr. Cannon testified that it was
either Steve Mortenson or Dewey Leboeuf who prepared that document?
A. Okay.
Q. And so if, in fact, it was Steve Mortenson or Dewey Leboeuf, those were the folks on your Dewey
Leboeuf memo, correct?
A. I recall those
Mr. Panish: objection; no foundation who was on the
Ms. Strong: do we need to look at the document again?
Q. Do you remember Steve Mortenson on the "to" line of the Dewey Leboeuf memo, Mr. Erk? We can
pull it up if you don't recall.
A. No. I thought there was an objection. I was waiting. Yes, I recall those names.
Mr. Panish: I withdraw the objection.

Ms. Strong: you recall that Steve Mortenson was in the "to" line of that memo?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And that was a Dewey Leboeuf memo?
A. Yes.
Q. So if, in fact, Dewey Leboeuf or Steve Mortenson prepared the document attached to Mr. Cannon's

deposition, it wouldn't be a surprise at all that the documents and the contents are, in fact, very similar;
isn't that right?
A. Could be.
Q. You were also asked about an e-mail from randy Phillips to Richard Nanula. If we could go ahead
and put that up, this is exhibit 12968. You were just asked some questions by Mr. Panish about this
document, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit 12968? And you said this this e-mail talked it contemplated a worldwide tour right? and
some massive sponsorship opportunities, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And, again, let's get our bearings here. This is an e-mail that's sent in June 2008, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So that's a year before Michael Jackson passed, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's long before the contract between Michael Jackson and AEG Live was signed, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you look at the second page of this e-mail and we'll go to the second full paragraph
beginning "Richard." focus on the "Richard." the very first line of the e-mail the paragraph that starts
Richard says "these are just my off-the-cuff ideas," correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So these are randy Phillips' off-the-cuff ideas, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And let's go back to the first page, pam. Sorry to jump around here. And we'll look at the paragraph
that begins July, august, September, October. These are his off-the-cuff ideas about things that Randy
hopes he can do with Michael Jackson, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And this first paragraph says July, August, September, October, November 2008, MJ., quote,
actually, close quote, finishes 12 to 14 new songs for his first studio album in blank, question mark,
years. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then in that same paragraph, the last line says "and he's going to release a series of new singles
starting in October 2008 through June 2008 culminating in the release of an album project." do you see
that?
A. Through 2009, yes.
Q. Thank you. 2009. Mr. Erk, Michael Jackson didn't finish 12 to 14 new songs for his first studio
album and then release a series of new singles starting in October of 2008 through jJune 2009, did he?
A. I don't know that. He finished them, but they I agree that they weren't released.
Q. No indication that that happened, right?
A. No.
Q. That's correct? I just want to make sure we have a clean record.
A. Correct.
Q. Thank you. And let's look at the next paragraph. January 15 to February 8, 2009, MJ. Rehearses with
ken Ehrlich, producer of the Grammys and an AEG Executive since we own his production company,"
and this goes on to talk about how the idea of Michael Jackson performing at the Grammys of
February 2009, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Michael Jackson did not perform at the Grammys in February 2009, did he?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. And down at July 2009, at the bottom of the page, through December 2010, "if all goes well " it
starts "if all goes well," correct?
A. Yes.
Q. It says "we embark on a well-rounded and spread-out worldwide tour taking advantage of the
gigantic secondary ticket market, VIP. Packages, and then massive sponsorship opportunities subject
to how well we have rehabilitated him," correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Randy Phillips was acknowledging that all had to go well, correct?
A. I don't know what "all goes well" in his mind is, but it appears that way.
Q. And then randy hoped that he could have massive sponsorship opportunities isn't that right? if all
went well?

A. He didn't use the word "hope," but that could be inferred.

Q. But he recognized it all had to go well to get massive sponsorship opportunities if he was going to
have them, right?
A. I said it seems to be inferred that that's the case.
Q. Do you know anything about what AEG Live did to try and get sponsorships for the "this is it" tour.
Are you okay?
(discussion held off the record.)

The witness: I'm sorry. You said?

Ms. Strong: you have no knowledge of what AEG Live did to try and get sponsorship opportunities
for the tour, the 02?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so your counsel didn't show you those e-mails showing that AEG Live tried to get sponsorship
opportunities?
A. Hang on one second. In the e-mails, I'm sorry, there were reference to Nike and other items. I just
don't recall which e-mails they were.
Q. You remember Nike in an AEG Live document?
A. You know what? I don't recall. It's I don't want to say something I don't truly remember.
Q. So you didn't see any of the e-mails reflecting what AEG Live tried to do to get sponsorship
opportunities before June 2009 and after the sale of the tickets in march 2009? You didn't see any of
that material, did you, Mr. Erk?
Mr. Panish: assumes facts not in evidence at this trial at this time.
The Judge: overruled. If he's ever seen such e-mails.
The witness: I just don't recall. If I did, I don't recall.

Ms. Strong: and to be clear, you've not seen any evidence indicating that Michael Jackson had any
endorsement or sponsorship opportunities as of June 2009, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. Notwithstanding the pace of the ticket sales in march 2009, correct?

A. That's correct.
Q. You are also referenced, when we were just when you were being examined by Mr. Panish, a
document it's exhibit 31, dash, 1, pam. This is the September 26th well, let's see. September 26th,
2008 series of e-mails that Mr. Panish was asking you questions about Paul Gongaware contemplating
a worldwide tour of 186 shows, correct? Do you recall those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. And in that it referenced a net number for this contemplated tour of 132 million, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, again, the timing of this is September 2008, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. No idea whether Michael Jackson will agree to any of this, correct?
A. At that time, correct.
Q. And I believe you said there was some well, let's look at some of this e-mail. I believe you said
something about a net of up to $150 million?
A. That had to do with a subsequent e-mail in 2009.
Q. This e-mail this e-mail references 132 as a net number, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if we look at 31 page 4 of this, 31, dash, 4, we can get a sense of what Paul Gongaware was
hoping to do with respect to a world tour. Mr. Panish took you through some of these figures and asked
you to look at where Paul Gongaware contemplated a world tour might go?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if we look down at the India do you want to go halfway down the page to India? Right there,
pam. Right where your cursor is. Do you see that number 3, and the line with India?
A. Yes.
Q. That's the number of shows go all the way up to the top, pam. You can see that's the number of
shows that Paul Gongaware was thinking might be possible in India at that time, right?
A. Plus one private show.
Q. Not 60 shows?

A. That's correct.
Q. And if you go right above that to japan, it's contemplating eight shows in japan, right?
A. Plus a private show.
Q. Not 50
A. Hang on one second. Yes, plus a private show.
Q. Not 50 shows in japan?
A. That's correct.
Q. Like you projected, Mr. Erk?
A. Correct.
Q. And then let's turn to the very first page of this e-mail, the first page of that document. Go to the
very top. Let's look this is from Randy Phillips, and the subject matter is "first draft worldwide tour
projection September 2008." let's look at the last sentence of that e-mail. Highlight that. "Colony is
receptive but skeptical like us as to whether MJ. Will really work." do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So although AEG Live hoped Michael Jackson would want to go on a worldwide tour they did hope
that, right, Mr. Erk? That's what it looks like from the materials?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. They didn't know whether Michael Jackson would really agree to do the shows, correct?
A. It's a proposal, so yes.
Q. And ultimately you agree that it's the artist who has the final decision, correct?
A. Usually.
Q. In fact, your testimony at your deposition was that the artist always has the final decision?
A. I believe we covered that before, but yes.
Q. No one at AEG Ever projected anything like the numbers you projected, Mr. Erk; isn't that right?
A. That's correct.
Mr. Panish: well

Ms. Strong: and as of the time of Michael Jackson's death, only 50 shows had been agreed to; isn't
that correct?
A. They sold tickets to 50 shows; and as I said, by all indications, he was going to go on a worldwide
tour.
Q. But Michael Jackson had agreed only to 50 shows at the time he passed away in June 2009; isn't that
right, Mr. Erk?
A. I'm not sure what might have happened privately or whatever.
Q. And that's not my question. As far as you know, based on the evidence you've reviewed in this case,
all you know is that Michael Jackson had agreed to do 50 shows at the time he passed away in June
2009; isn't that right, Mr. Erk?
A. Correct.
Ms. Strong: no further questions at this time, your honor.
Further redirect examination by Mr. Panish:
Q. Mr. Erk, did Michael Jackson, based on what you saw, have a good relationship with his children?
Ms. Strong: objection; outside the scope, your honor.
Mr. Panish: foundation.
The Judge: overruled.
Mr. Panish: I didn't get a question out. You can answer.
The witness: absolutely.

Mr. Panish: and based on the evidence you reviewed, what did Michael Jackson tell his children
regarding his intention to do or not to do a worldwide tour and bring them with him?
A. He took his children everywhere with him.
Q. And what did he tell his children, Paris, who we saw today, about what his intentions were whether
or not he intended to do a worldwide tour?
A. "we're going on a worldwide tour."

Q. And did you see whether that was something that he wanted to share with his children?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Now, we heard all of this about all going well. Do you remember that kind of vague, but it says "all
going well."
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Would you consider selling out 50 shows in record time with another large amount of people
wanting to buy tickets things all going well?
A. All things being considered, yes, and then some.
Q. And could it have gone any better?
A. It can always go better, but it was fantastic.
Q. Now, Mr. Gongaware's projections that he made, and the cities, those were all before all was going
well and there had been unprecedented sales of tickets; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Gongaware, if he was a good promoter would you expect a good promoter with those
types of sales, to do more worldwide shows or less worldwide shows with that demand for the artist?
A. As many as he could do.
Q. And when Ms. Strong said about skepticism about Michael Jackson, were you aware that AEG
Referred to Mr. Jackson in derogatory terms?
Ms. Strong: objection; relevance, outside the scope.
The Judge: okay. Sustained. I'm not sure of the relevance of that right now to this witness.
Mr. Panish: well, Ms. Strong brought up the term "skeptical."
Q. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Were there other e-mails where
AEG Made derogatory comments regarding Mr. Jackson's work ethic?
Ms. Strong: objection; outside the scope, relevance, your honor.
The Judge: overruled regarding the work ethic comment.

The witness: that's correct.

Mr. Panish: and did you ever see them tell that to Mr. Jackson's face?
Ms. Strong: objection; lacks foundation. He never saw Mr. Jackson during this time period.
The Judge: well, wait a minute. Did you ever see in any e-mails?
Mr. Panish: yes. I'll rephrase it.
Q. Did you ever see him tell anything in writing or on TV. anybody from AEG Ever say to Mr.
Jackson, "we're skeptical of you. You're lazy," or other derogatory terms about him and his work ethic?
The Judge: you may answer.
The witness: no.

Mr. Panish: and in Mr. Gongaware's projection, many of the places like South Africa and other places
you didn't even project shows there, did you?
A. No.
Mr. Panish: that's all I have. Thank you.
Ms. Strong: no questions, your honor.
The Judge: thank you. We're going to end today because we have things we need to do in the next half
hour. You may step down. You're excused. Tomorrow, I have a long calendar, so I need you to return at
10:00 o'clock. 10:00 o'clock in the morning. Alternate 1, I did read your note, and I understand the
concern, so we're going to I'm going to talk with the lawyers, share the note. I think we can
Mr. Panish: there's another one, too. Number 12 I think had an issue. Or 6.
The Judge: I already talked to number 6. Okay. So tomorrow at 10:00.
(the following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors:)
The Judge: Mr. Koskoff, I know we need to address that. I need a short break.
(10-minute recess taken.)
The Judge: Ms. Cahan has joined us, and Mr. Koskoff. Okay. I had questions. We kind of went over
them a little bit. Mr. Koskoff, I don't know if you heard or understand what the questions

Mr. Koskoff: I think the question, your honor, as I understand it, is the interrelationship between
the first of all, it's basically the interrelationship between the brown deposition and the czeisler
deposition and whether either of them relied upon murray's statement.
The Judge: right.
Mr. Koskoff: I think that's
The Judge: that's why my rulings had question marks on them, because I wasn't sure.
Mr. Koskoff: well, I thought it might be helpful in order to answer that question first to review
what happened at czeisler
The Judge: okay.
Mr. Koskoff: and what happened at Dr. Czeisler's deposition I mean his testimony was on the first
day, I asked a hypothetical question, which included his reliance upon his, quote, understanding of
what happened on the evening on the nights preceding the death. And there was an objection because
the basis was that it was going to be based on hearsay, and the hearsay was going to be the statement of
Dr. Murray. So we withdrew that question; and the following day, I specifically on the record withdrew
that question, withdrew it in front of the jury, in front of the press, in front of everybody, and then asked
a different question which was based upon which would elicit essentially a similar answer, but not
exactly similar, that was his opinion not considering Murrays statement, but considering only this
different evidence of the different observers and considering the fact that large amounts of propofol had
been purchased, large amounts of propofol were found in the area. And then I asked is this consistent
with a period of chronic sleep deprivation. His answer was yes. And, in fact unfortunately, I'd have to
find this in the official transcript, because I have the rough in front of me; but I said to him after I
asked that question, I said, "and can you tell me particularly what it is you rely upon for your answer?"
and he went through and he specified for about ten minutes the evidence that he relied upon to reach
that answer. And then so that was that was his his testimony on direct. Then on cross, Ms. Cahan
asked him started asking him some questions about, "is it fair to say you do not know whether or how
Mr. Jackson was " this is I do have the transcript citation. It's 8037. She said, "fair to say you don't
know whether or how Mr. Jackson was administered propofol other than on the night of you don't
know whether it was other than on the night of June 4?" he said exactly. And she kept pushing him; and
then she said, "the evidence " she said, "the evidence that I reviewed " then she pushed him again, said,
"the evidence that I reviewed indicates it would have been given throughout the "
Ms. Cahan: where are you? This isn't page 8037.
Mr. Koskoff: 8308. I'm sorry. I think I had the numbers
Mr. Boyle: 8307 and 8308.
Ms. Cahan: just give me second to get
Mr. Boyle: sure.
Ms. Cahan: thank you.

Mr. Koskoff: and then Ms. Cahan sort of pushed him, and he started to say, "the evidence in the
record." I interrupted and I said, "she's entering an area where the witness has already been instructed,
and your honor has, and I think Ms. Cahan understands that she's not supposed to ask unless " and you
sustained my objection. And then Ms. Cahan said on cross, "I'm allowed to inquire into the basis of the
opinion." but he'd already, of course, given it a basis, which didn't have to do with the statement. And
the court said, "he's going to tell you what it is, and you may not like his answer." and then Ms. Cahan
said that's okay. And then Mr. Panish said, "we don't want to open any doors here." and the court said,
"you're not opening the door, so let's go sidebar." and then the court said, "the reason " and this is at
8308 to 8312. "the reason why I said what I said is because I think what he's going to say is based on
Murrays statement. You're asking him how he would come to that conclusion, if he reviewed anything.
"I think he's going to say murray's statement; and when you open that up, all that can come in. You've
worked very hard to keep it out, and that's my concern."
The Judge: that's what I said?
Mr. Koskoff: that's what you said. And Mr. Panish said thank you. The only time. And then the court
said, "so are we clear that you are not going to ask him about that? I don't know what he's going to say,
he might say that." and Ms. Cahan said, "I won't re-ask that particular question." but then Ms. Cahan
did go back again later on, on on I did a redirect, and then Ms. Cahan did a recross and went into that
that same area again. And it said and tried to go into it again, and then she finally said, "just to be clear,
the opinion " question, "just to be clear " this is at 8354 " the opinion that you rendered about Mr.
Jackson's total unrelenting sleep deprivation, that's based on an assumption what's happening with
respect to Mr. Jackson and propofol in the months " he said, "yes, and it's based upon my review of the
records." and she said, "and you're assuming that he was getting propofol every night for that period of
time?" on that particular question, he answers, "I'm basing that on the records that I reviewed." now,
that was his his initial answer on the initial hypothetical was that he was suffering from chronic long-
term chronic sleep deprivation. Now this question is about getting it every night for exactly a two-
month period. And she said, "I'm basing that on the records, but you don't know how much at a time or
for how long?" and he said, "the records I reviewed indicated he was getting it throughout the night."
and I objected again. And the witness answered "every night," and the court said, "hold on," and Mr.
Panish said, "let him answer." and then the witness said, "throughout the night for 60 days, he was
getting it throughout the night all night for 60 days." now, that was that very door that you had been
very careful to instruct counsel not to open, and we did not open it. We didn't ask it. Counsel asked it
and opened it, and that's it for there. Now, brown has absolutely nothing to do with this. Brown's
opinion isn't doesn't have anything doesn't give an opinion as to how long he was sleep deprived, it
doesn't give an opinion as to what the effects he does say you need sleep to live, but he doesn't say
anything else about it. All brown says is there is a biologically plausible reason why if czeisler says that
the that there's an elimination of the sleep drive, there's a biologically plausible reason why if someone
took propofol, the sleep drive would be would be eliminated. And his biologically plausible reason was
that it causes the release of dopamine. So brown really has nothing to do with the the opinion of brown
has nothing to do with this at all; but nonetheless, Ms. Cahan felt necessary to ask a question to try to
open up this door again. And that question she asked was was sort of at the end, she said, "have you
reviewed " I can't remember the question right now, so I don't want to misstate it. But it was a
misstatement of the evidence. What she said was, "and did you review evidence in the record that said
he had received it 60 days in a row prior to the 25th." and he said he was a little vague. He said, "I'm
not really sure if I saw that or not." and then on redirect, I came back and said, actually, it was a
misstatement what what the record said what Dr. Czeisler had said was from it was from the 21st, or
something like that. But that was that had nothing really to do with neither of those pieces of evidence
had anything to do with his essential opinion. So they're really not needed in in this deposition

The Judge: okay. Ms. Cahan?

Ms. Cahan: your honor, there are a few things about that that weren't quite right, and I don't want to go
back through it all the way. But in terms of how the door was opened when the door was opened, there
have been numerous instances where plaintiffs' counsel have asked various witnesses and various
witnesses have testified at the behest of plaintiffs' counsel, including detective Martinez, Dr.
Wohlgelernter, and others, about information that's derived from the police report. So the idea that
plaintiff
The Judge: the police report is different than the statement.
Ms. Cahan: sorry. The police statement. So plaintiffs have opened the door generally, and they also
specifically opened the door on redirect with Dr. Czeisler. So what happened was there was that long
hypothetical which was included the as one of its premises the 60 days of sleep continuous
The Judge: right. Which we took care of, right?
Ms. Cahan: right. So that was removed, and it was replaced with instead four gallons of propofol that
had been ordered, and information from the autopsy report and toxicology report and what the police
found at the house in terms of medical supplies. And then Dr. Czeisler used that as a substitute basis to
then go ahead and express the opinion that Mr. Jackson went without sleep for 60 days because of the
propofol administration.
The Judge: do you say 60 days specifically, or did he say?
Ms. Cahan: yes, your honor.
Mr. Koskoff: I don't think in answer to that question.
Mr. Boyle: that didn't come back until later.
Ms. Cahan: page 8303 of the transcript, during my initial cross, at line 16, I asked
The Judge: oh, at your questioning. Okay.
Ms. Cahan: well, I asked a question; and then they came back on redirect. I asked, "how long was Mr.
Jackson suffering from total sleep deprivation, in your opinion?" he said, "probably a couple of
months." and I asked, "so it's your understanding that he was getting propofol instead of sleep
consistently for a couple of months?" answer, "yes." we didn't go into what the basis for that was. Then
on redirect and this is at page 8350 of the transcript, looks 15 to 25 Mr. Koskoff asked, "by the way,
do you think that everything you saw here in terms of the deterioration of Michael Jackson was
associated with his untreated sleep deprivation?" answer, "yes, what I saw during that eight-week
period, my conclusion is that is a result of the total unrelenting sleep deprivation associated with the
with the use with the nightly use of propofol throughout the night." and then I came back on recross
and asked the questions that Mr. Koskoff just asked; and importantly, I asked I was clarifying, and I
said, "so just to be clear, for the purposes of the opinion you're offering, you're assuming that Mr.
Jackson got propofol only for " I want to get this accurate " you're assuming that he was getting
propofol every night for that period of time" for the purposes of his opinions, and I said in the prior two
months. And he said, answer, "I'm basing that on the records that I reviewed which indicated that he

was getting it nightly for 60 days." so he offered that at that point, that was the basis. But whether or
not plaintiffs opened the door is irrelevant to my ability on to use hearsay on cross-examination of an
expert. And here Dr. Czeisler was allowed to come in and offer this new opinion about sleep that he
developed after his deposition that was supposed to tie up in a big bow all the symptoms that Mr.
Jackson was experiencing and which he used to say essentially that Mr. Jackson was going to die from
sleep deprivation within a few days had he not, unfortunately, died of a propofol overdose. And I have
to be able to cross on that, and what they did was substitute as the basis for the opinion a large order of
propofol, the fact that there was medical equipment found, and the fact that Mr. Jackson died of a
propofol overdose.
The Judge: so instead of asking him about Murray, which they can't do, they found something else.
Ms. Cahan: right. And on cross I'm allowed to use hearsay, and both Dr. Brown and Dr. Czeisler
reviewed and, in part, relied upon Dr. Murray's police statement for the basis for their opinions. And so
we chose not to do it with Dr. Czeisler at the time; but when Dr. Brown came in and give his additional
testimony and keep in mind, your honor, he was supposed to come live, and at the request of plaintiffs'
counsel, to accommodate Dr. Brown's schedule, we preserved his testimony by video. But certainly fair
for me to ask him about, "do you agree with this opinion that Dr. Czeisler has offered, including the
factual predicate for this opinion about the assumption that Mr. Jackson had gotten no sleep at all for 60
days?" and the problem with Dr. Czeisler's testimony ultimately was it wasn't pitched as an assumption
of 60 days. He said there's evidence that says it. "I'm not assuming this, there's evidence that says this,"
and that evidence is the police statement.
The Judge: but isn't the evidence of the large amount of propofol and the the witness's testimony in
other words, he was instructed to disregard that statement, and his opinion was based on the other
items.
Mr. Boyle: the eight weeks of deterioration e-mail.
The Judge: that it was observed anyway, go ahead.
Ms. Cahan: that's not and it's our right, your honor, on cross, to say that's not a plausible basis for that
opinion. There's no real facts that the whole opinion falls apart because the factual underpinning isn't
there. And that's what we asked Dr. Brown. We said you reviewed the police statement, he said yes. We
said there are things that you found reliable, things that aren't reliable, he said yes. And then we said,
"do you agree with the sort of assumptions "
The Judge: let me ask this. Did brown rely on the police statement?
Ms. Cahan: yes.
Mr. Koskoff: no.
Ms. Cahan: yes. He relied on your honor, at let me pull the cite. But at page plaintiffs designated the
portion of Dr. Brown's preserved trial testimony at page 76 to 78 where he talks about and this is what
Mr. Koskoff averted to a minute ago.
The Judge: it sounds like to me what you're trying to do is do with brown what you didn't do with
Czeisler. Brown, I thought was being offered to show that the propofol does away with the with the

sleep drive.
Ms. Cahan: brown was being offered for a number of things. There was that right side of the chart
about how propofol works with the brain, and what your honor allowed to do was conditionally admit
Dr. Czeisler's testimony and opinions that were premised on the idea that Mr. Jackson was getting
propofol instead of sleep, and he wouldn't have wanted sleep, and he wouldn't have fallen asleep at
other times because of the propofol destroying the drive for sleep. So then we go and ask Dr. Brown for
it, "does this make sense to you, this idea that he's getting propofol instead of sleep, and therefore he
wouldn't take a nap, Dr. Murray never took a day off," et cetera, et cetera, these things that are
unsupported in the factual underpinning of the ultimate opinion, which they're using both Dr. Brown
and Dr. Czeisler to support the opinion.
Mr. Koskoff: actually, that's not quite right. First of all, it is correct that we're using brown only for one
for the limited purpose. And he doesn't even say it eliminates the sleep drive. He said that's for a sleep
expert. He says, "I'm not a sleep expert. What I can tell you is that there is a biologically plausible as a
as an anesthesiologist and propofol expert, there's a biologically plausible reason why it would
eliminate the sleep drive, and that reason is the release of dopamine." that's what he says. This is a very
peculiar argument because counsel on the one hand is arguing that czeisler's opinion is very weak, and
that she has a right to cross-examine him by strengthening it by showing that there are facts in the
record that support it
Ms. Cahan: no.
Mr. Koskoff: other than the facts that were contained in the hypothetical. And this is a rather
unusual argument, and that's what she tried to do. But it really it's clearly there's some other motive
here, and it's probably because counsel wants to see if she can get in the entire Murray statement.
The Judge: that's not going to happen.
Ms. Cahan: we're not suggesting that.
Mr. Koskoff: if counsel wants to bring in the fact that murray said that he gave it for 60 days, we
don't have any objection to that.
Ms. Cahan: then I think we don't have an issue here, your honor. And to be really clear, Mr. Koskoff is
putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that Dr. Czeisler said I'm relying on a, b and c, no reasonable
person would believe a, b and c support the premise, so we believe he's relying on d, which is the
police statement, and so we're allowed to inquire about that. And to be totally clear, just because, as
defendants were allowed to ask about hearsay for plaintiffs' experts, we're not saying that means the
document comes into evidence based upon this. It's still hearsay, we're not moving it to be admitted into
evidence with this witness. And there have been extensive testimony, your honor, from Dr. Detective
Martinez
The Judge: so what do you want to ask him? Let's look at the statements in particular.
Mr. Boyle: your honor, before we waste a lot of time, we assumed that they were doing this because
they were trying to back door the whole statement in; and if that's not so we were being ultra careful to
keep out anything that even remotely touched on the statement. We might not have a problem with
some of these designations now, knowing that they're making the statement that they're not trying to get

the statement into evidence. That's why this is new this is news to us.
Ms. Cahan: we're not saying we're not going to try to get it into evidence at some point with some
proper foundation, but this is clearly being used
The Judge: how would that happen?
Ms. Cahan: as hearsay. I don't know, your honor. We've had discussions in the past about
The Judge: is Murray coming in?
Ms. Cahan: I don't know, your honor.
The Judge: at this point, you should know.
Ms. Cahan: I'll allow Mr. Putnam to address that.
The Judge: Mr. Putnam, do you know is Dr. Murray going to testify? Is he going to attempt to testify?
Mr. Putnam: I have no intention of calling him myself unless it's requested, your honor.
The Judge: okay.
Ms. Cahan: so whether or not it ever there's ever a foundation to get it into to move it into evidence,
that's a separate issue; but we're not saying that using this on cross with plaintiffs' expert takes it out of
the realm of hearsay in some way. That's quite clear; and I believe your honor, when we've dealt with
this before with other experts, has agreed with the general premise that you're allowed to cross an
expert with hearsay as long as it's of the type that they generally rely upon, and both Dr. Czeisler and
Dr. Brown said they relied on this police statement.
The Judge: do they generally rely on defendants who are in custody, their post-arrest statement?
Ms. Cahan: it was not a post-arrest statement, your honor.
The Judge: whatever. Somebody who is giving interviews to the police, is that something they
generally rely on?
Ms. Cahan: I don't know.
The Judge: I doubt it.
Ms. Cahan: they were both specifically asked about it at their depositions and said they relied on it. As
your honor may remember, Dr. Wohlgelernter, the plaintiffs' cardiology expert, testified extensively
about the care that was administered on June 24 and June 25th, and that's based upon the police
interview, as well. And that was on direct, and we didn't object to it because we've always thought that
this is something that should be fair.

The Judge: let's go to specifics. My first question mark is at 89-14 through 91. Is that I think that's my
first page 7?
Ms. Cahan: yes.
The Judge: "actually,
Ms. Cahan, can I just site one other source? Uh-huh, sure. So I also I also read Dr. Czeisler's
testimony, his trial testimony." answer, "his trial testimony; and in there, that trial testimony, the figure
of 60 days was mentioned for him using 60 days or two months was mentioned for for Mr. Jackson
using propofol." question, "right. And do you know what the source of that 60 day stat was? Object to
the question." okay.
Mr. Boyle: again, your honor, that's one of those things that Mr. Koskoff reserved objections because
we thought they were trying to open the door to the police statement so they could back door it all in it.
If there's a representation that that's not what's happening and we're not waiving any rights by letting
them play this stuff
Ms. Cahan: your honor, we may be able to agree on the vast majority of this because what actually
happened was when plaintiffs initially did designations and sent them over to us, they designated all
this stuff, and I think realized they apparently thought there might be an issue or some kind of trap or
something, withdrew all those designations and, at the end of the day Monday, gave us a whole new set
of designations. So I think they may not assuming that we all agree that this is not going to be moved
into evidence, admitted into evidence with the use of this testimony, I don't know that they're
disagreeing with us at this point.
Mr. Boyle: or be used as some sort of stepping-stone argument down the line to get in the Murray
statement. That's what we're trying to avoid, some sort of nicking away at it. So if we're all in
agreement on that, then Ms. Cahan and I can talk and probably
The Judge: all right. So overruled, that one.
Mr. Koskoff: there's one area that might cause a little bit of difficulty, and that is in the question,
Ms. Cahan asked I think it was at the conclusion of her redirect where she said
Ms. Cahan: recross.
Mr. Koskoff: recross, correct, where she said that, "was it your understanding that " maybe it
referred to Dr. Murray, that his that he was giving it for 60 days up until june 25th, based on the record.
And he responded, "I'm not really clear on that." and then on my redirect, I said, "but that and I
objected at the time. I said, "that misstates what Dr. Murray said. What Dr. Murray said is he gave it up
until the 22nd, and then he began to wean him." and he said, "that's more to my memory." so I think
both of those sections have to go in.
The Judge: okay. All right. And 93 through 96 is fine, so I'm overruling the objection, because that's
Ms. Cahan: your honor, on the following page, page 8, at 93-15 to 94-6, you sustained the objection,
and that's a split between a question and an answer. So you are allowing in the question and excluding
the answer. And this may be another Dr. Murray question there; but otherwise, we may need to go with

full questions and answers there. The question immediately preceding was in the prior designation
where you overruled the objection, allowed it in.
The Judge: I sustained 3 and then overruled 1? Is that what you're saying? The "overruled" at the top,
page 8?
Ms. Cahan: I'm sorry. So the second box down, which is 93-1 to 93-13, you sustained that, so I'm
sorry. I'm looking at the wrong one. The top one, 92-7 to 17, you overruled, so the question is allowed
in; but then 93, 1 to 13, was sustained, so the answer is not in. So I just want to have them go together
one way or the other.
The Judge: do you have any objection to that one?

Mr. Boyle: no, your honor. It was their objection originally, so that's fine. Again, everything about the
Murray statement, you know, as we said
The Judge: okay. So I'll overrule that one.
Ms. Cahan: okay. And then, your honor, if you're overruling that one, then that creates the same issue
with the next one of it breaking a question.
The Judge: 93-15?
Ms. Cahan: yes.
The Judge: he says, "I'm not a sleep expert."
Ms. Cahan: right. And that's why we didn't object to that whole string.
The Judge: so you were objecting and I sustained it. Do you want it in, or
Ms. Cahan: we would like to cut that part off at 93, line 5, which allows the prior series of questions
and answers to finish; and then we think you were correct in sustaining the objection beginning at line
6 because that's where he says, in an answer, "I'm not a sleep expert" further down that page.
The Judge: so you want part of the answer in.
Ms. Cahan: well, I think to be fair to everyone, the answers you allowed the question on page 92,
going up to 17; and then he says at the bottom of that page of 92 he says, "that's what I was about to
say." so he's really finishing his answer there. So I think, in fairness, it should go to page 93, line 5. And
then I would ask that your honor uphold her ruling sustaining the objection going forth from there.
The Judge: well, he says up to that point, "I can't give an expert opinion on that point," which is what
he says further down.
Ms. Cahan: so if we were going to exclude that portion, as well, I think we would need to stop at 92,
line 14.

The Judge: right. If that was the reason, then

Mr. Boyle: our position would be that that can all come in, but I'm not going to fight on it.
The Judge: okay. So so 93-1 through 93-14.
Ms. Cahan: okay.
The Judge: so see that second box there, it will go through 14? That's overruled.

Mr. Boyle: now I'm confused. These were our designations, and they objected and got sustained. I
don't know what's going on right now.
Ms. Cahan: the court had overruled the objection there, which cut off an answer to the question, so I
was saying in fairness, we should allow the answer in. So just move this to 91-14.

Mr. Boyle: 93-14.
Ms. Cahan: sorry, 93-14; and it otherwise remains as is.
The Judge: so the other objections are sustained on that page.
Ms. Cahan: thank you, your honor. And I think your honor's next question was at page 10, that's
another LAPD. Interview issue, so we may be able to work that out between ourselves.
The Judge: do you want me to leave that to you or make a ruling now?
Ms. Cahan: I think you can leave that to us and we can let you know there are, obviously, numerous
The Judge: things are connected to it?
Ms. Cahan: yes. We're going to have to sit down and work it out, your honor.
The Judge: all right.
Ms. Cahan: and then there's only one two other points that I wanted to raise with your honor. On page
11, there was an objection sustained and this may be dealt with, as well; but there's an objection
sustained to 113-25 to 114-21. And if your honor would turn to that, 113-25 to 114-10 has nothing to do
with the police statement or or Dr. Murray or Michael Jackson, it's a General opinion. And plaintiffs'
counsel may just agree that that comes in, especially now that we're bringing it all in. But that, we
think, is fair even if we were not going to be discussing the LAPD. Interview.
Mr. Boyle: your honor, I'm sorry. I'm did we hear about this?
Ms. Cahan: it's just a couple of questions about whether he's aware of research studies about humans
being given propofol instead of sleep for long periods of time.

Mr. Boyle: okay.

Ms. Cahan: so that will come in regardless of what we do with other what we agree to otherwise.
The Judge: okay. So that's overruled.
Ms. Cahan: and then finally, your honor and then the dopamine issues, which is at page 128 and
following. I think Mr. Koskoff just said that Dr. Brown's essential opinion is that the dopamine release
caused by propofol so I think that that's fair and is fair cross.
The Judge: then you should work on that, meet and confer on that. It does sound like that's part of his
essential opinion, so okay.
Ms. Cahan: thank you, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: so for the record, we're not opening any doors to the Murray
The Judge: no.
Mr. Boyle: okay. Great. So we'll work this out. Thank you.
The Judge: okay. Just because that comes in doesn't mean the whole Murray statement comes in.
Ms. Cahan: we're not saying this takes it out of the realm of hearsay.
The Judge: okay. That's what I think was the fear initially.
Ms. Cahan: it seems that that was plaintiffs' fear, as well; and if they had been the proponents of the
statement, we might be in a different situation; but as we're the proponents of the statement, and it's an
opposing party's expert, I think we're safe.
The Judge: okay. Ms. Cahan: thank you, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: thank you, your honor.