JACKSON V AEG LIVE August 5

th
2013
Important Notice:- This week will be the last week of transcripts as donations have run out, if you want
more please donate by Paypal to Manager@TeamMichaelJackson.com Thank you
Ms. Bina: Mr. Briggs is returning, your Honor.
Judge: Okay. Let's resume with Mr. Briggs.
Ms. Bina: Let me step in the hall and get him. One moment.
Judge: Someone remind me where we left off with Mr. Briggs.
Ms. Bina: We had just begun Ms. Strong's redirect.

Judge: Where is Ms. Strong?
Ms. Bina: She is coming from down the hall with Mr. Briggs. They had stepped a little bit down the hall.
Eric Briggs, recalled as a witness by the defendants, was previously sworn and testified as follows:
Judge: You May resume your seat. Give you a few minutes to set up. Okay. Mr. Briggs, you understand
you're still under oath?
Witness: I do, yes.
Judge: And we're on redirect?
Ms. Strong: Yes, your Honor.
Judge: Ms. Strong, you May continue.
Ms. Strong: All right. Thank you, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. STRONG:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Briggs.
A. Good morning.
Q. All right. Let's keep going here. Mr. Panish asked you a number of questions about your bills in this case,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you record your time in this case in the same way that you typically record it for all your other
clients?
A. That's correct.
Q. And in your experience, is this how folks in your industry typically record their time?
Mr. Panish: Objection. No foundation.
Judge: Overruled.
Witness: Yes. During the course of my 15-year career in consulting or financial advisory, this is typically
how professionals report their time.
Ms. Strong: And does the manner in which you billed your time in this case have anything to do with the
opinions that you offered in this case?
A. No. It has nothing to do with my opinions in this case.

Q. Okay. And Mr. Panish asked you some questions, kind of like memory test questions, asking you to
pinpoint what specific tasks you completed during the 17.3 hours that you worked in March, and things like
that, right?
A. He did, yes.
Q. And -- well, let's talk about what you actually did in this case, and how you spent your time. Can you
describe for me how you spent your time, without worrying about whether it was during the 17.3 hours in
March or the 40.5 hours you spent in May? Generally, what did you do in this case?
A. Well, I set out to evaluate the reasonableness of Mr. Erk's analysis. And in doing so, I attended Mr. Erk's
deposition, which was a number of days, my own deposition, which was a number of days. I reviewed many
pages of deposition testimony, many exhibits to depositions. I reviewed many pages of trial testimony. I dug
into the specific projections Mr. Erk had asserted in this case, conducted research.
A. Broad variety of topics for the purposes of forming my opinion.
Q. And you were supported by your team in doing some of these tasks, correct?
A. I was, yes.
Q. And you said you dug into specific research regarding Mr. Erk's assumptions. I want to pause for a
moment. When did you first learn about the specific assumptions, the details, of the 260-show world tour that
Mr. Erk put together?
A. At Mr. Erk's deposition.
Q. Okay. So that was the first time that you saw those details, correct?
A. That's correct. Toward the end of March.
Q. And that's in fact the first time it had ever been produced in this case, the first time the defendants ever
saw those details, correct?
Mr. Panish: Objection. Leading and no foundation for this witness.
Judge: Overruled.
Witness: The first time I saw it. It's the first time I understand it was produced.
Ms. Strong: Okay. And then you were deposed a few days after Mr. Erk's deposition, correct?
A. Yes. Correct.
Q. And then after that, you did some research during that period of time, correct?
A. During that period of days in between, yes.
Q. Okay. But you then, after your deposition, did additional research about the details of the tour projected
by Mr. Erk, correct?
A. That's correct, I did.

Q. And let's just talk about the nature of that work that you did with respect to digging into the details of
some of Mr. Erk's assumptions. Just the type of work that you did.
A. Certainly. I -- my team and I looked into the history of western artists touring in India, we looked into
Michael Jackson's own history in certain countries, such as Japan and France, the number of tickets Mr. Erk
was projecting relative to populations in certain areas. We looked into the logistics of putting out or carrying
out a tour of the scale and scope Mr. Erk had projected. We looked at the history of any artist selling out 100
percent of all tickets available at a single static ticket price around the world. Any of these detailed subjects that
were incorporated in Mr. Erk's numbers.
Q. And Mr. Panish asked you about the shows that Michael Jackson performed as part of the Jackson 5,
including those he did as a child back in the 1970s, correct?
A. He did, yes.
Q. And you said you didn't analyze or rely on those details, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And why is it that you didn't rely on details about shows Michael Jackson performed as a member of the
Jackson 5, including when he was a child back in the 1970s?
A. Well, primarily because the projection involved Michael Jackson as a solo artist going forward, not in a
group setting, as the Jackson 5 was. Furthermore, that performance as a solo artist went all the way back to the
'80s and the "Bad" tour, so I was looking at decades of actual data indicative of his performance.
Q. Do you think the numbers of shows that Michael Jackson performed as a child are a good indicator of the
number of shows he would have performed from age 50 and on?
A. I don't, no.
Q. Mr. Panish also asked you questions about the amount of paper that you generated and produced at your
deposition, correct?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. Did you need to create more paper to give your opinions in this case?
A. I did not, no.
Q. And why not?
A. Well, my opinion was in regards to the speculative nature of Mr. Erk's projections. I reviewed
A. Great deal of information and attended his deposition to come to that conclusion. Once I had come to that
conclusion, it wasn't about me creating some speculative forecast, or something of that sort, or some long
report. It was about documenting the specific bases for my opinion, which I shared at my deposition, and I've
shared here in court.
Q. And you put the fundamental bases for your opinion on slides that you shared with the jury, correct?

A. That's correct. The exact slides we've shown here in court, yes.
Q. Mr. Panish asked you a few questions about your experience, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And one thing he asked you about was whether you've ever done a royalty audit before, correct?
A. Yes, he asked me that.
Q. Does this case involve a royalty audit dispute?
A. Well, my analysis certainly does not involve a royalty audit dispute.
Q. All right. But your understanding of this case, does it involve a royalty audit dispute?
A. This case does not involve a royalty audit dispute.
Q. All right. And Mr. Panish also asked you questions about whether you've testified before as an expert in a
wrongful-death case, correct?
A. He did ask me questions, yes.
Q. So if most wrongful-death cases involve someone who is paid a salary, or paid by the hour, rather than a
famous pop star, would those typical cases involve the kinds of forecasts that we're talking about here related to
future tours, endorsements, and things of that nature?
Mr. Panish: Well, objection. Foundation. He has no --
Judge: Sustained.
Ms. Strong: Well, I was assuming hypothetically. Assuming that most wrongful-death cases involve salaried
workers, or individuals paid by the hour, and not a famous pop star, if you accept that assumption, would those
cases involve projections associated with future tours and endorsements and things of the nature that's been
discussed in this case?
Mr. Panish: Still be an incomplete hypothetical. No basis to make such a statement.
Judge: Yeah. I think there May be no basis for that assumption. So unless somehow it's going to be coming
out elsewhere that there's foundation for that assumption, then I'm going to sustain the objection.
Ms. Strong: Well, let's focus it this way. Why is it that your experience is particularly relevant to this case?
A. Well, Mr. Erk submitted a specific projection of entertainment projects, of future concerts, of future
endorsements, all sorts of entertainment-related projects Michael Jackson would potentially go on to be part of.
And evaluating whether those types of things are reasonably likely to happen, and what the economics are of
those types of projects, is what I do every day. These exact types of efforts: evaluating risks and projecting
income, if income can be projected.
Q. Okay. So the experience that you have in your career that you've described spanning 15 years pertain
precisely to the types of projections that Mr. Erk talked about in his testimony, and in his opinion? Is that fair to
say?

A. That's correct, yes.
Q. Mr. Panish also asked you about some of your criticisms of Mr. Erk's calculations, and he showed you a
slide with different calculations that he came up with, correct?
A. He did, yes.
Ms. Strong: And I want to go ahead and look at that slide. Can you first put it on the screen so --
Mr. Panish: That's okay. That's all right. You can put it up.

Ms. Strong: This is exhibit 1045-1, which is Mr. -- is this the slide that Mr. Panish showed you?
A. This is, yes.
Q. Okay. So let's go ahead and take a look and see what's on this slide. The blue bars, are those tours that
actually happened?
A. Yes. Those are the publicly-reported gross revenues for four major -- excuse me -- four major tours for
other artists, and two major tours for Mr. Jackson.
Q. And the blue bars, they were on the graphic that you initially created for the jury, correct?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Now, how about the green bars on the left-hand side? Those are the ones that Mr. Panish added, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what are those?
A. Well, those are tours that never took place. They're imaginary tours that are the result of a math problem.
Q. Okay. And what about the red striped bars next to Mr. Jackson's tours?
A. Well, similarly, those are tours that never took place. The "History" tour generated $165 million, not $486
million, by way of example.
Q. Okay. And so how did Mr. Panish come up with these numbers in these imaginary tours in the green bars?
A. Mr. Panish started with Michael Jackson's average attendance during the "History" tour, going back 12
years ago, multiplied it by the number of shows these other artists performed during their concerts, appreciating
they weren't Michael Jackson concerts, and then multiplied them by Mr. Erk's $108 or so assumed ticket price.
So three very different statistics all multiplied together.
Q. Okay. And in your view, is that a reasonable way of projecting gross revenue associated with a tour?
A. No, it's not.
Q. And why not?

A. Well, we're just picking different data points from different points in time and different artists and
multiplying them together. It's just a math problem.
Q. Can you assume that when you add a bunch of shows, that the average attendance will remain the same?
A. In general, no. In general, artists have a specific audience size. And simply adding shows doesn't mean
the audience will keep showing up to fill the arena.
Q. And so also does it make sense to you to use the same ticket price that one might use in London, for
example, and apply it to shows throughout the world?
A. Well, history has shown that's not the case. History has shown that there has to be variance in ticket
prices.
Q. And so is what Mr. Panish has done here comparing apples to apples?
A. I don't think so. We're looking at actual tours, and we're looking at math problems.
Q. And when you say, "we're looking at math problems," you're referring to the imaginary tour numbers Mr.
Panish put on the slide?
A. Yes. Imaginary tours and actual tours.
Q. And how does that compare with what you did in your analysis?
A. Well, in my analysis, I was focused on the actual amount that had historically been generated by the
biggest tours the world had ever seen and by Michael Jackson's history as compared to what Mr. Erk was
projecting, which wasn't even included on this slide.
Q. Okay. Well, I want to walk through one more thing to make sure we're entirely clear on this. Mr. Panish
took the 55,000 average attendance per show of the Michael Jackson "History" tour, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And multiplied that -- let's just use ac/dc, for example. Multiplied that by the number of shows on ac/dc's
tour, which was 167, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, again, what's the problem with that? What does that result in?
A. Well, in that particular case, about 167 times 55,000, the math problem results in over 9 million tickets
being sold. That's roughly double what Michael Jackson had sold for the "Bad" tour or the "History" tour
during the peak of his career. So a math problem results in something that's double what we've ever seen
associated with Michael Jackson. It also results in a figure that's in excess of even what u2 was able to generate
in the biggest tour the world has ever seen.
Q. Okay. So let's -- again, speaking of Michael Jackson's prior ticket sales, how many tickets did Michael
Jackson sell on the "History" tour in total?
A. About four and a half million during the course of the tour.

Q. And that was for 82 shows on the "History" tour, correct?
A. That's right.
Q. And how many did he sell for the "Bad" tour in the late '80s?
A. Also, roughly four and a half million.
Q. And that was for 123 shows, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So even though he performed 82 shows on one tour, and 123 shows on another tour about 10 years apart,
he sold essentially the same total number of tickets on both tours, about four and a half million, correct?
A. I agree.
Q. So what does that tell you, in terms of Michael Jackson's history and tickets, the number of tickets that he
sold?
A. Well, historically, his tours have sold about four and a half million tickets. And we have two solid data
points to look at, appreciating that Michael Jackson was selling more albums during that point in time and also
more active in his career during that point in time, and that has to play into things.
Q. And so what do you mean by that? You're saying he was more active -- this was essentially when he was
at the height of his career?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. So you mentioned that Mr. Panish removed something from your slide in creating this one, correct?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And what, again, is it he removed from the slide?
A. He removed Mr. Erk's projections in this slide.
Ms. Strong: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and put that back up. No. 10. Show it on the screen first. And
we have a new exhibit, no. 13,483. Any objection?
Mr. Panish: Well, is this his original slide? What is this?
Ms. Strong: His original slide with your addition. So your slide with putting back Mr. Erk's projections that
you removed.
Mr. Panish: Okay. Well, I didn't remove Mr. Erk's slide. I made my own slide. But you can put this back up
if you want.
Judge: Is this a new slide?
Ms. Strong: Yes. Technically, it's a new slide.

Mr. Panish: It is new.
Ms. Strong: 13,483.
Mr. Panish: 13,483?
Ms. Strong: Correct.
Mr. Panish: You got it. Go ahead. (defendants' exhibit no. 13,483, a slide, was marked for identification.)
Ms. Strong: All right. So now that we put Mr. Erk's projection back up on the slide, what does this show you,
Mr. Briggs?
A. I believe it's the same point that I was originally illustrating, that Mr. Erk's projection is significantly in
excess of history, and I suppose now we can say it's significantly in excess of the green math problems that
we've identified as well.
Q. So significantly in excess of imaginary tours Mr. Panish asked you questions about?
A. That's right.
Q. And, again, how many tickets did Mr. Erk assume would be sold in connection with his 260-show world
tour?
A. About 13 million.
Q. And does the data from the actual tours, the tours that really happened, provide any support for Mr. Erk's
claim that Michael Jackson would have sold 13 million tickets on a tour?
A. No. The data indicates four and a half million during a different era versus 13 million projected for 2009
going forward.
Q. And, again, is there any reason to believe that if Mr. Jackson just performed a few more shows or added
bigger facilities, that he would suddenly have 13 million -- an audience of 13 million people coming to his
show?
A. I don't know how you can be reasonably certain that would occur.
Q. Mr. Panish asked you some questions about --
Ms. Strong: Your Honor, are we taking a morning break?
Judge: We started at 10:05, I think. Just keep going.
Ms. Strong: Okay.
Ms. Strong: Mr. Panish asked you some questions about AEG Live's September 2008 e-mails and proposals
contemplating a world tour, correct?
A. That's correct, yes.
Ms. Strong: And let's go ahead and look at that. Mr. Panish, it's exhibit --

Mr. Panish: Yes, that's fine. If it's 31, you can put it up.
Ms. Strong: 31, 1 through 7.
Mr. Panish: As long as that's the same one. Is it 1 through 7?
Ms. Strong: Correct.
Mr. Panish: I don't know if I have 1 through 7. I have it.
Ms. Strong: May I approach, your Honor?
Judge: Yes.
Ms. Strong: So this is the e-mail -- we can pull up some of this -- September 2008 e-mails. The jury's seen
these e-mails before. And Mr. Panish asked you some questions about these, correct?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And does this -- do these e-mail communications demonstrate that it's reasonably certain that Michael
Jackson would have gone on a world tour?
A. No. These e-mail communications indicate that there was a proposal, an idea, a concept, that was being
discussed about Michael Jackson going on a world tour during the -- during September of 2008.
Q. And, again, we can focus on the date here, "September 26th, 2008," is on the top of the chain. And is there
anything particular in this e-mail chain -- what's up on the screen is just the top e-mail. There's actually several
e-mail communications in here. Is there anything, Mr. Briggs, in the details of the e-mail communications that
supports your views that these are just preliminary thoughts?
A. Sure. Could we go to the next page, please? And -- yes. Thank you. If you could highlight or bring up
that particular e-mail. Perfect. Okay. So there are a number of words here that are indicative of this being
preliminary. The subject header at the top states clearly this is a "first-draft." it's a "projection." it's not a
certainty. It's not an obligation. The next sentence states -- the first sentence states: "here is a first-draft look at
a worldwide MJ tour." and then if we go to the top of the next paragraph, also some of the sentences I focused
on: "there is really no way to pin this down now. Too many variables." So there are a number of statements and
phrases here indicating that this is just an early-stage proposal. It's the type of thing I look at all day long in
terms of trying to assess whether something is likely to happen. And this is clearly at the early stage.
Ms. Strong: Okay. And in fact, September of 2008, had the agreement between Michael Jackson and AEG
Live with respect to the concerts in London even been signed at this point?
A. It had not, no.
Q. But even if these e-mails reflected something more than just a preliminary analysis, do they support Mr.
Erk's numbers?
A. No.
Q. And why not?

A. Well, there are a number of reasons. But just to hit on some of the highlights, if we go to the paragraph
that starts with -- okay. If we go to -- If you can move the cursor up. I'm sorry. The second-to-last line there
states: "his gross will approach half a billion dollars." so this is an indication of a preliminary view of what the
worldwide gross revenues would be for the tour. About half a billion dollars, $500 million, versus roughly the
$1.6-odd billion we had up on the screen a moment ago. That's one figure. If we go up a bit further --
Ms. Strong: I just want to make sure we understand. AEG Live, they were contemplating their preliminary
thoughts that Maybe they might be able to gross a half a billion dollars on a world tour, if it were to happen,
right?
A. That's what the e-mail says --
Judge: When you're saying, "his gross," AEG or "his gross" being Michael Jackson's gross?
Ms. Strong: You can answer the question, Mr. Briggs.
A. I interpret this statement as the gross ticket sales and other revenues would approach half a billion dollars.
Mr. Panish: Well, I'm going to object to his interpretation. Number two, it says, "his gross," not "AEG's
gross." so how can he interpret differently than what the author --
Judge: The jury will decide.
Mr. Panish: Well, Mr. Gongaware testified about it.
Judge: Overruled.
Ms. Strong: And what is it -- when you're talking about gross numbers associated with the tour, what does
that reflect, Mr. Biggs?
A. Ticket sales, merchandise. The actual dollars that come out of someone's pocket and pay for the tour.
Q. Okay. And, again -- so you said Mr. Erk was projecting gross revenues associated with the world tour of
something?
A. 1.6-odd billion, depending on what was included in it.
Q. Okay. And that's as opposed to 500 million. Significant difference?
A. That's correct. That was one difference.
Q. Okay. What else indicates that this is not supportive of the analysis Mr. Erk did?
A. Well, right where your cursor is, it states -- I'm just quoting here -- "net to Mikey, 132 million." indicating
that Mr. Jackson's actual income, his net income from a world tour, would be on the order of 132 million versus
the roughly $900 million that Mr. Erk had projected. So, again, there's a huge multiple difference, in terms of
what was stated in this particular e-mail and what Mr. Erk went on to project.
Q. And at the time of this e-mail, did they have an understanding of the cost yet that Michael Jackson is going
to incur in connection with the tour?

A. Well, they couldn't. It's preliminary, before an agreement is entered into, before a real discussion takes
place in terms of the logistics and so forth.
Q. Okay. So how does the September 2008 e-mail exchange with AEG Live's preliminary thoughts about a
world tour play into your opinions in connection with this case?
A. Well, I believe it's supportive. It's indicative that there was no formal plan, this was at an early stage, it
was a proposal. And I certainly believe it's supportive of my opinion that Mr. Erk's projection is entirely
speculative, as it's entirely out of line with this proposal.
Q. And there were some other details in here. Was there any notion of how many shows AEG Live thought
might be possible in India?
A. Yes, there was. If we go forward two pages into the middle of the page -- If you could highlight, actually,
from Japan to India, which is right in the middle of the page. Okay. Thank you. So -- okay. That's fine. So
this "3" and this "1," it's kind of hard to interpret, but this "3" and this "1" indicate that there was a projection of
four shows total in India. Three would be some type of public setting, and one would be a private show. So a
grand total of four shows in India versus Mr. Erk's projection of 60, six-zero, shows in India. When we go up
two lines, in Japan, you can see here AEG's initial projection was that there would be eight shows in Japan, plus
one private show, for a total of nine, versus Mr. Erk's projections of 50 shows in Japan.
Ms. Strong: Okay. All right. Well, let's go ahead and leave this. I think we've got the picture of your
thoughts about these preliminary thoughts in September of 2008. Do you remember Mr. Panish asking you
questions about whether Mr. Jackson ever donated proceeds from one of his tours to charity?
A. I do, yes.
Q. And you said that you saw some headlines on the issue?
A. Yes.
Q. And are headlines on these types of issues always accurate?
A. No.
Mr. Panish: Objection. Foundation.
Judge: Overruled.
Ms. Strong: And do you know whether Mr. Jackson actually donated any proceeds from a tour to charity?
A. I don't.
Q. Okay. And when Mr. Panish asked you those questions, did he show you any financial records that reflect
any actual donations of tour proceeds?
A. He did not.
Q. Okay. And based on Mr. Gongaware's testimony, you understand that Michael Jackson essentially broke
even on the "History" tour and that the "Dangerous" tour lost some money, correct?
A. That's correct, based on Mr. Gongaware's testimony.

Q. And let's stop on that for a minute. Why did you rely on Mr. Gongaware's testimony for those -- for that
information?
A. Well, the actual profitability of tours, the actual amounts received by artists, are normally very closely-
guarded, confidential amounts. They're not publicly reported. All we get publicly reported are the figures we've
been showing, the ticket price, gross revenue, and so forth. Mr. Gongaware was involved in the production of
both of those tours and testified to those amounts, which I relied upon for purposes of preparing that slide.
Q. Okay. So if Mr. Jackson didn't actually make any money on the tours, could he donate proceeds from the
tours to anyone?
A. If he didn't --
Mr. Panish: Well, there's no foundation. Speculation from this witness. He doesn't know.
Judge: Overruled.
Witness: If he didn't make any money, there would be nothing to donate, at least as far as profits from the
tour. No profits, nothing to donate.
Ms. Strong: And Mr. Panish asked you some questions about life expectancy. You remember that?
A. I do.
Q. And you testified very clearly you considered the testimony of medical experts in this case in forming
your opinions about the risks related to Mr. Jackson's health and drug use, correct?
A. I did.
Q. And those experts included two experts retained by the plaintiffs, Dr. Shimelman and Dr. Schnoll,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you identified two experts retained by the defendants: Dr. Earley and Dr. Levounis?
A. Correct.
Q. And so far, only Dr. Schnoll has come into court to testify live, correct?
Mr. Panish: Objection. No foundation for this witness. How does he know? And also leading and
suggestive of the answer.
Judge: Overruled on leading.
Ms. Strong: Have you reviewed the testimony -- much of the trial testimony in this case?
Mr. Panish: Objection. No foundation. How would he know?
Judge: Overruled.

Ms. Strong: And are you aware of whether or not any other of those four medical experts have come to testify
live in court, based on your review of the testimony?
A. Based on my review of the testimony, only Dr. Shimelman has come live --
Q. Dr. Shimelman?
A. Excuse me. Dr. Schnoll. I'm sorry.
Q. So plaintiffs haven't called their expert, Dr. Shimelman, to come testify in their case, correct?
Mr. Panish: Foundation.
Ms. Strong: -- yet?
Judge: Overruled. "yet."
Mr. Panish: Leading. Who is testifying?
Judge: Overruled.
Witness: That's my understanding.
Ms. Strong: Okay. And so as a result, the jury has not yet had the opportunity to hear Dr. Shimelman explain
his opinions in this case, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. But you've reviewed Dr. Shimelman's deposition testimony in this case, right?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. And in his deposition, was Dr. Shimelman asked to give his best estimate of Michael Jackson's life
expectancy on June 24th, 2009?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And do you remember what he said?
Mr. Panish: Well, your Honor, first of all, he can't get out hearsay from another witness. He can say that he
relied on it, and we're allowed to cross-examine on that. But he's not allowed to insert the testimony. That
would be hearsay and inappropriate.
Ms. Strong: Your Honor, he's explored this issue on cross-examination.
Mr. Panish: Doesn't matter.
Ms. Strong: He opened the door.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Panish: Your Honor, 721 --

Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Panish: Can I just make my record on that?
Judge: Later.
Ms. Strong: Okay. Do you remember what he said?
A. He clearly stated that Michael Jackson's life expectancy was one week as of June 24th, 2009.
Q. And is it your understanding from Dr. Shimelman's testimony in his deposition that he was taking into
account factors other than just Dr. Murray's treatment of Michael Jackson?
Mr. Panish: No.
Witness: It is. Based on the deposition, yes.
Ms. Strong: And those other factors included Michael Jackson's abuse of drugs other than propofol, correct?
A. Yes.
Mr. Panish: Objection. Leading and suggestive.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Panish: Also inappropriate under 721, hearsay relied on by an expert.
Judge: Overruled on that, but sustained as to leading.
Ms. Strong: What other factors did Dr. Shimelman take into account, other than Michael Jackson's use of
propofol, in giving that opinion at his deposition?
A. He spoke specifically to the synergy of the various drugs Michael Jackson was taking, and the impact each
of those drugs would have on each other.
Q. And you talked about having reviewed the testimony of Dr. Earley and Dr. Levounis, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did they say about whether or not Michael Jackson's life expectancy would be shortened as a
result of drug use?
Mr. Panish: It's the same objection. Trying to get their expert witness testimony in through this expert
without calling them.
Judge: Is Levounis testifying?
Ms. Strong: I anticipate, yes, your Honor.
Mr. Panish: Well --

Ms. Strong: Yes.
Mr. Panish: Is Earley testifying?
Mr. Putnam: Yes.
Mr. Panish: Live, both of them?
Mr. Putnam: Yes.
Mr. Panish: So they're representing that Earley and Levounis are both coming live?
Mr. Putnam: Uh-huh.
Judge: Okay. Overruled.
Witness: I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question, please?
Ms. Strong: Sure. In terms of Dr. Earley and Dr. Levounis's testimony, did they address the reasons why
they believed his life expectancy would be shortened?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did they rely upon, from your perspective of their opinions?
A. They relied upon knowledge of his history of drug use, the method in which he was taking drugs, the
likelihood of overdose, and many other factors that came into play in forming their opinions.
Q. Was their opinions based solely on the use of propofol by Michael Jackson?
Mr. Panish: Objection. Leading and suggestive.
Judge: Overruled.
Witness: There were a number of references regarding the synergy of the various drugs. The interaction of
the various drugs.
Ms. Strong: And to be clear here, who do you think is in the best position to explain the basis of the medical
expert's opinions themselves?
A. The medical experts. Absolutely.
Q. Mr. Panish asked you a number of questions about whether AEG Live or Michael Jackson were actually
interested in doing a world tour, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And let's assume that they were, that they both were interested in doing a world tour. If you assume that,
does that change your opinion that it's speculative that a world tour would occur?

A. I don't see how it would. I don't see how interest to do a world tour causes a world tour to be certain to
occur. I don't see how it addresses these significant health risks. Being interested to put on a world tour doesn't
relieve a risk that someone might die within a week.
Q. And you identified several factors that were a basis as to why you believe it's speculative that a world tour
would happen, correct?
A. Yes. There are a number of factors.
Q. And could you briefly -- Could you review what those factors are as to why it's speculative that a world
tour would occur?
A. Sure. There was no agreement beyond 50 shows at the 02, Michael Jackson's own history of drug use,
and the impact of Michael Jackson's own history of canceling a number of projects, and other things that he was
involved with, and just broader risks that impact the entertainment business. Things aren't always as successful
as people hoped.
Q. Okay. So Mr. Jackson also -- I mean, Mr. Panish also asked you questions about the demand for the
tickets for the shows in London, the 50 shows at the 02, correct?
A. He did, yes.
Q. Have you ever disputed that there was demand for the tickets at the 02?
A. I have not. There was significant demand. It exceeded expectations.
Q. All right. But does that mean, in light of that demand -- does that mean that Michael Jackson could go out
and get endorsements and sponsorships?
A. No, it does not.
Q. Why not?
A. It means in London there were many people that were interested in seeing Michael Jackson do what he did
best, perform. They were very interested in doing that. But that's a very different decision than a brand
company deciding that he should be a spokesperson for their product. They're very different subjects. And this
is very much evidenced in the actions that AEG took. After the tickets were sold out, they were completely
unsuccessful in securing any endorsements or sponsorships, even though they knew that the ticket sales were
remarkably successful.
Q. And does that demand for tickets in London, does that mean that Michael Jackson would have gone on to
do a world tour?
A. No. Demand for tickets in London does not address the risk factors that I've identified. Just because
people wanted to see him in London does not alleviate the health risks, it does not alleviate the fact that there's
no agreement to go beyond London. It just indicates in London there was great demand to see him perform.
And I've never disputed that.
Q. Okay. And one other question along the same lines. Does the demand for the tickets at the 02 even mean
that Michael Jackson would have actually completed the 50 shows in London?

A. No, it does not. It indicates that there was demand. It does not alleviate the health risks, it does not
alleviate his own history of cancelations, and some of the other risk factors that I have discussed here in court.
Q. Okay. You were also asked some questions about whether back in 2009, AEG Live, and some other folks,
believed in Michael Jackson, and they wanted to do business with him. Right, you were asked questions about
that?
A. I was, yes.
Q. And you said that they did, right?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And is there anything in the record that suggests that those people had access to all of the details of Mr.
Jackson's personal and medical history that you've relied upon in forming your opinions in this case?
A. I don't know how they could have had all the information that I've been able to rely upon. I've relied on,
just by way of example, medical expert testimony that has occurred much more recently than 2009.
Q. And in fact did Mr. Barrack, for example, testify about whether he knew anything about Michael Jackson's
drug use before Michael Jackson died?
A. He testified that he did not know about Michael Jackson's drug use.
Q. And are those private details that we now know in connection with this litigation an important part of your
analysis?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And why is it so that you can take -- why is it that you can consider things that we know now, as opposed
to what was known back in June of 2009?
A. Well, that's the scope of what I've been asked to do. I've been asked to take into consideration all the facts
on record, all the testimony at depositions, Mr. -- you know, everything Mr. Erk reviewed, relied upon,
everything that was available to me in preparing my opinion. I was not asked to pretend I was sitting in March
or June of 2009 and guess about who knew what. That's not what I was asked to do. I was asked to focus on
what we know today. And there are things we know today that are key factors, key bases of my opinion.
Q. And those things, many of those things were not known back in June of 2009?
A. That's correct.
Q. And specifically, did Mr. Erk consider this information we now have about Michael Jackson's drug use in
forming his opinions in this case?
A. Mr. Erk stated that he did not consider Michael Jackson's drug use.
Q. In fact, he specifically testified he did not consider any drug use at all by Michael Jackson in this trial,
correct?
Mr. Panish: Leading -- every question is leading and suggestive of the answer.

Judge: Well, sustained.
Ms. Strong: Okay.
Mr. Panish: Who is testifying?
Ms. Strong: Are you familiar with the testimony that Mr. Erk gave at the trial?
A. I am, yes.
Q. And specifically, what did he say about whether or not he considered the drug use at all by Michael
Jackson?
A. Mr. Erk at trial specifically stated that he did not consider Michael Jackson's drug use in forming his
opinion.
Q. And so now, knowing everything that we know today about what was actually going on with Michael
Jackson, and not what was available back in June of 2009, what are your fundamental opinions in this case, Mr.
Briggs?
Mr. Panish: Objection. Asked and answered three times on redirect alone.
Judge: Sustained.
Ms. Strong: This is just a final completing question, your Honor. Want to make sure it's a clean wrap up.
Mr. Panish: They put it up to start the redirect, they did it at the end of Thursday, and then today. And now
this is the fourth time.
Judge: Overruled.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your Honor.
Judge: Wrap up. Wrap up.
Ms. Strong: Okay.
Witness: My fundamental opinions with regard to the projects Mr. Erk discussed. And in regard to those
projects, I do not believe there's a reasonable basis to project that they would have occurred. I've indicated it
was supportive of a number of factors, Mr. Jackson's drug use among them. In addition to that, I was asked to
form an opinion regarding the specific projections Mr. Erk set forth, and I believe there's no reasonable basis for
those projections, based on all the facts and records that I've relied upon in this case.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, Mr. Briggs. No further questions at this time.
Jurors leave for recess. 10 minutes…
The following was not held in front of the jurors:
Mr. Putnam: Yes. One moment, your Honor. I -- last week when Fournier was here, Mr. Panish asked to
leave early. There was an altercation outside with Mr. Fournier and Mr. Panish where Mr. Panish was taunting
him in terms of things. I decided not to bring that up at the time. It's a frustrating thing to be here. I understand

it can be difficult with witnesses. But just now, as our expert was leaving the stand, Mr. Panish turns around
and tells him he's lucky he's in a courtroom. Now, I understand how frustrating this process is, but I can't have
my witnesses afraid to come here and speak, your Honor. It's not appropriate for an officer of the court. So I
would ask for it to please not continue. I'm sure he wouldn't do it purposefully. I'm sure --
Mr. Panish: That's not what happened. That's false. I was walking out. I stopped to let Ms. Strong go in
front of me, and Mr. Briggs ran over the top of me. And I said, "Mr. Briggs just ran over the top of me. You're
lucky you're here in court." that's what I said. Because he ran over me, your Honor, as I stopped to let Ms.
Strong go. As far as Dr. Fournier, I said, "we'll see you soon." and -- and I didn't bring it up this morning, but
since now we're going to do this, counsel -- you know, and I restrained myself not to bring it up. Counsel
represented to the court on the transcript three times that Mr. Laperruque -- and I have all the transcripts here --
could only come on Friday afternoon --
Judge: Well, why are we raising --
Mr. Panish: Because they want to attack me -- I let it go that they misrepresented, but now I want to bring it
up --
Judge: Let's deal with the first issue.
Mr. Panish: This witness ran me over.
Judge: Mr. Panish, he's half your size.
Mr. Panish: I was standing there, and I stopped to let --
Judge: He's half your size. I would be surprised if he could run anybody over.
Mr. Putnam: Is that what happened?
Mr. Panish: Well, your Honor, I had my back to him, opened the door for Ms. Strong, to let her go in front of
me. And he went right through me, and I said, "Mr. Briggs just ran me over," and that's what I said to him,
okay? I didn't touch him. I went away from him. I didn't say a word to him other than that.
Ms. Strong: And I'm sure it's frustrating for Mr. Briggs. Mr. Briggs said "excuse me" as he was trying to
walk out with me. That was all, your Honor. He didn't run him over, did nothing inappropriate.
Mr. Panish: He did just like Mr. Phillips did when he was here, and I didn't say anything about it.
Judge: Mr. Panish, don't talk to opposing witnesses unless you're talking to them from that lectern.
Mr. Panish: I haven't been talking to him.
Judge: Well, I'm telling you right now, don't talk to them, because anything you say may be misinterpreted.
Mr. Panish: Okay. And then I want to bring up at the appropriate time --
Judge: You can bring it up now.
Mr. Panish: -- my client has asked me, "how could this occur, these specific representations?" and I want to
bring it up after lunch, and I can show you the transcripts, and maybe the court could explain how that could

occur, the irregularity of the proceedings, regarding this. So we'll bring it up later. I have all the transcripts
here, what they represented to you. So let's deal with Mr. Briggs right now.
Ms. Bina: And just a reminder, your Honor, we never denied that. That was our understanding. We made
that representation to the court. Ms. Robinson came up and explained that to you on Thursday. Not sure why
we're rehashing it. But let's move on for now, and, you know, I think Mr. Panish is not going to be threatening
Mr. Briggs.
Mr. Panish: I didn't threaten Mr. Briggs. Believe me, if I threatened him, he would know. He's not afraid.
But your Honor --
Judge: Like I said --
Mr. Panish: I will not talk to Mr. Briggs, but I will --
Judge: Not just Mr. Briggs. Anybody, unless it's from the lectern.
Mr. Panish: I will go out and then run over Ms. Strong. I was letting her go as a courtesy to go first. It's fine
with me. But I'll bring up the other issue later. Let's deal with Mr. Briggs right now.
Mr. Putnam: Thank you.
(THE JURY ENTERED THE COURTROOM AT 11:46 A.M.)
Mr. Panish: Good morning, Mr. Briggs.
A. Good morning.
Q. Now, you were waiting here all day Thursday in the afternoon, right?
A. Yes. Most of the afternoon. I left a bit early when I believe Ms. Chang said I could leave.
Q. Okay. And you couldn't testify, because it was your understanding some witness could only go at that
specific time, therefore, you had to be taken off the stand, right? That's what the lawyers told you?
A. I left because Ms. Chang said she required all afternoon with a witness.
Q. Okay. Why weren't you on at 1:30, Sir?
Ms. Strong: Objection, your Honor. 352.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Panish: Sir, how many meetings have you had with counsel since you left?
A. On Thursday afternoon? One meeting.
Q. When was that?

A. Sunday.
Q. Okay. And you've done additional work since you've been on the stand, and you've been here for multiple
days, right?
A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "additional work." if by "additional work" you mean I've gone
home, and I've reviewed my testimony and so forth -- if that's what you mean by "additional work," then, yes,
I've reviewed my testimony, certainly.
Q. Would it be fair to say you're over 700,000 now?
A. That's fair to say.
Q. And for 700,000, your final opinion is that Mr. Jackson, the most well-known artist in the world, would
not have earned any money from working to give to his children, correct?
A. That's not correct. You're misstating my opinion.
Q. Okay. Tell us how much money Mr. Jackson would have earned from working to give to his children, Sir.
A. I believe any projection of how much money Michael Jackson would have earned is speculative, and I'm
not here to speculate.
Q. So it would be your opinion that Michael -- any -- your Honor -- strike that. It's your opinion that it's
speculative that Michael Jackson would earn one dime from working, correct?
A. Any projection of income is speculative.
Q. Let me ask the question again, Sir. It's your opinion --
Mr. Panish: And, your Honor, once again, I would ask the court to instruct the witness to please answer the
questions.
Judge: Answer the question that's asked.
Mr. Panish: It's your opinion, Sir, that it would be speculative to say that Michael Jackson earned one dime
from working, correct?
A. Yes. Correct.
Q. Now, Sir, you testified all about what was relevant and your lawyer asked you, "were these questions
relevant to your opinions?" remember those questions on Thursday?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Okay. Sir, do you know who determines relevancy in a courtroom?
A. I'm concerned this is a loaded question. In terms of my opinion, I've determined what's relevant to my
opinion.
Q. Sir, if you --

A. If you're asking me about the legal process, I'm not here to offer an opinion.
Q. Well, I was asking lots of questions, and Ms. Strong kept objecting on relevance, and we had to go into
chambers. You remember that, Sir?
Ms. Strong: Objection. 352, my objections.
Judge: Yeah. I don't remember those.
Mr. Panish: She asked extensively and said, "Mr. Panish asked you this, this wasn't relevant, this, this, this,"
making the argument that I was not asking relevant questions. Ms. Strong objected extensively, we went into
chambers. I came back and was allowed to ask those questions because they were relevant, and a determination
was made.
Judge: I don't remember that.
Mr. Panish: You want to see the transcript, your Honor?
Judge: No. Let's just --
Mr. Panish: When you had to call Ms. Strong in there when she kept objecting --
Judge: Oh, okay.
Mr. Panish: -- after my questions, and she continued to refuse to let the witness answer on the witness stand,
and you called us to chambers. You remember that, your Honor?
Judge: I do remember that, but what happens in chambers is not for the jury to hear. That's why we have it in
chambers. So sustained.
Mr. Panish: Okay. Sir, you don't determine what's relevant in this court, do you?
A. I've given you my answer to the question. I determine what's relevant to my opinion, relevant to the court
is a different issue.
Q. Right. Now, Sir, you told us that you never got a waiver in writing from the estate or any attorneys
regarding any potential conflict, correct?
A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. Sure. You told us Thursday that you never got any written waiver in writing from the estate or the
attorneys for the estate of Michael Jackson, correct?
A. That's correct. I told you there was no written waiver, correct.
Q. The estate is not a party here, are they?
A. I understand --
Mr. Putnam: Objection, your Honor. That's an M.I.l.
Mr. Panish: That's my point.

Mr. Panish: Sir, the estate is not in this case. We do not represent the estate, do we, Sir?
Judge: Overruled. You May answer.
Witness: I understand that the Panish law firm does not represent the estate.
Mr. Panish: There are separate lawyers for the estate, aren't there, Sir?
A. I understand the estate has separate lawyers, correct.
Q. Okay. Now, Sir, let's look at what you said.
Mr. Panish: Page 12,247, line 28, to 12,248, line 7. Can we put that up for counsel first? And what --
counsel first.
Mr. Panish: This is your trial testimony, Sir, that you gave (indicating). And what I want to ask you Sir,
specific questions, which were follow-up to what Ms. Strong asked you the other day, okay? You remember
giving this testimony, Sir? Because you went home and read your testimony, didn't you, Sir?
A. I did, but this screen keeps flashing. If you want to ask me about a specific part of my testimony --
Q. Sure.
Mr. Panish: Let's put up line 27, the question there, and let's go to line 7 of the next page.
Witness: You're showing me --
Mr. Panish: We're getting there, Sir.
A. Keeps flashing. Okay.
Mr. Panish: Okay. Now can we put that up? Just his trial testimony.
Judge: We're not there yet. It hasn't been --
Mr. Panish: One -- let me do it again. 12,247, line 27 -- Mr. Boyle: through line 7, josh.
Mr. Panish: Okay. There it is. All right. Can I put that up now, your Honor?
Judge: Yes.
Mr. Panish: Okay. Now, Mr. Briggs, this is your testimony, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So in February you signed a written contract with O'Melveny & Myers to work on this case, right?
A. Just to be clear. You're representing this law firm here is referencing O'Melveny & Myers?
Q. Just like when you answered in court, Sir.

A. Well, I can't see the context. You're showing me one question that references a law firm. I want to give
you the best answer. I testified --
Q. Have you signed an agreement with any other law firm in this case, Sir?
A. There are a number of law firms that are discussed every day during my testimony.
Q. Sir, have you signed a written contract with any other law firm to work on this case but O'Melveny &
Myers?
A. I have not.
Q. Okay. Now, before you signed that, Sir, you or someone that you don't know, or Ms. Cohen called up --
let me rephrase it. Who -- strike that. Ms. Cohen is one of the lawyers for the estate, correct?
A. Ms. Cohen is an attorney for the estate of Michael Jackson, correct.
Q. And you told us under oath -- and I want to confirm this -- and you're as sure of this as anything you've
said in this court, that you or someone from your firm called Ms. Cohen and got her authorization to testify in
this case before you signed a written engagement agreement, correct?
A. At the time you had asked me this question --
Mr. Panish: Your Honor, can he answer the question?
Judge: I'm sorry. Did you ask him, was that his testimony?
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Judge: Okay. Answer the question that's asked.
Witness: I mean, it says what it says. It says, "that's my understanding."
Mr. Panish: Sir, you testified under oath in this court that either yourself or someone from your firm called
Ms. Cohen and got her authorization to testify in this court, correct, Sir?
A. I testified at the time that was my understanding, yes.
Q. Okay. Sir, did you testify under oath that you had authority to work on this case before you signed the
engagement letter in February of 2013? "yes" or "no"?
A. I testified that was my understanding.
Q. Okay. Sir, was that truthful testimony under oath in this court?
A. It was truthful that it was my understanding when I answered that question.
Q. Sir, are you saying now that was false testimony you gave under oath?
Mr. Putnam: Objection. Misstates --
Judge: Sustained.

Mr. Panish: Okay.
Mr. Panish: So that was truthful testimony, and you're as sure of that as anything else you've testified here
under oath, isn't that true, Sir?
A. It was truthful when I stated it. I have a clearer understanding now. And, candidly, I was confused about
the distinction between "authorization" and "notification" at the time you asked me the question. I'm happy to
give you a thorough explanation, if you'd like to hear it.
Q. So that testimony under oath that you gave was not true, correct, Sir?
A. You're mischaracterizing it.
Q. Sir --
A. When I stated that was my understanding, that was an honest and truthful statement. It was my best
understanding at the time.
Q. So you testified to what your understanding was under oath and represent that as true?
A. That was my best understanding at the time. I believe that statement to be true.
Q. Okay. Sir, that's not a true statement, is it, Sir?
A. I now understand that the subject of the call was not an authorization but was, rather, a notification, and
there is a distinction between the two.
Q. Sir --
A. At the time you were asking me -- excuse me. I want to finish answering.
Q. It's simple.
A. Can you read back the question?
Mr. Putnam: He's interrupting his answer.
Judge: Let him finish.
Mr. Panish: He's not answering the question.
Mr. Putnam: Then say so. Don't interrupt him to do so.
Mr. Panish: Excuse me?
Judge: Did you finish?
Witness: I'm sorry. At the time you asked me the question, I didn't appreciate, and, candidly, I was a bit
confused between the difference of "authorization" and "notification." the call that took place was a notification
call, not an authorization call, and there is a difference.

Q. By
Mr. Panish: And was that call before you signed that written engagement?
A. Are you asking me, based on my understanding now?
Q. I'm asking you for the truth, Sir.
A. Oh. There was a call that took place. It was a call that took place to notify the estate, not to receive --
excuse me -- not to receive authorization from the estate. And so --
Q. Before you signed --
Ms. Strong: Can he finish his answer?
Mr. Panish: He's not answering the question.
Judge: Did you finish?
Witness: There was a call that took place for the sake of notifying the estate. That call took place before we
entered into the engagement agreement.
Mr. Panish: Okay. So it's your testimony under oath that you called the estate lawyer, Ms. Cohen, before you
signed the written agreement to tell them that you were going to work on this case, correct?
A. Not correct. That's not what I have said under oath.
Q. So you never called Ms. Cohen before you signed the written engagement letter to get authorization to
testify in this case, true?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. Sure. Before you signed the written engagement letter in this case, you never called Ms. Cohen and got
her authorization to testify in this case, correct?
A. Correct. I never called Ms. Cohen and got her authorization to testify in this case.
Q. Did anyone from your firm call Ms. Cohen before you signed the written engagement letter to get
authorization to testify in this case?
A. No one called to get her authorization, they called as a notification.
Q. No, no. Did you call Ms. Cohen before you signed the written engagement agreement to notify her that
you were going to testify in this case?
Ms. Strong: Objection. Asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Panish: No, your Honor. I haven't asked --
Judge: You asked him. You asked that question.

Mr. Panish: Authorization.
Mr. Boyle: he changed to notification.
Mr. Panish: I'd ask her to read it back, your Honor. I asked first authorization, now I'm asking about
notification.
Judge: Let's see if he asked that question. I might have misheard it? (the requested question was read back.)
Judge: Okay. You're right. You May answer.
Witness: I did not call Ms. Cohen.
Mr. Panish: Did someone from your firm call Ms. Cohen before your firm signed the written engagement
letter to work on this case to notify her that you were going to testify in this case?
A. My -- I understand that my partner, Roy Salter, called the Hoffman law firm to notify them that I was
going to testify in this case before FTI Consulting was engaged.
Q. Did Roy Salter call Ms. Cohen, as you stated and testified earlier, to notify her that your firm was going to
testify in this case?
Mr. Putnam: Objection. Misstates the testimony, your Honor.
Judge: Overruled. You May answer.
Witness: I understand that Roy Salter either spoke with Ms. Cohen or her partner, Mr. Hoffman, to notify
them that I was going to testify in this case before FTI Consulting was engaged.
Mr. Panish: And if they were to come in here and say that's false -- strike the question. You're as sure of that
as anything you've testified to in this case, aren't you, Sir?
A. I trust the statements that my general counsel has made to me in this regard. It is consistent with my
recollection, it is consistent with my testimony.
Q. Could you answer the question, please? You're as sure of that testimony that you just gave as any other
testimony you've given in this court under oath, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And when did you speak to Mr. Salter to ask him if he called Ms. Cohen?
A. I didn't.
Q. So you've never spoken to Mr. Salter to ask him if he ever called Ms. Cohen, or anyone from the Hoffman
firm, before your firm signed the written agreement to notify representatives of the estate that you were going to
testify in this case, isn't that true?
A. I didn't need to. The general counsel of FTI Consulting that oversees risk management looked into this
subject, and I spoke with him directly. Why would I speak with Mr. Salter?

Q. So you want to tell us what you and your lawyer discussed. So now you've called the lawyer -- now that
you've disclosed that -- so you called the lawyer because you were concerned about your testimony in this case,
didn't you, Sir?
Mr. Putnam: Objection. Misstates the testimony. There was a request that we do so, if you recall, from the
court, not because he was concerned about it. That's a complete misrepresentation.
Mr. Panish: That's absolutely --
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Panish: Sir, were you concerned -- strike that. Are you concerned about giving false testimony under
oath?
A. Of course I am concerned. I don't want to give false testimony under oath.
Q. Okay. So before you gave that testimony, Sir, in this court, you never spoke to Mr. Salter, or anyone, as to
whether the firm was called, asking for authorization or notification, correct?
A. You're talking about ever? I'm sure this was a discussion that took place back in February or March,
which is why I had a recollection of these topics back in February or March.
Q. Who did you talk to in February or March, Sir?
A. Well, I'm sure there were conversations between me and my partner, Mr. Salter.
Q. You just told me you've never spoken to Mr. Salter about this, didn't you, Sir?
A. I was under the impression you were talking about the past few days.
Q. Did I say that in the question, Sir?
A. I was under that impression.
Q. Okay. When did you speak specifically to Mr. Salter and ask him if he called Ms. Cohen and got
authorization or notified her that you were testifying in this case?
A. It must have taken place during the February time frame when we were looking to be engaged.
Q. So is it your testimony under oath that in February of 2013, you spoke to Mr. Salter who told you that he
called Ms. Cohen or Mr. Hoffman to get their authorization or to notify them that you could testify in this case,
is that true?
A. Just to be clear, there was no authorization sought, it's always been a notification. And my testimony is
that a conversation must have taken place between Roy Salter and I during February when Roy was
communicating to me that he had notified the Hoffman law firm.
Q. So that's all I want to know is, your testimony is that in February, Mr. Salter told you that he had called the
firm, the Hoffman firm, and notified them that you were going to testify in this case before your firm signed the
written engagement letter, correct?
A. That's correct, yes.

Q. Okay. And do you have any record of that, Sir?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you have any memos of that?
A. I do not.
Q. Where did the conversation take place?
A. I understand it was a phone call.
Q. Where is Mr. Salter's office?
A. Century city.
Q. Okay. So you spoke on the phone with Mr. Salter, right?
A. I don't recall if it was a phone call or in person.
Q. Well, Sir, you don't recall if it was a phone call. What day was it?
A. I've given you my best recollection, which is it would have been in our days preceding our entering into
the engagement agreement with O'Melveny.
Q. When did you sign the engagement?
A. I don't have a specific date. The engagement is dated February 8th. It would have been around that date.
Mr. Panish: Your Honor, this a good time?
Judge: Yes. 1:30.
(THE JURY EXITED THE COURTROOM)
Mr. Panish: Can I bring that issue up at 1:30, then, your Honor?
Judge: Sure.
Mr. Panish: Pardon me?
Judge: Sure.
Mr. Panish: Thank you.
LUNCH……

Judge. Good afternoon. Mr. Panish, you wanted to talk to me?
Mr. Panish. Yes, I did, your honor. I wanted to bring up something, another irregularity in the proceedings that
I wanted to bring to the court's attention. And this started on january -- excuse me -- july 31st, wednesday
afternoon, when we were in the middle of Mr. Briggs. And if you turn to page 12548, there was Mr. Putnam
bringing -- at the end of the day, brought to the -- actually, it starts off on page 12544 when the witness was
finished.
Judge. Which witness are we talking about? This witness?
Mr. Panish. Yes. Okay? We're at the end of the day, and the court says, "10:00 o'clock tomorrow." Mr. Putnam
says, "in terms of this witness, your honor, I just have to note that I have two people cued up for tomorrow, both
of whom supposedly can only go tomorrow in the next month. So I'm going to try to make sure that's not the
case; but if it is, I will let counsel know. They know who they are." then later in the same -- after discussions
and I was raising what's the issue and such, at page 12548, the court says, "I don't like them taking too long, but
--" Mr. Putnam then says, "I wasn't arguing to that. I was indicating why this becomes an issue as to certain of
them. So I'm going to try it make it so we don't have to interrupt the testimony, but I can't know until we talk to
them." that's now -- then the next morning, when Mr. Briggs was on the stand, at page 12643, when Ms. -- Ms.
Strong began her redirect,
Mr. Putnam tells the court, "over lunch, I'm going to figure out where we are with some other witnesses. I may
have to pause this, and as we did with Ms. Faye, if I have to put them in there -- but I'll --"
Judge, "who is the witness?"
Mr. Putnam, "laperruque."
Judge, "that's right.?"
Ms. Bina, "right. And our understanding is today is pretty much the only day he's available for the next month."
Judge, "okay."
so then, during the break in the afternoon, when they represented that they had to call this witness, well, I asked
them, "when is he available?" "anytime. Whenever." we confirmed that with him again. And it's clear what was
done here, your honor. And my client -- and I represent clients. They ask me, "why do they say that and
something different happens?" I don't have an explanation as to why something like this would occur. You've
been doing trials long enough, you know why it was done, I know why it was done. But, you know, my client --
it's an irregularity in the proceedings. There was no reason to interrupt this witness, yet counsel made numerous
representations to the court, as they did with other witnesses earlier, which I was in no position to dispute it,
they were called out of order. But this was clearly an intent to do this. And what do I tell Mrs. Jackson and
others as to why the court would -- would allow such a thing to occur? That's what I would like to know.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, this -- this was all dealt with on Friday when Mr. Panish brought this up before. I don't
know why we're dealing with it again, other than he wants to waste time.
Judge. Well, no explanation was provided on your part.
Ms. Bina. It was, your honor. Ms. Robinson came forward, if you'll recall, and explained that Mr. Laperruque
had told her that he was only available on this day. She said that, she told that to your honor. I made my
representations based on what Ms. Robinson told me. We did all of that on Friday, your honor. And the truth is
Mr. Laperruque told us he was not available again. Now, he came into court and gave some -- gave a different
statement. I don't know why he did that. They didn't ask him about that on cross-examination. Maybe they
should have.

Judge. Well, I precluded them from doing that.
Mr. Panish. Right. We did ask that question and they objected.
Ms. Bina. My explanation, your honor, is Mr. Laperruque told Ms. Robinson he was only available that day.
She came and told your honor that on Friday.
Mr. Panish. She didn't say that.
Ms. Bina. We would much rather have not interrupted the redirect examination of Mr. Briggs. Remember, his
cross-examination, your honor, was completed, and he'd been on the stand at that point -- Ms. Strong questioned
him for about a half a day, Mr. Panish cross-examined him for three days. Trust me, we want to get Mr. Briggs
off the stand; and we would have much preferred not to pause him. But we were told by Mr. Laperruque that he
couldn't come back. Now, apparently he had more flexibility in his schedule. I think maybe his employer was a
bit more understanding than he anticipated. And, you know, maybe -- we were misinformed, I freely admit that,
I'm not arguing that. But we did all of this on Friday, your honor. We gave our best truthful statements to the
court, what the witness had told us and what Ms. Robinson has already come in here and told you.
Mr. Putnam. Would you like Ms. Robinson to go again?
Judge. No.
Mr. Panish. You guys represented it to the court. This witness is a police officer, as they pointed out, 22 years
of experience. He knows very well what's happening. He had no problem immediately saying he could come
whenever. Those -- it's a three-day weekend, and they think this witness is good for them, and over my
objection, certain things the court allowed him to testify. It's clear why it was done. Okay? And what do we say
to my client, "why does that get to happen during their case?" why is there no ramifications for --
Judge. Well, what are you asking for? What is the remedy for that type of thing?
Mr. Panish. Well, the remedy is to admonish counsel they can't make such representations, number 1.
Judge. I can admonish them, but --
Mr. Panish. Once I tried to bring it to your attention, I was told that, "that's it, Mr. Panish. This was discussed
the other day." and the recommendation was to not allow this --
Judge. Well, this is what we're going to do. I think what we need to do is we're going to have to ask the witness
while they're up there if there's any issue as to when they can return, they're going to have to represent to the
court directly when they can come back. Because apparently, representations from counsel on whichever side
can't be relied on for some reason because the witnesses -- I don't know -- have problems.
Ms. Bina. Again, your honor, I can only --
Judge. So we're going to have to talk to the witnesses directly and get an answer for them.
Ms. Bina. And I apologize for any confusion, your honor. We only reported what had been told to us. There
were two witnesses, as Mr. Panish has said. We talked to the other one, and he was available at a later date, so
we didn't have a concern there. Mr. Laperruque said, "I can't come back." now, again, he came in and said
something different on Friday.

Mr. Panish. For 30 days.
Ms. Bina. He said he wasn't going to be able to come back at all while this was case going on. Ms. Robinson
talked about that on Friday. It appears now he had more time; but, in any event, your honor, it would not have
been our preference to pause our redirect examination of Mr. Briggs, having had a choice.
Judge. Well, you've heard what we're going to have to do. If we have to call a witness back, we're, obviously,
going to have to ask him while he's on the stand when he can return.
Ms. Bina. That's fine.
Judge. Because the court cannot rely on counsel's representations because, for whatever reason, they're not
telling you what's happening.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, there were three separate representations that the witness couldn't come --
Judge. Mr. Panish, I think I took care of it, don't you think? I don't think -- I'm accepting what you're saying,
that there's an issue. We're -- I'm going to talk to the witnesses directly when there's a break in the testimony. I'm
going to take care of it.
Ms. Bina. Thank you, your honor.
Judge. All right. So let's bring in the -- (discussion held off the record.) (brief recess taken.)
(the following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors:)
Judge. Good afternoon. You may be seated.
A. Thank you.
Judge. And I guess we're on re-cross.
Mr. Panish. I'd like to put up exhibit 12979.
Recross-examination by Mr. Panish:
Q. That's your sheet of your opinions from your deposition, exhibit 1, Mr. Briggs. Are you familiar with that?
A. I am. Good afternoon.
Q. Now, this is what you provided us. Remember that, Mr. Briggs?
A. This was produced at my deposition, correct.
Q. And, sir, one of the -- these are what -- you list reasons why, for example, the UK And the world tour can't go
forward, right?
A. These are bases for my opinion that it is speculative to project that the UK Tour would have been completed
or the world tour would have taken place, correct.

Q. Is that a yes?
A. Yes, based on my characterization.
Q. Well, sir, one reason is health, right?
A. One basis is the health of Michael Jackson, correct.
Q. And you talk about the life expectancy, right?
A. As --
Q. Is that right?
A. As part of -- as part of that basis, life expectancy is key, yes.
Q. Could you try to listen to my question, please, so we can get through this, Mr. Briggs? I know -- if you don't
understand it, let me know and I'll repeat it. Can you do that, sir? Just try?
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, he answered the question. He asked the question and he absolutely answered it.
Judge. If it calls for yes or no, the answer is just yes or no. Okay?
Mr. Panish. And he didn't.
A. Okay. Thank you, your honor.
Q. now, Mr. Briggs, did you write anything up there about the coroner's testimony?
A. I did not.
Q. Okay. And that -- that -- you don't know what the coroner's testimony was about Mr. Jackson's life
expectancy, do you?
A. The coroner's testimony at court, you're referencing, during the trial? I'm asking a question about your
question.
Q. Do you know what the coroner's testimony is about Mr. Jackson's life expectancy, yes or no, sir?
A. Are we referencing at trial?
Q. Sir, do you know what testimony the coroner gave in this case?
A. I understand the coroner testified at trial.
Q. Okay. Are you aware of any other testimony?
A. I -- I understand that the coroner did not -- was not deposed, and so there was no testimony offered during a
deposition, so therefore, there was no ability to make reference to coroner testimony in this sheet of paper.
Q. Sir, you reviewed all kinds of trial testimony, didn't you?

A. Yes, correct.
Q. Do you list anywhere on there any findings in the autopsy report regarding Mr. Jackson's physical condition?
A. No, I do not make reference to the autopsy report.
Q. Now, you listed history of cancelations, right?
A. That's correct, projects falling through.
Q. Okay. Do you know how many projects Mr. Jackson did after the "dangerous" tour, sir?
A. It's hard to have a specific count. It depends on how you would classify a project.
Q. Well, why don't you tell me, sir -- because you've classified projects like a one-day TV Special, right? That's
a project, according to you, right?
A. I call that a project, yes.
Q. Okay. Tell me all the projects that you're aware of that Mr. Jackson did after the "dangerous" tour.
A. Well, off the top of my head, there are the examples listed here, millennium concerts, the -- the 2 seas
interactions, the "history" tour, the --
Q. Sir --
A. There was an appearance during 2006 at a world music awards, there's the 02 concert, a number of other
projects.
Q. Sir, what you have on there is canceled projects, don't you, sir?
A. Projects falling through or canceled, yes.
Q. Okay. So my question was, what projects did he undertake after the "dangerous" tour, to your knowledge?
A. I just gave you a series of examples. You'd like me to repeat them?
Q. Did he perform with Luciano Pavarotti at a benefit for war children?
A. I'm not aware of that.
Q. Did he do an "MJ And friends" concerts in South Korea and Germany?
A. I'm not familiar with that.
Q. He did work on the "Invincible" album, didn't he?
A. That's correct, "Invincible."
Q. You don't list that up there, do you?
A. As an example of a project falling through, no, I don't.

Q. Did he work on this "you rock my world" single that became a Grammy-award-nominated video?
A. I believe so. I'm not sure.
Q. Did he work on the 30-year anniversary shows?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did he work on the "united we stand 9/11" benefit?
A. If you're referencing the 2001 dates, I -- I do -- I know about that, yes.
Q. Okay. Did he perform at the American music awards in 2002?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did he perform at the Apollo theater with bill Clinton in 2002?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did he perform at the 50th anniversary of American bandstand in 2002?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did he go to Gary, Indiana, to receive awards for commitment to achievement and humanitarianism, and
perform there in 2003?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did he appear in a movie in 2002?
A. The movies I'm familiar with are "Men in Black" and "Miss Castaway and the Island Girls," if you're
referencing one of those.
Q. What year were those movies, sir?
A. I believe "Miss Castaway and the Island Girls" was direct to DVD In 2004. I can't recall the date of his
cameo in "Men in Black ii."
Q. Did you know whether he appeared at the b.e.t. Awards with James Brown in 2002?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you know whether he appeared at the Nobel prize nomination ceremony in 2003?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you know whether he performed at the American music awards humanitarian award with Beyoncé in
2003?
A. I don't.

Q. Do you know what "number 1s" is, sir?
A. I believe "number 1s" is a re-release that occurred during 2009.
Q. 2000 what?
A. I believe it was a re-release around 2009.
Q. Sir, don't you know that November 18th, 2003, number 1s was released including singles that reached
number 1 on charts around the world, and another single called "one more chance" that he wrote for r. Kelly
was also released, reaching number 1 throughout the world? Were you aware of that, sir?
A. That's not consistent with my recollection. I thought it was a re-release album.
Q. Well, did you know that he released something in 2003? Did you consider that, sir?
A. In 2003, no. I considered "Invincible" primarily during 2001.
Q. Do you know what he did in 2007?
A. Specific --
Ms. Strong. Vague, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I don't know what you're referencing specifically.
Q. well, you don't know anything he did in 2007, do you, sir?
A. Off the top of my head, no, I don't.
Q. Did he release anything in 2008?
A. I don't know specifically.
Q. Was "Thriller 25" released in 2008, sir? February 2008?
A. My recollection, it was sometime between 2006, 2008, the album was re-released, yes.
Q. And, sir, was that number 1 in 11 countries?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was that number 2 in Europe?
A. I know it was a very successful re-release of an album.
Q. That wasn't my question, sir. What -- what number did it get to in the United States when it was released, sir?
A. My only familiarity in terms of its number is with regard to it being a re-release, not an actual release.

Q. Do you know how many songs he had recorded between 2001 and 2008, February, sir?
A. I don't.
Q. Did you know that he recorded 100 new songs for a new album during that time period?
A. I did not know that.
Q. Do you know that he released the "king of pop" album?
A. I understood that to be a re-release album. I am familiar with that.
Q. When was that released, sir?
A. I don't recall specifically.
Q. Was that a project that he was involved in, sir?
A. It's hard to say with a re-release album a re-release album -- in fact, we'll see Michael Jackson's catalog
associated with re-releases for many years following his death. It's a common tactic in the music industry to
take successful songs and repackage them without the artist's actual involvement. Many of our clients are
involved in this every day as a means of extending a life of a successful catalog of music.
Mr. Panish. Now, your honor, I'd like to ask the witness to answer the question. If we could have it read back,
sir, if you could try to answer the question.
(the question was read.)
A. I believe I gave the specific definition of how he may have been or may not have been involved in.
Q. my question, was, sir, based on the $700,000 worth of work you did in this case, what was Michael
Jackson's involvement in that, sir?
A. My understanding is it was a re-release, and I explained that. His involvement may have been very limited.
Q. Do you know what Michael Jackson's involvement was, sir, yes or no?
A. I'm not aware of his specific involvement.
Q. So the answer is no, you don't know, correct?
A. Other than what I know about re-releases in general.
Q. I don't want to know what you know in general, sir; I want to know about Michael Jackson, who you're here
giving opinions about. You don't know what involvement he had in that, do you, sir?
A. Just to be clear, I'm giving opinions regarding Michael Jackson's future work income, not specific albums
that were released.
Judge. Just answer the question.

A. I had an issue with the question.
Mr. Panish. Well, sir, the court just asked you to please answer the question. Can we have it read back?
(the question was read.)
Judge. Yes or no?
A. I do not know.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
Q. Now let's talk about, sir -- you did say that things in favor of him doing the future concert and the 02 would
have been whether there was a plan, right?
A. Having a plan for the 02 would have been in support of the 02 going through, correct.
Q. And he had a plan, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And whether they had a budget, that would be something that would be in support of the 02, correct?
A. There's something buzzing. Yes. "budget" can mean a lot of things; but, in general, a detailed budget would
be in support of the 02 going through, correct.
Q. That was in place, was it not, sir?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Financing, that's another factor in support of it; and that was in place, correct, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, I'm going to object. All of these exact same questions were asked last week.
Mr. Panish. She just re-asked him his opinions about whether or not 02 was going to go forward, and the
worldwide tour, and she asked it four times, and I objected, and then you finally let her ask the fourth time.
Judge. Yes, you're right. Okay. Overruled. We've got to go over it again.
Mr. Panish. I'm just trying to cut down to what he did and didn't do.
Q. Sir, financing was in place, and that's in support of the concerts, correct?
A. Financing appeared to be in place in support of the 02 concerts, correct.
Q. And there were interested parties, weren't there, sir? Which is another factor that you listed that would be in
favor of it going forward, correct?
A. Well, in -- I want to define "interested." would you care to define "interested" for purposes of your question?
Q. Sir, you defined it in your deposition, under oath, didn't you, sir?

A. I did, yes.
Q. Okay. And what did you define "interested parties" as, sir?
A. That parties were able to and interested in getting up onstage and performing.
Q. Okay. Was there an interested audience, sir?
A. Yes, absolutely.
Q. Okay. Was there a contract?
A. A contract existed, yes.
Q. Okay. Was there a director under contract?
A. I understand that Mr. Ortega was under contract, yes.
Q. Was there 34 million invested?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. Okay. Let's talk about the world tours now. Oh, by the way, did you see where Mr. Phillips said there could
be 100 to 200 more shows of the -- at the 02 based on the ticket demand?
Mr. Putnam. Same objection, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. My recollection was his testimony was to 100; and there was some press statement, I recall he testified
regarding that involving 200 that wasn't as clear.
Q. which you never asked him about that, did you, sir?
A. I've never met Mr. Phillips.
Q. Okay. Now, on the worldwide tour, you told me the other day that Mr. Gongaware stated his -- it was his
intention to proceed with it, correct?
A. Mr. Gongaware testified to that effect, yes.
Q. And when we look at 31, dash, 1 through 7, that exhibit that Ms. Strong showed you that listed that they
were playing 30 shows -- depending on how the -- the audience was, right, in london?
A. I'm sorry. Are we referencing the world tour proposal?
Mr. Panish. 31, dash, 1, sir, that you talked all about earlier and interpreted.
Judge. Your question was a little confusing.
Mr. Panish. Fair enough. Let's put it up.

Ms. Strong. Can he identify what it is?
Mr. Panish. The e-mail that you were interpreting for us.
Ms. Strong. I don't think the witness is expected to memorize the exhibit numbers.
Mr. Boyle. he said the world tour proposal.
Mr. Panish. We've got it.
Q. You're familiar with this, aren't you, sir?
A. I'm familiar with this e-mail, yes.
Q. So let's go down to the next page. Initially it was proposed that they were intended to do 30 shows, right?
A. Yes, it says "who knows, 30 shows maybe."
Q. Okay. But then it was 50 that were sold, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And then it says that they're going to go to arenas in America, Europe and Australia, stadiums in some
places where it makes sense. Did I read that right, sir?
A. Yes, that was the proposal.
Q. And arenas hold a lot less people than stadiums, don't they, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And their estimate of 500 million was based primarily on concerts and arenas, correct?
A. Well, it's hard to say. It states that stadiums in some places where it makes sense here, you have it
highlighted.
Q. No. It says will be all arenas in America, Europe and Australia. Did I read that right, sir?
A. Yes; and immediately after, it states "stadiums in some places where it makes sense."
Q. Okay. But you talked about the 500 million projection. Do you remember that, sir?
A. I made reference to a $500 million gross, yes, his gross.
Q. And that was primarily based on 186 shows in arenas, correct, sir?
A. Your statement doesn't appear consistent with what it says here. It says there will be stadiums in some places.
Q. Sir, do you know how many stadiums there were in that 500 million projection that you told us about?
A. I do not.

Q. Okay. Well, sir, let's just -- arenas -- how much did the 02 arena hold?
A. Well, the capacity for the Michael Jackson show was about 15,000.
Q. Okay. And was that one of the larger arenas in Europe?
A. It's among the larger arenas.
Q. And the stadium capacity, 55,000 that Mr. Jackson averaged on his other tour, would be more than three
times the amount of the 02 arena, wouldn't it, sir?
A. Yes, going back some years, yes.
Q. So if we just project out three times 500 million, what I would get, sir?
A. Three times 500 million is 1.5 billion.
Q. That would just be with gross ticket sales without merchandise, right?
A. Sure. It's a math problem.
Q. Now, sir, you said there was no clear evidence, I think you said, that there was an intention to do a world
tour; is that right?
A. I don't believe I stated that. In fact, that would be inconsistent with what you just summarized, my take-away
from Paul Gongaware’s testimony.
Q. Well, Mr. Jackson's concert -- excuse me -- Mr. Jackson's contract contemplated a world tour, didn't it, sir?
A. The contract contemplated the possibility of a world tour.
Q. No. It didn't -- it said Mr. Jackson couldn't tour in all those other areas because AEG Had reserved those
areas for him to do a world tour, didn't it, sir?
A. Right, could. A possibility, yes.
Q. No. But they had precluded Mr. Jackson from touring in all the areas where AEG Live wanted to have a tour,
hadn't they, sir?
A. If you're speaking to some type of exclusivity clause as part of that contract, I can't speak to it specifically.
That really wasn't a focus of my opinion.
Q. Did you review the contract, sir, to give your opinions in this case?
A. Sure. I didn't focus on the exclusivity clause.
Q. Let's look at 57, dash, 1, paragraph 2, sir. You have it in your book, don't you?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. 66? 66. I'm sorry. Oh, 67. All right. Once in a while. It's in evidence. Okay. "promoter's rights," that's what --
the rights that the promoter has, right?

A. Generally speaking, yes.
Q. Well, it says "artist shall not engage in any live performances in territory during the term except --"
A. I'm sorry. Where are you reading from? This is a very long section.
Q. Okay. "promoter's rights," do you see that, sir?
A. It starts with "Artistco." I was trying to catch up with where you were.
Q. "the following rights during the term and throughout the territory." do you know what the territory is, sir?
A. The territory is a defined term in the agreement.
Q. Yeah. And what are the territories that AEG. Wanted, sir? Were they just London?
A. Are you asking me to read the territories?
Q. Well, you did read that in all your preparation for this case, and the opinions you gave, didn't you, sir?
A. I did review this contract, yes.
Q. So tell us all the territories that AEG Wanted.
A. Well, "territory" is a defined term. "territory" is defined as the world.
Q. The world.
A. That's a defined term in the agreement.
Q. And it says then that "the artist shall not have any live performances in the world during -- except that the
artist may engage in the following live performances," right? Right there. "artist shall not engage." did I read
that right, sir?
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. And then it says that so long as they don't interfere with the artist services in connection with the tour
or negatively impact ticket sales in connection with the artist's -- with the shows, right? Right?
A. Or negatively impact ticket sales in connection with the shows. And I believe there's a colon there, it
continues on.
Q. Okay. And you know what the shows are, right, sir?
A. That's also a defined term.
Q. Well, did you understand what it was in all the work that you did in this case, sir?
A. Yes. I didn't memorize all of the 30-odd defined terms in this contract.
Q. Is this evidence that there's going to be a world tour contemplated by the parties, sir?

A. I want to make sure I understand your question. Are you asking me if a world tour was contemplated?
Q. Is this evidence that a world tour was contemplated by Mr. Jackson and AEG Live?
A. Yes, this is evidence that a world tour was contemplated.
Q. And then, sir, you're aware that Mr. Hawk, Mr. Jackson's attorney, testified that it was the plan for a world
tour, correct?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; asked and answered.
Ms. Strong. And outside the scope, your honor, of the redirect.
Mr. Panish. It goes to the world tour. That's what she asked him.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I believe he characterized it as a hope. We looked at this testimony the other day.
Mr. Panish. Well, let's see --
Q. Sir, do you know who Ms. Jorrie is?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Kathy Jorrie, the lawyer for AEG. Live, you don't know who that is?
A. No.
Q. Okay. They didn't provide you her testimony about the world tour to review, sir?
A. I don't believe I reviewed that.
Mr. Panish. Okay. Your honor, I would like to conditionally admit an exhibit that will be admitted tomorrow
with Ms. Jorrie.
Judge. Is she testifying tomorrow?
Mr. Panish. Yes, she is. And this exhibit will be admitted. And this exhibit is number --
Judge. Is that your witness, Ms. Bina?
Ms. Bina. Yes, your honor. That's why I'm coming forward -- I was trying to explain that to Mr. Panish -- just
so I can see the document that he believes will be admitted.
Mr. Panish. If I can find it, I'll be able to show it to you. Here it is right here. Trial exhibit 697-1 and 2.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I presume Mr. Panish intends to admit this on cross. It is my opinion it's outside the
scope of what I currently intend to ask Ms. Jorrie tomorrow. I focused her testimony to a fairly narrow piece of
time, and I'm not quite sure why it would be necessary in the re-recross of this witness, so I ask that it be
addressed tomorrow.

Mr. Boyle. this is already in evidence.
Mr. Panish. I'm not sure. That's why I wanted to make sure.
Ms. Bina. I actually think it has come into evidence.
Mr. Panish. Then I want to show it to him.
Judge. Hold on. Let me see what it is. This is in evidence? And Jorrie is on the e-mail, it's from Jorrie.
Mr. Panish. This deals with the worldwide tour; and like they were allowed to show evidence that he did not
review regarding worldwide tour -- and if you read the last two sentences --
Judge. Okay. I read it. All right. You may.
Ms. Bina. That's fine. Since it is already in evidence, I have no objection to that.
Mr. Panish. Thank you.
Q. So this is something that the lawyers didn't share with you, right, sir?
A. I don't recall if I've seen this document before.
Q. Well, you said you never even heard of who Ms. Jorrie was, didn't you, sir?
A. I didn't recall her name specifically.
Q. Okay. So did you see it or not, sir?
A. I've told you I don't recall reviewing this specific document.
Q. Okay. And it's a "revised tour agreement," is the -- "Michael Jackson," dash, dash, "revised tour agreement,"
et al., right?
A. That's what it says, yes.
Q. Okay. And then on the bottom, it says "nonetheless, I recommend that a background check be performed
through a private investigator and/or at a minimum that someone at AEG Live meet with Michael Jackson to
make sure he understands we are entering into a tour agreement with him that will require him to perform a
worldwide tour." did I read that right, sir?
A. That's what the end of this e-mail says.
Q. And you've never reviewed or considered that in your opinions that you gave, correct?
A. I don't recall reviewing this specific e-mail.
Q. Okay. You didn't rely on this e-mail, did you, sir?
A. No.

Q. Okay. And this is an e-mail from the lawyer for AEG Live to Mr. Phillips, the CEO Mr. Trell, the general
counsel, and Mr. Meglen and Mr. Gongaware, who are the Co-CEO's of concerts west, correct?
A. Meglen and Gongaware are the Co-CEO's, yes, correct.
Q. And this is on January 22nd, 2009, correct, sir?
A. That's the date on the e-mail, yes.
Q. And this was not shown to you in the -- all the materials that you reviewed to formulate your opinions; is that
right?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. That's not what I've said. I've said that I don't recall reviewing this specific e-mail.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
Q. So somebody did show it to you, you just forgot?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; asked and answered, your honor, and harassing.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I -- I do not recall reviewing this specific e-mail.
Q. that would be evidence, would you agree, of a worldwide tour, sir, that Michael Jackson will be required to
perform a worldwide tour?
A. Evidence of what specifically?
Q. That he'd be required to perform a worldwide tour by AEGLive.
A. You're -- you're reading from an e-mail. I mean, the notion of requiring him to perform a tour is presumably
the subject of contract. I can't opine to that. You're reading the e-mail, that's what the e-mail says.
Q. So you have no opinion whether this is evidence of requiring Mr. Jackson to do a worldwide tour; is that
right?
A. To the extent you're asking me for a legal opinion, I have no basis to offer one. To the extent you're asking
me if this says it will require him, that's what it says. It says --
Q. But you've been offering all kinds of opinions about evidence of whether there would be a worldwide tour,
haven't you, sir?
A. Risk to a worldwide tour occurring, absolutely, yes.
Q. Who do you think is in a better position to assess the risk of Mr. Jackson going on tour, you or AEG Live?
A. As we sit here today following years of discovery, or as we sit at January 22nd, 2009?

Q. Let's start January 22nd, 2009.
A. Oh, it would -- it would be AEG Live.
Q. Now, sir, let's go -- you told us that Mr. Jackson's drug use would prevent him from doing a worldwide tour;
is that right, sir?
A. That's not correct.
Q. Okay. His drug use would make it speculative that he could do a worldwide tour and earn a dime, right?
A. His drug use was a factor evaluated by medical professionals who cited risks, including his life expectancy,
and that was a factor -- a basis of my opinion.
Q. And, sir, you're relying on the medical experts for that, correct? You're not a medical expert?
A. That's correct.
Q. And they're in a better position than you are to -- to give those opinions, aren't they, sir?
A. To offer a medical opinion? Yes, the medical experts are.
Q. And if their opinions don't jive with what you've said, then your opinion also wouldn't jive, would it, sir?
A. I guess it depends on what their specific opinions are.
Q. Okay. Well, now, sir, you told us that it was -- that one of the reasons Mr. Jackson couldn't get sponsorships
and endorsements is because it was well known in the industry that he had abused drugs, right?
A. No, that's not what I said.
Q. You didn't say that it was well known in the industry that Mr. Jackson had abused drugs? You didn't say that
on your testimony from Ms. Strong, sir?
A. I believe I stated that there were headlines with respect to his drug usage, and there's a difference between --
I want to be careful with the characterization.
Q. Headlines?
A. Correct.
Q. Headlines that anyone that was looking would see; is that right?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; vague as to "anyone looking."
Judge. Overruled.
A. I mean, it would be a function of when those headlines existed; but to the extent someone was looking for
them and they were around during that time, sure.
Q. endorsement companies, you think would be looking, right?

A. Yes, generally.
Q. Concert promoters would be looking, wouldn't they, sir?
A. They would be focused on a time period that was current, sure.
Q. Just like the endorsement people, concert promoters and concert producers would see those headlines,
wouldn't they, sir?
A. To the extent they were current, generally, yes.
Q. So AEG Live, just like the endorsers, would have seen those headlines that you're referring to, right, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; calls for speculation, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. To be perfectly clear, the headlines that I was referencing were in regards to the end of the "Dangerous" tour
which was cut short by Michael Jackson going into rehab. I believe in your references to AEG Live, you're
referencing the 2008/2009 period, and so those headlines would have no longer been current.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
Q. So they were current for endorsers but not for AEG Live; is that right?
A. I'm just specifying my answer.
Q. No, no, sir. Those headlines, you told us they were current for the endorsers, and that would be a reason why
they couldn't give Mr. Jackson any endorsements, right? Didn't you tell us that?
A. The -- I believe it is accurate to state that endorsement companies or brand companies have a long memory
when it comes to these types of headlines; so yes, it would be more current for them.
Q. Like Tiger Woods, right? They've got a long memory about Tiger Woods, sir?
A. Well, I really don't want to talk about sports endorsements. Sports endorsements are an entirely different
subject.
Q. You don't like sports?
A. I have nothing against sports, I just believe sports endorsements and athletes are an entirely different subject
than performing artists.
Q. Let's talk about Tiger Woods. I know you probably don't like him but I want to talk about him.
A. I have nothing against Tiger Woods.
Q. What was his q score rating, sir, during the last four years?
A. I don't know.

Q. Did he have any headlines, sir, Tiger Woods?
A. During the last four years, Tiger Woods has appeared frequently in the news.
Q. Negative headlines?
A. Some negative, some positive.
Q. More negative than positive, sir?
A. Depends on what time period you're looking at.
Q. What period did the negative headlines start?
A. I don't -- I don't know specifically.
Q. Have you ever reviewed a specific endorsement deal yourself?
A. I've reviewed income associated with specific endorsement deals. I've also seen a number of contracts over
the course of the years; so if that's what you're referencing by deals, then yes.
Q. Okay. Tell me how many endorsement contracts you've reviewed.
A. Probably on the order of five actual contracts.
Q. Okay. And who were they for?
A. That level of detail starts to get beyond what I'm comfortable discussing in terms of confidential information.
Q. Sir, you gave an opinion in this case that Mr. Erk has never -- let's put up 12979. Let's get back to what you
-- your opinion under "endorsements." you said -- it's down right there, "Erk hasn't seen other endorsement
deals." did you write that, sir?
A. Yes, that's actually a statement -- that's a summary of Mr. Erk's testimony.
Q. Right. And that was, as far as you were concerned,
A. Negative thing for Mr. Erk, right?
A. I think you're taking this out of context. Mr. Erk was asked to justify the level of projection he had indicated
for Beyoncé, and he stated he had no other data to point to or look at.
Q. Well, I want to see your data, sir. Tell me what endorsement deals you have reviewed as part of your
qualifications to give these opinions in this case.
A. Sure. If we look at the line below this, just as examples, there's a reference here --
Q. So you've reviewed Paul McCartney? You reviewed that deal?
A. The actual contract, you're asking me?
Q. Yes.

A. No, I didn't review that.
Q. I want to know the five deals that you claim you've reviewed, sir. What are they?
Ms. Strong. Objection, your honor; 352, collateral, undue consumption of time. This is confidential information
that's not relevant.
Judge. Overruled. You may answer.
A. The specific endorsement deals I can recall as I sit here now relate to television productions. These were
cases where major brands were placing ads -- excuse me -- were placing products in major television
productions.
Mr. Panish. Please answer my question, sir.
Q. What are the five deals that you've told us you reviewed? Specify each one.
A. I can't do that. I've given you my best recollection.
Q. So you recall none of them; is that right, sir? None -- of the five deals that you told us you've reviewed, you
remember none of them; is that right?
A. To be perfectly clear, I stated over the course of my career, I've reviewed approximately five actual contracts.
I can't recall them. I'll think about it if you continue your questions, and I'll come back to them if I can
remember any. In terms of actual deals, I specified that I remembered some very recent television show
placements.
Q. Tell us every deal that you can remember as you sit here today that you reviewed, sir.
A. The actual contract, or just general terms of the deal?
Q. The contract.
A. If you're limiting it to contract, I can't recall as I sit here.
Q. Okay. You can't recall a single one; is that right, sir?
A. A specific contract, no. That would not be typical for us, to spend a lot of time reviewing a contract. We're
focused on financial projections.
Q. Okay. Could you answer my question, sir? I don't want to know what's typical. I want to know which ones
you reviewed as part of your experience. You can't name a single one, can you?
A. I'll think about it as I sit here. As I sit here, I can't recall.
Q. We'll, wait. Tell us whether you remember one.
A. You want to do that? Okay.
Ms. Strong. Objection, your honor; 352.

Judge. It's not 352; but why don't you continue with your examination, and he can think about it. If he thinks of
anything, you can ask him at the end of your examination if he thought about anything. How about that?
Mr. Panish. Let's talk about some athletes.
Q. Have you reviewed any athlete endorsement deals, sir?
A. No. The focus of my practice is entertainment; film, television.
Q. Have you reviewed any performing musician endorsement deals ever in your life, sir?
A. I've remembered one now. I believe I reviewed the specific deal, I believe, associated with 50 cent and
vitamin water.
Q. Okay. And how much did 50 Cent get to do vitamin water endorsement?
A. I'm reluctant to share specific details; but, in general, the compensation was in equity, it wasn't so much a
cash compensation arrangement, as I recall.
Q. How much did 50 cent, a singer, a rapper -- right?
A. That's correct.
Q. How much did he get for his endorsement deal that you reviewed?
A. I've given you the best answer I can, which was equity in a company, an early-stage company.
Q. It was more than 100 million, wasn't it, sir?
A. No, not at the time it was awarded him. That's inaccurate.
Q. How much is it worth now, sir?
A. Well, now is a different story. It was reported to be worth over $100 million.
Q. 50 cent, has he had any negative publicity, sir?
A. Certainly some.
Q. He's had a lot of negative publicity, hasn't he, sir?
A. Certainly some.
Q. Still in the news recently. He had another alleged incident in the headlines, didn't he, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. And he got a deal worth today 100 million plus, right?
A. No, he didn't get a deal worth that. He entered into the deal at the time that was thought to be worth much
less, so it's misstating.

Q. What was it thought to be worth when he entered into it, sir?
A. Much less. A fraction of that.
Q. How much? 10 million?
A. I don't want to -- I can't recall specifics, but it was on the order of that or less.
Q. 10 million?
A. It was --
Q. How much cash did he get, sir?
A. I don't recall any cash changing hands in conjunction with that.
Q. So he got a deal that was valued at 10 million that's worth now over 100 million, 50 cent, the only artist that
you know about, the deal that you've seen, right?
A. You're confusing things. You asked me about cases where I could recall review of a specific contract, not
deals I've reviewed. You haven't asked me about deals. I'm happy to talk about deals I've reviewed. You asked
me about a specific contract.
Q. Lets go to artists, sir. Tell me which contracts of artists you've reviewed other than 50 cent.
A. You asked me to recall, that's the best of my recollection as I sit here.
Q. And what year was that deal, sir?
A. Like 2004 through 2006, around that period, I believe.
Q. And can you name any other artist deal that you've ever reviewed in your life, contract?
A. Well, if you're limiting it to contract, I can't recall as I sit here.
Q. Now, sir, you said that Michael couldn't get any deals; and AEG Tried everything to get one, and they just
couldn't do it, right?
A. That's my understanding, yes.
Q. Tell -- the first thing I want you to tell us is who did the work from AEG to try to get endorsement deals for
Michael?
A. Are you asking me specific names?
Q. Yeah, people.
A. Oh, I don't recall the specific names of the team members on their endorsement team, if that's what you're
asking me.
Q. Did you ever know who the people were, sir?

A. As individuals?
Q. Yes.
A. I didn't meet them.
Q. No. Did you know what their names were, how many people there were, what their age was, anything like
that?
A. No, I didn't know their specific names or ages.
Q. Okay. How many people does AEG Have -- strike that. Does AEG Have an endorsement department, sir?
A. I -- well, if we're blurring the line between sponsorships and endorsements, AEG has a group that is focused
on sponsorships and endorsements.
Q. They have a group that focuses on endorsements?
A. Again, if we're blurring the line.
Q. I'm not blurring the line.
A. I would prefer to classify it as a group focused on sponsorships.
Q. You classified it as endorsements, didn't you, sir?
A. Mr. Erk blurred the line between sponsorships and endorsements. Typically, sponsorships don't ever rise to
the level of income that Mr. Erk was projecting.
Q. Sir, you told us that the reason you put debt on there is because you were referring to a financial institution
like Citibank who had sponsored the Rolling Stones concert, right?
A. The reference to debt related to my opinion that it was unlikely a major advertiser would seek out Michael
Jackson as a sponsorship or endorsement target given negative headlines about his financial condition.
Q. Sir, didn't you testify under oath in this court that it was Citibank that you -- you wrote the debt because of
financial institution sponsorships? Do you remember that testimony, sir?
A. Yes. That's just what I said, as well.
Q. Financial institutions, and you gave an example Mr. Meglen's testified about the Citibank deal for the
Rolling Stones concert, didn't you, sir?
A. I think I lost you on the question. He testified about a Citibank deal involving the Rolling Stones.
Q. And financial institutions. And you said that's why you put that up there, right?
A. I think I'm lost. The reason I put the word "debt" up here was because I believed the headlines about Michael
Jackson's challenged financial condition would impact major financial institutions, Citi group probably wouldn't
want to associate themselves with someone who had a troubled financial situation. Separate and apart from that,
Mr. Meglen testified about a Citibank or Citi group deal. They're two separate subjects.

Q. Let's start with that, sir, first of all.
A. Which one?
Q. Other than Citibank sponsoring the Rolling Stones tour --
A. Sure.
Q. -- are you aware of any other financial institution sponsoring any tours?
A. No. That's the one that comes to mind as I sit here.
Q. Okay. And the Citibank sponsoring the Rolling Stones tour wasn't until after you wrote this document up and
you gave your deposition; isn't that true, sir?
A. I'm sorry. Going back -- I recall a number of sponsorships American Express has been involved in in the
past. I'm not sure I recall a specific regarding them, but there have been a number.
Q. We'll get back to that. Let's stick with my question, sir.
A. I just want to make sure I give you a complete answer.
Q. Which concert did American Express sponsor, sir?
A. I will have to think about it. But I recall that they've done a number of sponsorships in the past, or
endorsements, like Jerry Seinfeld and others.
Q. Which concert did American Express sponsor, sir?
A. I'll have to think about it.
Q. Let's go back to my question.
A. Okay.
Mr. Panish. Which I don't remember. I'd ask that it be read back. (the record was read as follows:
Q. And the Citibank sponsoring the Rolling Stones tour wasn't until after you wrote this document up and you
gave your deposition; isn't that true, sir?)
A. What specifically are you asking took place relative to when I wrote this document?
Mr. Panish. Sure.
Q. You relied on Mr. Meglen's testimony for Citibank sponsoring the Rolling Stones tour. Didn't you testify to
that, sir?
A. In preparing this document?
Q. No. In trial, when counsel asked you the question, you volunteered, based on what Mr. Meglen testified in
this trial, that you were aware that Citibank sponsored the Rolling Stones concert; isn't that true?

A. That was one way I knew that Citi group sponsored the Rolling Stones concert. I'm not sure what you're
asking.
Q. My question -- it hadn't agreed to do that when you gave your deposition, had it, sir?
A. I don't know when the specific agreement was entered into.
Q. When did they get the 10 million Citibank sponsorship, sir?
A. I don't know the specific terms of when that money was paid to the Rolling Stones.
Q. Who gave you that information?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, who gave you the Paul McCartney 5 million Lexus deal information, sir?
A. I believe this information was part of the information that was compiled in preparing for my deposition.
Q. Where did you get that information, sir?
A. I don't recall. It might have been an internet search, it might have been discussions with my colleagues.
Q. So let me see if I understand now. Under where you said Erk hasn't seen other endorsement deals, the one
that you mentioned, Paul McCartney, 5 million Lexus, Rolling Stones, 10 million Citibank, others in the 1 to 2
million range, "haven't seen performers with endorsement deals of this nature," you don't know where you got
that information, right?
A. I just gave you a number of places it could have come from.
Q. I don't want to know where it could have. Where did you --
A. It could have been from my own information, it could have come from an internet search, it could have come
from discussion with my team members.
Q. Can you tell us where that information came from that you're relying on?
A. I've told you where it could have come from.
Q. No. I want to know where it came from. Can you tell us, yes or no, where that information that you're relying
on came from?
A. Other than the answer I've given you, I can't tell you specifically.
Q. You can't tell us, can you, sir?
A. Other than the answer I've given you, I can't tell you specifically.
Q. So it could have been from the internet, right, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; asked and answered, your honor.

Judge. Sustained. He's answered the question.
Mr. Panish. Okay. Well, let's keep going, then. Let's talk about, now, performers.
Q. Can you tell us anyone other than 50 cent that you're aware of the deal that they got where you can
specifically identify it with a sponsor or a endorser?
A. There's a list right here. Paul McCartney --
Q. You don't know where you got that, sir. I'm asking where you know you got the information. Let me back up.
When did Paul McCartney get the $5 million Lexus deal, sir?
A. I believe that was around 2003 to 2006.
Q. 2003 to 2006. You got any information that backs that up?
A. No. That's my recollection.
Q. Okay. When did the Rolling Stones get the 10 million?
A. I've told you I don't know the specific date they did. The tour, of course, is current.
Q. How about -- are you saying the Rolling Stones got 10 million for their current tour from Citibank?
A. No. That was based on my knowledge. Mr. Meglen testified that the actual amount received was significantly
less, $2 million, and significantly inconsistent with Mr. Erk's analysis.
Q. And inconsistent with your analysis?
A. Inconsistent with the research that I had done, yes.
Q. Well, did you do that research? Are you telling us now you did that research?
A. Referencing me or my team.
Q. Who on your team did it?
A. I told you it could have been me, it could have been someone on my team.
Q. Who?
A. I've given you the answer. It could have been me, it could have been someone on my team.
Q. Now, sir, did you review -- were you provided with an article by counsel -- strike that. You read Mr. Phillips'
deposition, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you read attached exhibits to his deposition, correct?
A. I reviewed them, yes.

Q. And did you review an article from the Sunday Independent newspaper regarding headlines of whether or
not Mr. Jackson had used any prescription drugs?
A. I don't recall that specifically.
Q. Now let's go to exhibit -- strike that. So you don't recall Randy Phillips forwarding an article in 2008
regarding headlines of Mr. Jackson's alleged use of prescription drugs?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. And you don't recall Randy Phillips saying that he had a four-year plan for Michael Jackson and a
worldwide tour?
A. My recollection of a plan is the e-mail exhibit we've already discussed. Is that what you're referencing
specifically?
Q. I'm asking you, sir. You're the expert.
A. Tell me where the information is for that. You're asking about recalling something. I'm saying what I recall
with respect to a plan was the worldwide tour projection, exhibit 31, dash, 1. We've already discussed that. I'm
happy to answer any questions regarding it.
Q. Do you recall Randy Phillips stating that he had a four-year plan for Michael Jackson, including a
Worldwide tour?
A. The proposed -- I testified the proposal I've reviewed, or the proposal that comes to mind, is the one we've
discussed a number of times. If there's something you'd like me to look at, I'm happy --
Q. I'm asking you, sir, for all the materials that you've reviewed, do you recall anything where Randy Phillips
said he had a plan for a four-year tour, worldwide, with Michael Jackson after London, including Australia?
A. Is this the e-mail that references rehabilitation of his image? If that's the case, then I believe I recall there was
something to that effect.
Q. Sir -- yes or no, sir?
A. I think I recall an e-mail if it's the one that includes this statement about rehabilitating his image. That's the
extent of my recollection.
Q. What else did it say in that e-mail?
A. My recollection is that there was a provisional -- or a hypothesis about a world tour. That's the extent of my
recollection. And then there was a statement about bringing Michael Jackson back to America if his image could
be rehabilitated during the course of -- something to that effect.
Q. Okay. Well, I'm going to show you, sir, exhibit 693-339, which is in evidence. I'll wait until your lawyer has
a copy, and I'll give you a copy, sir. Have you seen that before, sir?
A. I --
Q. It's in your notebook?

A. Okay. Thank you. Yes, this was not the one I recall.
Q. Okay. Well, let's put it up. This is something you saw when you were sitting in Mr. Erk's deposition, right,
sir?
A. Yes, it appears so.
Q. Okay. And can you show us, sir, where it talks about rehabilitating Mr. Jackson's image in that e-mail, sir?
A. As I just stated, this is different than the one I had a recollection of. Thank you for refreshing my memory.
Mr. Panish. Well, let's take a look at it. 693, dash, 339. Wait a minute. Is that right? Wait a minute.
Mr. Boyle. that's right.
Mr. Panish. Is that what you have, Ms. Strong? Let me just make sure before I put it up.
Ms. Strong. Yes, that's what I have.
Mr. Panish. Thank you. Okay.
Q. Now, you reviewed this e-mail, right, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And this is where Mr. Phillips talks about going to Australia, right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. This is where he talks about his four-year plan?
A. That's correct, "we have a four-year plan."
Q. Okay. Once they finish London, right?
A. "however, we have to finish -- we have to finished (sic) London first."
Q. And he said they could have sold more than 100 shows, right?
A. That's what the e-mail says, yes.
Q. In London?
A. I presume he means in London, yes.
Q. So that would have been 1.5 million seats, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And this is him trying to -- by the way, do you know who Mr. Dainty is, sir?
A. I under- -- I understood he was a promoter of some type in Australia, I believe.

Q. And, sir, when you said there was no bases to believe that there would be a show in London -- do you
remember that? That Mr. Jackson would do 50 shows, there was no basis, you said?
A. That he would complete the 50 shows over nine months, yes.
Q. But all those things I went through were in favor of him doing that. Do you remember all those things I went
through; the budget, the plan, the audience? All those things go in favor of the 50 shows going forward, correct?
A. The existence -- I just want to be clear. The existence of a budget, the existence of a plan to be in London, the
sales of tickets in London are supportive of 50 shows happening in London. I agree.
Q. But when you said there's no bases, that's not true, is it, sir? No bases, that's what you said.
A. Well, no bases relative to the risk factors that are not addressed by those factors.
Q. Well, you didn't say that, sir. You have said, when counsel was questioning you, there was no bases to state
that there would be 50 shows going forward in London, didn't you, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; misstates the prior testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I -- I'm happy to clarify that statement.
Q. well, did you say it or not?
A. I don't recall making that specific statement. I'm happy to clarify it relative to the risk factors you've
identified that are not addressed by these items you've raised now.
Q. There are many items?
A. Sure.
Q. And you just disregarded all of those and came to your ultimate opinion that 50 shows would never happen,
right?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; misstates testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
A. That's absolutely inaccurate. I take into consideration the significant demand, but I did not see how demand
addresses someone who has a one-week life expectancy. Sorry.
Q. and that's solely based on dr. Shimelman, right?
A. There are a number of statements across all the documents regarding synergy of drugs, regarding the -- the
note -- the nature in which he was taking drugs, regarding the life expectancy impact of the drugs. Many
statements across three of the medical experts, yes.
Q. So did dr. Earley say that Mr. Jackson had a one-week life expectancy, sir, anywhere in his testimony?

A. No. He stated --
Mr. Putnam. Objection; asked and answered several times, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. He did not state that. He stated his life expectancy would be shortened.
Q. did Schnoll say that?
Mr. Putnam. Same objection, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. No.
Q. did Levounis say that?
Mr. Putnam. Same objection.
A. Not one week specifically.
Q. and so your sole basis is that statement of -- that you believe dr. Shimelman said, correct?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; misstates prior testimony.
Judge. I'm sorry?
Mr. Putnam. I said, "objection; misstates prior testimony," your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
A. That is not my sole basis. My basis with respect to the health issues is -- involved all the statements made by
the three experts, one of which being a plaintiffs' expert, two of which being defendants' experts.
Q. and how many of those defense experts have testified here, sir?
A. I understand the defense experts have not testified yet; although technically, I understand dr. Earley appeared
in video at some point.
Q. Well, that's the same as testifying live, isn't it, sir? Video is to be considered just as if they were here, isn't it,
sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; calls for a legal opinion, your honor.
Judge. Sustained. He may not know.
A. I can't answer that question.
Mr. Panish. All right, sir. Let's talk about 1045, dash, 1, that you showed us. All right?

Q. And you wanted to call these imaginary figures, right? Remember those questions Ms. Strong led you
through?
Judge. Are you talking about the -- yes. Okay.
Q. do you remember that, sir?
A. I recall questions that I was asked. I'm not sure about your reference to "led" me through, but I recall
questions I was asked.
Q. Okay. So, first of all, sir --
A. I'm sorry. I have a question. Is this the same slide -- this is not the same slide mrs. Strong showed.
Mr. Panish. No, no, because she hasn't given me a copy of that yet. So -- can I have a copy of your slide?
Ms. Strong. Absolutely.
Mr. Panish. Because I never got a copy.
Mr. Putnam. Sorry.
Mr. Panish. Well, there are rules, I thought.
Mr. Putnam. Did you?
Ms. Strong. I asked if you had an objection before it was put up.
Judge. You should share exhibits, yes?
Mr. Panish. Yeah.
Judge. Okay.
Mr. Panish. And I'd ask Mr. Putnam stop the comments, your honor, "did you," things like that.
Judge. Remember what I said. I'm not going to be babysitting you two. Let's just -- let's just move on. You've
got your exhibit, put it up.
Mr. Panish. All right. Let's start with this one.
Q. Did you think, sir, that -- by the way, the numbers that you used --
Judge. Well, what number is it, because it's not this one, right?
Mr. Panish. 1045, dash, 1, what I said.
Mr. Putnam. So we're using yours, not the new one?
Mr. Boyle. yes, that's correct.
Mr. Panish. I'm not answering that question. I'm going to go to the witness. I don't want to engage you.

Q. So, sir, what were the average ticket prices for -- or strike that. What year was the first concert that you used
for Mr. Jackson, "bad" -- what year was that in, sir?
A. Approximately 1987.
Q. And what year was the u2 concert in?
A. More current, approximately 2009.
Q. So that's a 22-year difference, right?
A. That's approximately correct.
Q. So you want to compare Mr. Jackson's concert 22 years before the u2 concert, right?
A. That wasn't the purpose of my creating this slide.
Q. And what year was the -- strike that. Is that the "dangerous" or "history" up there?
A. "history."
Q. What year was that?
A. Approximately 1997.
Q. 10 years before u2, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Have ticket prices gone up in 20 years, sir?
A. 10 years or 20 years.
Q. I said 20 years.
A. Oh, 20 years. Yes, in general, ticket prices have gone up.
Q. How much?
A. It depends on the artist, significantly. I mean, in some cases, they've gone up two times; in other cases, more;
in other cases, less.
Q. What's the inflation rate been for the 20 years?
A. Probably on the order of 2 percent.
Q. Per year?
A. Yeah, 2 percent, 2 to 3 percent.
Q. So per year -- so if something cost a dollar 20 years ago, how much would it cost 20 years later?

A. Roughly double, maybe a little more.
Q. 2 percent -- 2 percent compounded over 20 years is only double?
A. Roughly.
Q. Okay. And the prices that I was using, those were average ticket prices, correct, sir?
A. I -- I don't understand.
Q. Well, you were critical, called it imaginary, of the attendance figures. When they give the attendance figures,
those are average attendance, aren't they, sir? Average attendance?
A. I'm sorry. You're referencing the $55,000 (sic) figure from over a decade ago?
Q. Yeah.
A. That was the actual average attendance of the "history" tour, correct.
Q. So that means sometimes there were more and sometimes there were less, right?
A. That's right.
Q. That's the average, was 55,000? If you took the number of shows divided up by the total attendance, that's
how you get the average, right?
A. For the "history" tour, yes.
Q. Okay. And the "history" tour was how many shows, sir?
A. Approximately 82.
Q. Okay. So all of those green are Mr. Jackson's average, right? Is average attendance times average ticket price
for the 02 of $108, correct?
A. They are what they are, yes.
Q. Okay. So why don't you do this for me, sir. Let's take 260 shows. Let's put up your exhibit 12- -- what
number is this? Can you guys put that up for me? Because I don't have a way to do that. I'll only do it for a
minute. Thank you, pam. Okay. Sir, so let's take Mr. Erk -- this is 13483 that Ms. Strong used with you, right,
sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So let's take 260 shows, and let's take what Mr. Jackson's actual attendance was, 55,000. And let's take
what the actual average ticket price was of 108. What does that give us, sir?
Ms. Strong. Objection; lacks foundation.
Judge. Overruled.

Ms. Strong. "actual average ticket price"?
Mr. Panish. He's already answered that.
Judge. You mean for "this is it"?
Mr. Panish. For 02, yeah. He's already given me that.
Judge. Okay. Overruled.
A. The math works out to 1.5 billion, roughly.
Q. almost what Mr. Erk has, right?
A. It's the math.
Q. Okay. But if you do your average where you said how many percent -- did you say 8 percent was a good
average for merchandise?
A. I think we said between 5 and 10 percent, but 8 percent seems fine.
Q. Okay. So if we took 260 shows at $108 a ticket, times the percent -- the attendance that Mr. Jackson actually
had throughout the world, and then we add -- and then we took the 8 percent, what does that come out to, sir?
A. It's approximately another 120 odd million.
Q. So what's the total?
A. I would call it 1.65 billion.
Q. What Mr. Erk has?
A. Sure, that's right.
Q. Now -- and then if we took what AEG Proposed, and we put him in stadiums, not arenas, and we use the
same attendance that Mr. Jackson has proven -- by the way, let's back this up. When is the last time you said Mr.
Jackson had toured?
A. The last time Michael Jackson had been on a tour was during the "history" tour, which was around 1997. So
he had quite a significant period between that and 2009.
Q. Not like u2 that tours all the time, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. U2 has a five-year touring deal with Livenation, don't they, sir?
A. U2 has a lot of things. They have active album releases, they're an active touring band.
Q. Sir, could you answer my --
A. Yes, I agree.

Q. All of those tours -- none of those were done by AEG Live, u2, Rolling Stones, ac/dc or Madonna, were
they?
A. I don't know specifically.
Q. Okay. Well, Livenation does big tours, don't they, sir? Big concerts?
A. Livenation is involved in large concerts, certainly.
Q. And they were involved in the u2 concert, the largest ever, weren't they, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q. And they were involved in the Rolling Stones concert?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay. Who was -- who did the Rolling Stones concert?
A. I don't know if they did it themselves or they -- that specific tour, if they did it themselves or did it through
booking agents or some combination. I don't recall the specifics.
Q. Who did the ac/dc tour?
A. Same answers. I don't recall if they did it themselves or through booking agents or some combination.
Q. Okay. So now would you agree with me that since Michael Jackson hadn't been touring, there would be a
large demand from people who see him in concert?
A. To clarify, are we talking about in 2009?
Q. Yes, sir. Worldwide.
A. Worldwide? I think it's hard to say.
Q. Well, did you see where Randy Phillips said that?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Are we going back to that other e-mail?
Mr. Panish. No, no, no. Let's just start with -- well, do you have to look --
Q. Do you know, sir, whether or not Randy Phillips said that because Michael Jackson hadn't toured like
Madonna and the Rolling Stones and u2 all the time, that there would be a large demand to see him?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; misstates testimony, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.

A. Randy Phillips made general statements regarding the demand for Michael Jackson. The statements that
were, I particularly recall, related to the 02 in London where there was clearly significant demand.
Q. so you've never seen an e-mail where he talked about that worldwide; is that right, sir?
A. My recollection of the e-mails regarding worldwide spoke more to plans, ideas, and what he thought was
possible, which supported his view that there was demand worldwide.
Q. Well, did he say that the people -- the public was dying to see Michael because he hadn't performed in a long
time?
A. I don't recall that specifically. If you'd like to refresh my memory or show me something, I'm happy to look
at it.
Q. Okay. Now, just so we're clear, if we took the figure AEG Had initially, 186, times 55,000, times 108, what
number do we get?
A. Approximately 1.5 billion.
Q. Okay. That's AEG's figure of 186, right?
A. That's absolutely not AEG's figure. AEG figure of 186 was attached to an e-mail stating it would approach
half a billion dollars.
Q. Well, sir, that's because they used arenas for the attendance, isn't it, sir?
A. It was -- it was their best estimate, I presume, as to what a worldwide tour with Michael Jackson could have
generated.
Q. Sir, the e-mail says mostly in arenas, doesn't it?
A. I believe it actually states all in arenas; although in some cases, they would be in stadiums. You asked me
about that a number of times.
Q. Right. Well, do you remember now? You can't get 55,000 in an arena, can you, sir? Are you aware of any
arena in the world that holds that?
Mr. Putnam. Objection, your honor. We've gone over this now two days in a row.
Judge. The problem is that Ms. Strong went over it again, so overruled.
A. You cannot, but there's no logic to simply taking something and extrapolating it to stadium size.
Q. could you just answer my question, sir?
A. Go ahead. Can I hear it again, please?
Q. Are there any arenas that hold 55,000?
A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. So if we used AEG's figure of 186 times 108 times 55,000, what's the figure, sir?
A. Approximately 1.5 billion.
Q. Which would be three times the gross that they had specified using all arenas and some -- some stadiums,
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if you get 45,000 people in a stadium, that's three times 15,000, or the seating capacity of the 02, right?
A. A stadium could seat 55,000? Is that your question?
Q. It's a bad question. What's the 8 percent of 1.5 billion?
A. Approximately 120 million.
Q. And so that would be about 1.65 billion here for 86 shows -- 186 shows, right?
A. That's the math.
Q. Is that a yes?
A. That number ties to the aggregate total for Mr. Erk's 260-show tour.
Q. No, no. I'm asking you for the 186 I've been asking you for.
A. 186 times 108 times 55,000 times 108 (sic) percent is 1.65 billion dollars.
Q. So if we use that, those imaginary figures that AEG Used in that memo, that would get the same figures that
Mr. Erk had, right, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection; misstates testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
A. If you pick all these different numbers and multiply them, yes, you get to 1.65 billion.
Mr. Panish. I'm only using four numbers, sir.
Q. The 186 tours that AEG Sets forth in the memo, right?
A. Yes, from September of 2008, got it.
Q. The 108 that is the average ticket price for the 02, correct?
A. Yes, from London, 2009, got it.
Q. Michael Jackson's "history" tour, 55,000 attendance, right, sir?
A. Yes, from 1997, 80 odd shows, yes, got it.

Q. Can you just say -- answer the question, sir? I don't need you --
A. I'm just making sure I understand the math you're trying to --
Q. And then 186 times the 55,000 times 108 plus 8 percent that you think is reasonable for merchandise --
right?
A. Sure.
Q. -- gets up to the number that Mr. Erk has for 260 shows, right?
A. That's right.
Q. With a lot more shows, right?
A. 260 shows is a lot more than 186 shows, if that's what you're asking, yes.
Q. Now -- I'm almost done, so -- we can take that one down. You know, I think you made a mistake, sir. That's
why I couldn't understand. If you do 186 shows times 55,000 times 108, that doesn't get 1.5 billion, does it?
A. I'm sorry. You're correct. It's approximately 1.1 billion.
Q. So you were in error on your math?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. That's why I couldn't understand. If Mr. Erk has similar attendance, but more shows, his numbers should be
more than AEG 186, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. So if we do 186, 1.2 -- and 8 percent of that is what, 60 million, approximately?
A. I'm sorry. What are we starting with again?
Q. 1.2 billion, 8 percent of that is how much?
A. Approximately -- approximately 100 million.
Q. Okay. So 1.3 billion would be the gross figure for 186 shows versus Mr. Erk of 1.65 billion, correct?
A. That's correct.
Mr. Panish. Okay. I think I'm almost done. That's all I have. Thanks
Judge. Thank you.
A. Thank you, Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish. You're quite welcome.
Judge. Redirect?

Further redirect examination by Ms. Strong:
Q. Good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon, Ms. Strong.
Q. Mr. Briggs, did you ever dispute that a world tour was contemplated by AEG Live and Michael Jackson?
A. I did not.
Q. In fact, you took that into account in forming your opinion that it would be speculative whether a world tour
would occur or whether the 50 shows at the 02 would ever be completed, correct?
A. I did take it into consideration. Unfortunately, it didn't relieve some of the risk factors that I identified.
Q. And Mr. Panish asked you a number of questions about whether your firm had a conflict in connection with
this engagement, correct?
Mr. Panish. I'll just object. I didn't ask any of those questions this last time. He was asked whether he had
authorization to testify. That's all I asked.
Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Strong. Mr. Panish asked you questions about whether you had authorization to work on this matter, or
questions about the notice that was given to the estate, and so forth, things of that nature.
Q. Do you recall those questions?
A. I recall those questions.
Q. And you explained previously, to be clear, about what was going on here, notice, authorization -- your firm
determined there was no conflict, correct?
Mr. Panish. Same objections; beyond what I've asked.
Ms. Strong. It was the inference of the questions, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.
Ms. Strong. Thank you, your honor.
A. The general counsel's office of my firm determined that there was no conflict in regards to us entering into
this engagement before we entered into this engagement.
Q. and your understanding now is when there's no conflict, there's no need for a waiver, correct?
A. That's my understanding, no conflict, no need for a waiver.
Q. And you do understand that the estate of Michael Jackson had been notified about your involvement in this
case, correct?

A. That's what I've stated, correct.
Q. And has the estate of Michael Jackson ever told you or your firm that they object to your involvement in this
case?
A. The estate has not objected to my involvement in this case.
Q. And that's true to this very day, correct?
A. That is correct, true -- that is true, yes.
Ms. Strong. No further questions, your honor.
Judge. Anything further?
Further recross-examination by Mr. Panish:
Q. You're as sure as anything you said here today that your firm contacted the lawyers for the estate and notified
them that you were signing a retainer to work on this case, correct?
A. Yes, that's what I'm sure of.
Q. Okay. Before you signed the retainer?
A. That's correct, before the retainer was signed.
Mr. Panish. All right. Good. Thank you.
Judge. Okay. Thank you. You may step down.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful